…but it is worth your perusal:
As a criticism… I know that the Rule of Three applies, but SNL may have wanted to just stop at two. You’ll understand what I mean when you see it.
Via AoSHQ.
…but it is worth your perusal:
As a criticism… I know that the Rule of Three applies, but SNL may have wanted to just stop at two. You’ll understand what I mean when you see it.
Via AoSHQ.
No, really.
Via here. I don’t want to turn this into ‘POTUS Goes To China’ Saturday, mind you – but, come on: flaming bust of Obama? You can’t expect me not to at least mention it.
Moe Lane
There’s Something About Mass Murder That Just Never Goes Out of Style.
There’s a few in this one:
Although I suppose that the last one is an improvement. Back in the day, they’d just have taken the vendors out, shot them, then charged their families for the bullet.
Moe Lane
PS: They’re available for sale here, which is a site that will cheerfully pander to both sides of the spectrum when selling you overpriced President-themed junk.
Because that’s AMERICA.
Crossposted to RedState.
I understand that they can be easily enough removed with a combination of WD-40 and a razor blade. Some people should get cracking with that…
In an attempt to gain favor with China, the United States pressured Tibetan representatives to postpone a meeting between the Dalai Lama and President Obama until after Obama’s summit with his Chinese counterpart, Hu Jintao, scheduled for next month, according to diplomats, government officials and other sources familiar with the talks.
For the first time since 1991, the Tibetan spiritual leader will visit Washington this week and not meet with the president. Since 1991, he has been here 10 times. Most times the meetings have been “drop-in” visits at the White House. The last time he was here, in 2007, however, George W. Bush became the first sitting president to meet with him publicly, at a ceremony at the Capitol in which he awarded the Dalai Lama the Congressional Gold Medal, Congress’s highest civilian award.
…because it’s just the first step. Given the passive-aggressive nature of this administration, the next step will be to see whether enough people squawk at this; if they don’t, they’ll start making it ‘difficult’ for the Dalai Lama to visit the United States. And if he passes away, expect the USA to keep its mouth shut and let the PRC do… whatever the PRC plans to do about the religious leader’s successor. All part of the task of the day – which is to improve the PRC’s IMF standing, apparently. Why it’s up to the USA to do that* is a reason known only to God and the President, and I’ll avoid the obvious sneer this time. It seems unfair to taunt people who now have to go out and do work on their cars because of this…
Moe Lane
PS: Via Below the Beltway – and, to answer Doug’s confusion as to which is worse; it’d be if this was done unilaterally. If we negotiated to this it’d at least imply that we got a concession in return, which would be something, from a realpolitik point of view.
Moe Lane
*But if the People’s Republic of China is looking for advice, here’s some for free: try being a democratic republic, run on open market principles. Yes, I know: physician, heal thyself. Still, it’s good advice.
Crossposted to RedState.
Number made up, but trust me: I could find forty-four more examples, ya, you betcha.
Here’s the thing: I’ve met Michael Barone. I know that he’s smart. Frighteningly so, in fact. And I know that he pays attention to details, in ways that usually startle the living life out of people who aren’t used to it. In other words, this is an aware guy that we’re talking about.
So why the surprise, here?
All of which brings to mind the report of a conservative blogger who watched George W. Bush’s 2005 inaugural speech with a group of liberals. Every time Bush called for spreading freedom and democracy around the world, the crowd guffawed and groaned and jeered. For them, evidently, Bush was a figure of fun, and his calls for democracy and human rights laughable. The same people who decried his supposed authoritarian rule at home had nothing but contempt for his call for freedom and democracy abroad.
Beneath this stated contempt is, I think, something in the nature of secret guilt. Or rather, anger at the notion that Bush had stolen the issues of human rights and democracy from the liberals.
The desire to oppose the Iraq war root and branch, to denounce every aspect of it, imposed a duty to dismiss as laughable Bush’s stated objective — set out eloquently before the decision to take military action as well as after it — of advancing democracy in the Middle East. A duty to side with those, like the National Intelligence Council nominee, who have long held that governance in the style of Saudi Arabia or Syria is the best that can be hoped for in that region, and the best for all concerned. A duty to dismiss with contempt, or simply to ignore, the rather remarkable strides of the Iraqis themselves made after enduring decades of brutal tyranny.
Continue reading The progressive movement’s abandonment of human rights, Part 45.