sitting on the edge of the sandbox, biting my tongue

February 29, 2012

A Warning from Hillary?

Filed under: politics — Tags: , , , , — edge of the sandbox @ 8:16 pm

Looking ever more grandmotherly, Hillary Clinton went to Tunisia and met with local youth.  One of them hurled a question:

Questioner: After the electoral campaign starts in the United States – it started some time ago – we noticed here in Tunisia that most of the candidates from the both sides run towards the Zionist lobbies [emphasis mine, ed.] to get their support in the States. And afterwards, once they are elected, they come to show their support for countries like Tunisia and Egypt for a common Tunisian or a common Arab citizen. How would you reassure and gain his trust again, once given the fact that you are supporting his enemy as well at the same time?

Clinton: Well, first, let me say, you will learn as your democracy develops that a lot of things are said in political campaigns that should not bear a lot of attention. There are comments made that certainly don’t reflect the United States, don’t reflect our foreign policy, don’t reflect who we are as a people. I mean, if you go to the United States, you see mosques everywhere, you see Muslim Americans everywhere. That’s the fact. So I would not pay attention to the rhetoric. [Emphasis mine, ed.]

Secondly, I would say watch what President Obama says and does. He’s our president. He represents all of the United States, and he will be re-elected president, so I think that that will be a very clear signal to the entire world as to what our values are and what our president believes.

Thank you for fair warning Ms. Rodham-Clinton.  I’m also watching what Ron Paul says and does.  Having established a reputation for pandering to the Neo-Nazis, Paul is wasting no time forging alliances with Arab Jew-haters:

Ron Paul, who has consistently engaged in anti-Semitic nonsense over the course of the past few decades, has largely attempted to hide his anti-Semitism throughout his campaign. No longer. Ron Paul has issued this Arabic-language flyer outside the Islamic Center of America in Dearborn, Michigan:

The flyer actually has two sides. The English side promotes Paul’s “Plan to Restore America” and touts his deficit cutting prowess and dislike of the Federal Reserve. The Arabic side, however – the side shown above – is far less subtle. It says that Paul will cut foreign aid, and specifically mentions only foreign aid to Israel as the target of cutting.

And that’s the point. Paul’s appeal to the Muslim community is strictly and completely based on his opposition to Israel. Paul’s anti-Semitism is well-documented; see his section on Zionism in Paul’s book Liberty Defined (better titled All The Weird Things Ron Paul Believes). His CYA maneuver, stating that he wants to cut all foreign aid, then determine to whom American should restore aid, is just that – a CYA maneuver. His real target is and always was Israel. I don’t see Ron Paul supporters handing out Hebrew flyers at my synagogue proclaiming his desire to cut off aid to Egypt, Libya, and the Palestinian Authority.

Via I Own the World.


Several Reasons Not to Love Government Healthcare

Filed under: politics — Tags: , , — edge of the sandbox @ 11:38 am

One demographic whose health care coverage ought to be fully covered by the federal government are our service men and women and veterans.  But in an effort to force military families into state-run Obamacare exchanges, the Obama administration developed a plan that will potentially more than triple their medical insurance costs, while leaving the costs to civilian defense personal unchanged.  (Saw it on several blogs, at PJ Mom’s first.)

Considering that it’s all going towards the government takeover of the private insurance business, there is no need to worry, because under the contraception mandate we can get the Pill free.  I mentioned it before, seeing how contraception is not prohibitively expensive, federal government is not inserting itself to solve any problems here.  Even if it were pricy, whether or not I use birth control and what kind, is between me, my husband and my doctor, and I’d rather keep the government out of it.

According to a February 22 Rasmussen poll, 38% of likely voters think insurers should be required by law to provide the morning after pill for free of charge while 50% oppose this policy.  The issue of free contraception merely gives Democrats a split in public opinion.  Now we hear that Nancy Pelosi held a hearing at which a Georgetown law student testified that her girlfriends can’t shell out $100 a month for the Pill.  The testimony included a harrowing story of a lesbian who needed the medication solely for health reasons, but was denied and has to now cope with the prospect of early menopause.   All that because she couldn’t find $100 a month?  (Saw it on several blogs, at Legal Insurrection first.)

I spent a good portion of my life on college campuses, both as graduate and an undergrad, but I never met a woman who couldn’t afford birth control.  If nobody mentioned this disheartening inability to purchase contraception, it’s not because we were too sheepish to talk about such things.  And now, just wave the specter of free birth control in front of the law students’ noses, and, turns out, they cannot cover the cost.  Allegedly.  Why are we hearing all these anecdotes in third person?

In any event, in my student days our food/drink/shopping/entertainment budget ran into the  hundreds of dollars a month, and all too often if we couldn’t afford something we liked, we charged it.  Well, that was in the pre-Obama economy.  Perhaps Georgetown Law students should be advised to budget for contraception specifically.

Which shouldn’t be hard.  In my 20 years in the States I’ve met many uninsured women; I once was one of them.  There are many benefits to having an insurance, and I certainly heard quite a few complaints.  Strangely enough, non of the uninsured women, many of whom were just barely employed, fretted over the cost of birth control.

More importantly, why is the federal government mandating that insurance companies supply coeds with the Pill while on the other end of the centrally planned health care our military is dumped onto the state exchanges?  This kind of politicization of health care is something we’ve been warned about from the get-go.

February 28, 2012

Political Scandals Rock the Bay Area

Actually, they don’t really rock the Bay Area, considering that said events are unlikely to inspire any soul-searching; they just happened to take place here.

Numero Uno is Alameda County Supervisor Nadia Lockyer, third wife of State Treasurer Bill Lockyer.  I Own the World summarizes: Politicians, Meth, Alcoholism, Sex Tape* and no Mention of Political Party.  My first thought, was, why, we only have one party around here.

Then I thought of SF sheriff Ross Mircarimi, on trial for domestic violence battery, child endangerment and dissuading a witness.  He got his wife to proclaim the following:

“This is a case of political persecution, and we Venezuelans know what that is,” said Ms. Lopez, who denied that her husband had abused her. “Everybody believes that politics in the United States is very transparent. But it’s actually a bit cloudy.”

“Welcome to the U.S.A., everybody,” she said. “It’s very dirty, really, and there are many hidden interests at play.”

You wife compares the US to Venezuela, and next thing you know, you are charged with dissuading a witness.

Mircarimi is a co-founder of the  California Green Party, something that newspapers don’t like to mention either.  Somehow Mircarimi is also a member of NOW, and as DH points out, Lidia Stiglich, his Berkeley-based attorney, looks an awful lot like a lesbian.  Although I doubt either Lockyer or Mircarimi consider themselves white, none of behavior described here is hypocritical; it’s ironic.

Lidia Stiglich, center

Meth… domestic violence… our ruling elites are so white trash around here.  But students over at Cal OD on cocaine.

In case you are wondering, Nadia Lockyer is a Democrat.


* Add domestic violence to the list.  Supervisor Lockyer’s boyfriend alleges that she attacked him.  Nadia Lockyer is a recipient of the LULAC 2009 Champion Against Domestic Violence Award and the Alameda County Family Justice Center’s Diamond Leadership Award.  She is historic — the first Latina and the first woman of Native American heritage elected to the Alameda County Board of Supervisors.

February 26, 2012

A Few Good Links

I’m not much of a linker, as you might have noticed, although I sometimes tweet out the stuff I like.  But here is some food for thought.

Item 1:

Poll: Californians want to soak the rich.  Three dueling tax proposals can end up on the ballot.  Two of them favor taxing the rich, one — a progressive tax for wage earners.  Not surprisingly, considering it’s Californian, the third plan is the least popular.  In other words, the residents of the Golden State, including Republicans, want to continue the policies (narrow tax base, high taxes) that have been failing us for the past quarter century.  It sounds like we are doomed, but fate might save us.  With all three proposals on the ballot, none is expected to win.

Item 2:

The mother of a student who suffered brain injury as a result of drug overdose at Cloyne Court Co-op in 2010 is suing UC Berkeley.  She says the University knew of rampant drug use at the Student Cooperative, but did nothing.  Of course the university knew, but she had to have some ideas as well.  If co-ops in general have a reputation, Cloyne is notorious.  Co-ops are just what they sound like: hippie/anarchist types of student dwellings owned by the University.  The smaller cleaner co-ops are generally OK, but large ones like Cloyne are party hubs. Overdoses happen at co-ops with predictable regularity, and in the 80s Barrington Hall was shut down due to substance abuse and dealing.

There is an essential creepiness to Berkeley, and certainly if one ever set foot at Cloyne…  Lets just say it’s the kind of place where sitting on a couch seems ill-advised. According to the SF Gate article Cloyne now has a marijuana garden about which parents know.

Anywho, if the school is responsible for the 21-year-old man, what about his mom?  I’m against helicoptering, but if your child moves into a place like Cloyne, perhaps it’s time to stop paying the bills.  Then again, John Gibson, victim of the overdose, was majoring in Peace and Conflict Studies, and, presumably, his mother kept paying the bills.

Question: Are items 1 and 2 related?

Note that the comrades of said Peace and Conflict Studies major didn’t cal 911 when he was unresponsive.  Considering that majors like Peace and Conflict Studies is what usually lubricates the co-op social life, I’m suspect John’s major inspired quite a few late night drug-addled discussions of how they were going to save the world.  Then they failed to save their neighbor.  They are the kind of scum his mother should had warned him about.  We don’t know the identity of students who didn’t call 911, but I sure hope that the University of California didn’t bestow its prestigious Bachelors of Arts degrees upon them.  (Bachelors of Science rarely reside at places like Cloyne.)  If anyone should be held criminally responsible here, it’s the co-op residence who failed to call the paramedics.  This is turning out to be a rather long links post.

By the way, John Gibson’s mother is not in it for the money:

“I would like to close the co-ops,” Bennett said. “They’re just saying you won’t be punished if you do the right thing – but you don’t have to. Berkeley, as a school, should say, ‘If you don’t call 911, you’re out of here.’ “

According to SF Gate the University is taking measures, explaining financial consequences of potential closures of low-cost co-ops.  The greedy self-proclaimed 99%.  The University is not appealing to the undergraduates’ sense of morality or even ethics.  In my days we were beyond good and evil, and I’m sure morality is still passe on Telegraph and Bancroft, but if failing to save an alleged friend is not evil, I don’t know what is.

Item 3:

If you have a NRO user account, here is an interesting article on history of messianic politics in the US, particularly as it relates to the sitting President.  Obama in the Bunker.

Item 4:

Citizen Tom on different definitions of tolerance.

Item 5:

I recall in 2002 there was much gossip about Iraqi WMDs being transferred to Syria.  Maggie’s Notebook on what this means today.

Item 6: Shepard Fairey, the tracer who gave us the Obama Hope and Change posters of 2008 campaign, admitted to plagiarism and perjury.

Full disclosure: as an undergrad in Berkeley and thereafter I attended a few parties at Cloyne.  I brought my own alcohol.  DH once played a party there, and got a black eye, according to him, defending a woman’s honor  (that was before we met).  Call us enablers.

UPDATE: Another quote from John Gibson’s mother:

Kids do drugs openly and deal drugs in the house,” Bennett said. “I’m paying taxes so these kids can take mushrooms and meth? They should be kicked out of school or sent to re-hab.

February 23, 2012

Question of the Day

Filed under: Kids!.. — Tags: , , — edge of the sandbox @ 8:37 am

Are pigtails kosher?


February 22, 2012

A Classic History 101 Question

Filed under: politics — Tags: , , , — edge of the sandbox @ 9:23 pm

Do people make history or does history make people?  Was the rise of Napoleon a natural outcome of the French Revolution because all revolutions end in dictatorships, or did Napoleon emerge as a dictator bending history to his will?

If history makes people, we’d see a genuinely conservative candidate emerge in 2012, right?  Because conditions for his election are there: a weak incumbent, a restless base and a country ready for change.  While we have a few promising conservatives waiting down the line — I’m thinking Rubio and Ryan — they are not ready quite yet.  Rich Perry made a mess of his campaign — better luck next time.

Here is King Shamus on not having a Ronald Reagan this time around:

I know that there are no Republicans running for President in 2012 who are even in the same galaxy as President Reagan.  Ronaldus Ultra Magnus has been called a once-in-a-lifetime politician.  Modern conservatives are starting to see just how painfully singular Reagan really was in America’s history.

But would Ronnie want us to just let Barack Obama win this election and drag the country even further into a statist death-hole?  No.  Reagan would tell us to do the right thing and vote for the most conservative candidate who can win.  Emphasis on ‘vote’.

Also remember Operation Counterweight to keep the next White House occupant in check.

But if the current lack of convincing conservative leadership illustrates the importance of personality in history, it can be a cause for optimism.  Someday soon we  will have a leader like Reagan again.  Lets not screw things up in the meantime.

February 18, 2012

MSNBC Fires MSNBC’s Foreign Policy Amen Corner

In August 1990, Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, threatening the world’s supply of oil.  International sanctions immediately followed.  As the world was readying for war, Pat Buchanan went on American television to opine that:

There are only two groups that are beating the drums for war in The Middle East – the Israeli Defense Ministry and its amen corner in the United States.

Also that:

The civilized world must win this fight,’ the editors thunder. But, if it comes to war, it will not be the ‘civilized world’ humping up that bloody road to Baghdad; it will be American kids with names like McAllister, Murphy, Gonzales, and Leroy Brown.

Blacks, Hispanics, Pat Buchanan has your back — at least when it comes to Jews.

I’m not sure why any of it should had come as a surprise.  In the ’80s and early ’90s Buchanan wrote a total of 9 columns defending John Demjanjuk — and that’s not counting other Nazi war criminals.  These columns included everything from accusing the Holocaust victims of mass hysteria to Holocaust revisionism.  In 2009 Buchanan outdid himself in a  Human Events column (reprinted by Ron Paul’s buddy Lew Rockwell, among other people) that compared Demjanjuk to Jesus.  Not a surprise either, considering that by then the distinguished paleocon was hosting Holocaust deniers at his website and wrote a book about the, you know, peaceful Hitler.

But I digress.  In 1991 William F. Buckley castigated Buchanan, and although the commentator amassed 3 million votes in his 1992 Presidential run, he fell out of favor thereafter.  During the events leading up to Golf War 2 Buchanan became the “conservative” amen corner of the liberal media.  Back then my gentile co-workers gushed over his “anti-war” editorial for the New York Times as my pacifist Jewish co-workers gulped.  Ten years ago conservatives didn’t consider Buchanan one of our own.  (In any event, why is this isolationist and protectionist a conservative?)

MSNBC hired Buchanan in 2002 because they agreed with him on the Iraq war, which was back then the most pressing issue of the day.  Buchanan’s racist anti-Semitic history was already well-known, and was not an issue.  He came on board because he was not a foreign policy conservative.  Moreover, as Alana Goodman eloquently put:

It always seemed odd that MSNBC, the far-left network, employed one of the most fringey, controversial, anti-Semitic figures on the right. But then again, there was probably a good reason for it. The left still wishes all conservatives were as easy to demonize as Pat Buchanan.

Now that our military is gutted out and foreign policy issues do not animate broadcasters, the liberal network has no use for poor Pat.

As a conservative with a libertarian bend I have no problem with a decision by a private news network to sever ties with a contributor.  I have to disagree with Profrssor Jacobson.  If MSNBC doesn’t want to hire conservatives, it’s their prerogative.  If they use Media Matters’ guidelines to select their lineup, that’s also entirely up to them.

Buchanan’s complains that he’s being “blacklisted” are laughable, particularly considering that he’s a defender of Joe McCarthy.  In any event, here is his statement:

The modus operandi of these thought police at Color of Change and ADL is to brand as racists and anti-Semites any writer who dares to venture outside the narrow corral in which they seek to confine debate. All the while prattling about their love of dissent and devotion to the First Amendment, they seek systematically to silence and censor dissent.

Nothing says “the narrow corral” like Holocaust revisionism.

I find Buchanan’s complaint that the ADL gets to to tell us who is an anti-Semite particularly noxious.  The definition of anti-Semitism should not be left to Buchanans and Mearsheimers of the world.  It’s the ADL’s job not merely to explain what anti-Semitism is, but to make racism and anti-Semitism socially unacceptable.  As a conservative with a libertarian bend I am entirely comfortable with private groups defining our moral standards.  And while the ADL loses credibility when it glides over or ignores anti-Semitism on the left, it’s correct about Buchanan.  Shame on conservative commentators like Sean Hannity for having Buchanan on his show as a regular guest.

Without a hearing, they smear and stigmatize as racist, homophobic, or anti-Semitic any who contradict what George Orwell once called their “smelly little orthodoxies.” They then demand that the heretic recant, grovel, apologize, and pledge to go forth and sin no more.

Is the Holocaust now a “smelly little orthodox[y]”, I wonder?  It’s irrelevant, though, because as I said, if MSNBC had a problem with Buchanan’s anti-Semitism, he would have never be hired in a first place.

Defy them, and they will go after the network where you work, the newspapers that carry your column, the conventions that invite you to speak. If all else fails, they go after the advertisers.

Nice try.  Color of Change did go after advertizes on Beck’s show, but what does it have to do with Pat Buchanan?  He insinuated that his former employer was threatened with a boycott.  In light of him failing to produce the evidence of such threat, I am going to assume that it’s paranoia speaking.

I know these blacklisters. They operate behind closed doors, with phone calls, mailed threats, and off-the-record meetings. They work in the dark because, as Al Smith said, nothing un-American can live in the sunlight.

What kind of conservative demands “a hearing” for being fired?  His bosses made a decision behind closed doors, alright, but Pat Buchanan has no constitutionally guaranteed right to a job with MSNBC.  Traditional stoic masculinity dictates that Mr. Buchanan deals; instead he issued a hyperbolic statement.

The drama queen knows what he’s doing.  With so many decades in the public eye behind him, Buchanan must had noticed that punditry is a high turnover business.  One day you are in, and the next day you are paling around with the Institute for Historical Review.  Seriously, we are dealing with middle brow entertainment here.  Buchanan is trying to generate some sort of controversy by championing his own victimhood.  Cry me a river.

Does refusal to put conservatives on its payroll tell us that MSNBC is kind of lame?  It does, but not so much because they hired Buchanan as much as because said paleocon was their token conservative.  They will go down in history as a news channel that employed a noted anti-Semite for a decade.  I dare them to put a respectable Goldwater/Reagan conservative on the air.

UPDATE: Link fixed.

Older Posts »

Create a free website or blog at

%d bloggers like this: