Both that the Putin regime thinks that it can get away with this, and that the Putin regime will probably be correct, at least in the short term. Sure, why not? Blame the assassination of one of the few remaining opposition leaders on a country that you’re planning to invade anyway. Who’s around to stop you, these days?
You know, I’m pretty sure that I’ve seen this movie before.
Found here. Also, I don’t normally comment about comments over there – it’s not my job to beat that comments section into shape, so it’s also not my problem – but the one comment there so far is a hoot. How the heck somebody could mangle my name into ‘Brad Matthews’ is a minor mystery, and one that I suspect that I don’t actually want resolved. Let us retain at least some wonders and enigmas in this fallen world.
I have very little to say about the Monica Lewinsky matter, given that I was on the other side at the time, but this is definitely cheeky. I do not say this to disapprove; in fact, I think that it’s hysterical, and one of the things that art is for. But the Clintons never forgive a slight, and this is one heck of one:
Q: Who did you find was the hardest to capture?
[Artist Nelson Shanks] Clinton was hard. I’ll tell you why. The reality is he’s probably the most famous liar of all time. He and his administration did some very good things, of course, but I could never get this Monica thing completely out of my mind and it is subtly incorporated in the painting.
If you look at the left-hand side of it there’s a mantle in the Oval Office and I put a shadow coming into the painting and it does two things. It actually literally represents a shadow from a blue dress that I had on a mannequin, that I had there while I was painting it, but not when he was there. It is also a bit of a metaphor in that it represents a shadow on the office he held, or on him.
…Either Mr. Shanks is even more serenely confident than I am that HRC will not be the next President of the United States, or he simply doesn’t care if he gets audited. I’ll accept either answer. Respect it, too.
Normally I’d bow to the realities on the ground and write that as “Sen. Barbara Mikulski to retire?” – but what the heck. We got lucky in Maryland last year; I’m willing to spend a little of that on optimism gone mad. Anyway: “U.S. Senator Barbara A. Mikulski will announce her retirement this morning in Baltimore, according to multiple sources… The Democrat will address the media at 11 a.m. in Fells Point, promising an “important announcement about her future plans.” No further details were available.”
This has been expected: Sen. Miklulski was either going to retire this term, or next one. I’m not going to lie: flipping this seat would be an uphill battle. On the bright side, nobody’s going to take the Republican candidate seriously until it’s too late… and, as Governor Larry Hogan can tell you, that can be a precious thing to have going for you. Guess we will, as they say, see. (more…)
How interesting: “Hillary Clinton and her close advisers are telling Democratic donors that she will enter the presidential race sooner than expected, likely in April, a move that would allay uncertainties within her party and allow her to rev up fundraising.” Not least because such a move implies that there were unexpected and unanticipated problems along those lines. Which probably everyone reading this could have told the Clinton campaign ahead of time, assuming that the Clinton campaign had had the mother-wit to ask anyone for real feedback.
The rest of the WSJ article is probably going to be filled with things that you already know, but this passage is still of note: “Mrs. Clinton, according to some close associates, doesn’t relish the campaign trail…” Really? Really? I find that a little hard to believe; because the only way that a candidate can overcome a visceral dislike of campaigning is to be so good at it that it doesn’t matter. And Hillary Clinton, is, sad to say, not a very good campaigner.
Oh, the fun we will have. Yeah, I know that I said that in 2008 and 2012, too. I also said it in 2004, and the only reason I didn’t say it in 2000 was because I was a lot less political back then. That’s the thing about eight year cycles: they, well, cycle.
(Via Powerline) It’d probably be a good thing if said donors knew what their money is paying for. Short version: UCLA has an Undergraduate Students Association: the association has a judicial board. A sophomore named Rachel Beyda was under consideration for the board. Everyone agreed that she was qualified… and then half of those people qualified that admission with a ‘but.’
You can see where this is going, right?
Yup. Ms. Beyda is a Jew. Worse – from the original point of view of the board (Ms. Beyda was eventually confirmed, as soon as the Association’s adult faculty minder noticed that s/he was letting his/her charges do stupid things in public, which is precisely what said minder was there to prevent from happening) – they felt that the Jewish groups that Ms. Beyda belonged to might be biased, which to me sounds like they weren’t anti-Israeli enough to suit the Association.
I’m not particularly exaggerating any of this, by the way. As Powerline noted, according to the above video the only reason being given to oppose the young woman in question was that she was a Jew. If that isn’t clear from the video, here’s an admittedly partisan recounting of events from a friend of Ms. Beyda. All in all, everyone generally agrees that this incident reflects badly on UCLA, and well it should.
But that’s not why donors should reassess their charitable impulses. The reason why donors should reassess their charitable impulses is because nobody got fired for teaching these kids to be prejudiced against Jews. What, did you think that they learned it on their own? Nope! They’ve been soaking up nonsense about divided loyalties* from their professors (and, possibly even more terrifyingly, from campus administrators); one can hardly be surprised that said nonsense is going to be, ah, expressed in stressful moments.
Those of you who don’t have a problem with this, by all means: spread around your money how you like. This is a free country, after all. But if you do have a problem with this… well.
PS: We will now pause while someone who none of us has ever heard of before – and never will hear from again – posts a twenty paragraph post earnestly (possibly, even desperately) trying to convince us all that Ms. Beyda was lucky to even be considered for that position. Or at least tries to. Because that’s how this sort of thing usually goes.
*This is sort of the reductio ad absurdum of the divided loyalties smear, in fact. If the International Zionist Conspiracy really is capable of drilling down all the way to a college student judicial board, then we might as well all give up and start sending the IZC our timesheets.
I suspect that these answers (via the Daily Signal) by Jeb Bush on immigration and Common Core questions will not much move the needle, one way or the other.
Jeb Bush is clearly a capable public speaker… but. He has some unpopular opinions on the subject, and that is the meat of it. Whether that hurts Jeb Bush in the primary any more than it has already is going to be the big question. (more…)
“You’re a minority. You’re a minority in Congress and you’re a minority in the country,” [John McCain staffer Mark Salter] lectured the tea party wing ahead of the ill-fated government shutdown of 2013. “So go ahead and follow Sarah Palin. Let’s put the Senate on Cruz control. Let’s shame those squishes to the firing line. Filibuster the bill. Let Harry Reid pull it off the Senate floor. Shut down the government. I think you’ll find the Democrats you expected to yield to the persuasive power of your kamikaze tactics are only too happy to test your resolve.”
Come, I will reveal to you a mystery: both side’s base voters are convinced that their party is the Stupid one. And here is another mystery: both side’s base voters are right. Case in point: the Colorado Democratic party. “The Democratic Party in the crucial presidential state of Colorado dissolved into bitter infighting Friday over a combination of obscure party rules and allegations that the party’s leader has ignored women and Latinos within the party.” Just in time for the 2016 election cycle! Thanks, guys!
The actual dispute is arcane; but then, it’s just a smokescreen for the real dispute, which is… a rationalization for the actual problem, which is that a sufficiently large portion of the Democratic party of Colorado loathes another sufficiently large portion of the Democratic party of Colorado. Which means that it’s time for the knives to come out. And the Democratic party of Colorado will thus spend several months punching itself in the face, because that’s apparently what you do when you lose elections that you were told that you were going to win.
I mention all of this not to reassure you that we’re better than that, over in the GOP. Obviously, we’re not. But neither are we particularly worse than that, either. Both parties seem bound and determined to not let the other one win the Who’s The Biggest Idiot? contest…
A serious invasion of Lebanon by ISIS could unleash a bloodbath that makes the civil war in Syria look like a bar fight with pool sticks and beer mugs. It would be tantamount to a Nazi invasion. Every family in Lebanon is armed to the gills thanks to the state being too weak and divided to provide basic security, but people anywhere in the world facing psychopathic mass-murderers will fight with kitchen knives and even their fingernails and teeth if they have to.
The only good thing that might emerge from an attempted ISIS invasion is that the eternally fractious Lebanese might finally realize they have enough in common with each other to band together for survival and kindle something that resembles a national identity for the first time in their history.