Waiting for Fitzgerald

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by bilmore
C'mon, that's skewed. I probably have a better balance sheet right now than Northwest Airlines, but I bet NWA can afford more expensive scotch and better hookers than I can.

That's leverage. I have that too, it is why I am balance sheet poor yet income rich. NWA's magnitudes are just greater than mine; and going to that, I don't think that they can affourd more expensive scotch or better hookers than either you or I, but rather, they can affourd greater quantities of both than either of us. And write the cost off.

[Penske_Account]

A sign of the apocalypse might be when Michelle Malkin and the NYT Editorial board agree........


The early reports are that she has hardly dazzled people with her legal mind, and senators from both parties have been frustrated by her refusal to give her views on even the most basic points of law...........Either Ms. Miers is so underqualified that she cannot even go through the motions competently, or her sponsor, the president, thinks serious effort isn't necessary because once he gives his personal endorsement to a candidate, the Senate will silently fall into line.



I have stayed away from the depressing and divisive subject of Harriet Miers for a few days. It was a healthy little respite. But things have taken yet another grim, embarrassing turn--and it is becoming increasingly difficult to imagine that this nomination will make it to the scheduled Nov. 7 Senate hearing date.......As a non-elite, non-lawyer, non-Beltway pundit might put it: "What the...?!?" If this bizarre gaffe is supposed to demonstrate Miers' sharp legal mind and painstaking attention to detail, God help us all.

She is going down. The hard way.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
She is going down. The hard way.

She'll get in just because enough people will defer to Bush. But, if I were Stevens, I wouldn't accept food or drink from anyone I didn't know extremely well.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by bilmore
She'll get in just because enough people will defer to Bush.

for the sake of the Republic I pray to the babyjesuschristsuperstar that you are wrong.

[bilmore]

John Derbyshire - conservative extraordinaire - on too much Valium:

"Conservatism is a dead letter, as I pointed out five years ago on this site.

There aren't going to be any more Coolidges or Reagans. It's over. Fuggedaboutit.

Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher came to power not because people were fed up with socialism. People -- practically everybody, practically everywhere -- LIKE socialism. In Britain, people were fed up with the overweening power of labor unions, which were the vehicle for socialism in that age. The wheels of that particular vehicle were coming off, that was all. In the USA, the humiliations of Iran and Afghanistan, obvious mismanagement of the economy (though not a particularly too-much-socialism kind of mismanagement), and the unattractive personality of Jimmy Carter got the Presidency for Reagan. Not by much, though: in the 1980 election, Reagan only got a tad over 50 percent of the popular vote. (In 1984 it was 58.8 percent.) Thatcher I believe never made 50 percent.

All the windsocks are now pointing in the direction of more socialism. As the population ages, Americans will want more leisure, drugs, health care, nursing homes, security. As the Jihadist threat continues to metastasize (from the MidEast to Indonesia, Thailand, Africa, the Caucasus, Europe), we shall want the state to have more police powers, more scrutiny of us and our lives. The trend of the last 40 years away from the old Anglo-Saxon rights and liberties -- private property rights (google "tobacco settlement," "Kelo," etc.), freedom of speech, contract and assembly ("speech codes," anti-discrimination laws, etc.), limited government (is Washington DC shrinking? looking poorer and shabbier? not that I've noticed) -- will accelerate. And everybody will be fine with all this, because that's what everybody wants, except for a few freakish intellectuals like ourselves.

It's fun to kick this stuff around on The Corner, in Reason, in National Review, and elsewhere. Nobody's listening, though, and none of it's going to happen. All the other things, all the opposite things, are going to happen. There's no new age of freedom coming -- our freedoms diminish daily, and nobody much minds. There's no fiscal responsibility on the horizon -- nobody really wants it, so long as the trough can be kept full of swill. Socialism is gathering strength for a great comeback, with the winds of demographic collapse, nuclear proliferation, and smug prosperity filling its sails, and with new technologies of information management and biological manipulation to help steer the course.

It's over, conservatives. Go home. Take a cab."

(
Here. )

[nononono]

Originally posted by bilmore
John Derbyshire - conservative extraordinaire - on too much Valium:

"Conservatism is a dead letter, as I pointed out five years ago on this site.

There aren't going to be any more Coolidges or Reagans. It's over. Fuggedaboutit.

Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher came to power not because people were fed up with socialism. People -- practically everybody, practically everywhere -- LIKE socialism. In Britain, people were fed up with the overweening power of labor unions, which were the vehicle for socialism in that age. The wheels of that particular vehicle were coming off, that was all. In the USA, the humiliations of Iran and Afghanistan, obvious mismanagement of the economy (though not a particularly too-much-socialism kind of mismanagement), and the unattractive personality of Jimmy Carter got the Presidency for Reagan. Not by much, though: in the 1980 election, Reagan only got a tad over 50 percent of the popular vote. (In 1984 it was 58.8 percent.) Thatcher I believe never made 50 percent.

All the windsocks are now pointing in the direction of more socialism. As the population ages, Americans will want more leisure, drugs, health care, nursing homes, security. As the Jihadist threat continues to metastasize (from the MidEast to Indonesia, Thailand, Africa, the Caucasus, Europe), we shall want the state to have more police powers, more scrutiny of us and our lives. The trend of the last 40 years away from the old Anglo-Saxon rights and liberties -- private property rights (google "tobacco settlement," "Kelo," etc.), freedom of speech, contract and assembly ("speech codes," anti-discrimination laws, etc.), limited government (is Washington DC shrinking? looking poorer and shabbier? not that I've noticed) -- will accelerate. And everybody will be fine with all this, because that's what everybody wants, except for a few freakish intellectuals like ourselves.

It's fun to kick this stuff around on The Corner, in Reason, in National Review, and elsewhere. Nobody's listening, though, and none of it's going to happen. All the other things, all the opposite things, are going to happen. There's no new age of freedom coming -- our freedoms diminish daily, and nobody much minds. There's no fiscal responsibility on the horizon -- nobody really wants it, so long as the trough can be kept full of swill. Socialism is gathering strength for a great comeback, with the winds of demographic collapse, nuclear proliferation, and smug prosperity filling its sails, and with new technologies of information management and biological manipulation to help steer the course.

It's over, conservatives. Go home. Take a cab."

(
Here. )

Derbyshire always takes the sunny view, no?

Ever emailed with him? I debated with both him and Stanley Kurtz a couple of times about gay marriage, I think it was. Surprisingly, no one changed anyone's mind, but they were gracious enough to entertain the correspondence.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by bilmore
John Derbyshire - conservative extraordinaire - on too much Valium:

"Conservatism is a dead letter, as I pointed out five years ago on this site.

There aren't going to be any more Coolidges or Reagans. It's over. Fuggedaboutit.

Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher came to power not because people were fed up with socialism. People -- practically everybody, practically everywhere -- LIKE socialism. In Britain, people were fed up with the overweening power of labor unions, which were the vehicle for socialism in that age. The wheels of that particular vehicle were coming off, that was all. In the USA, the humiliations of Iran and Afghanistan, obvious mismanagement of the economy (though not a particularly too-much-socialism kind of mismanagement), and the unattractive personality of Jimmy Carter got the Presidency for Reagan. Not by much, though: in the 1980 election, Reagan only got a tad over 50 percent of the popular vote. (In 1984 it was 58.8 percent.) Thatcher I believe never made 50 percent.

All the windsocks are now pointing in the direction of more socialism. As the population ages, Americans will want more leisure, drugs, health care, nursing homes, security. As the Jihadist threat continues to metastasize (from the MidEast to Indonesia, Thailand, Africa, the Caucasus, Europe), we shall want the state to have more police powers, more scrutiny of us and our lives. The trend of the last 40 years away from the old Anglo-Saxon rights and liberties -- private property rights (google "tobacco settlement," "Kelo," etc.), freedom of speech, contract and assembly ("speech codes," anti-discrimination laws, etc.), limited government (is Washington DC shrinking? looking poorer and shabbier? not that I've noticed) -- will accelerate. And everybody will be fine with all this, because that's what everybody wants, except for a few freakish intellectuals like ourselves.

It's fun to kick this stuff around on The Corner, in Reason, in National Review, and elsewhere. Nobody's listening, though, and none of it's going to happen. All the other things, all the opposite things, are going to happen. There's no new age of freedom coming -- our freedoms diminish daily, and nobody much minds. There's no fiscal responsibility on the horizon -- nobody really wants it, so long as the trough can be kept full of swill. Socialism is gathering strength for a great comeback, with the winds of demographic collapse, nuclear proliferation, and smug prosperity filling its sails, and with new technologies of information management and biological manipulation to help steer the course.

It's over, conservatives. Go home. Take a cab."

(
Here. )

Is 3 years of age too young to start taking a child to a firing range and teaching them proper gun handling skills?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by nononono
Derbyshire always takes the sunny view, no?

Ever emailed with him? I debated with both him and Stanley Kurtz a couple of times about gay marriage, I think it was. Surprisingly, no one changed anyone's mind, but they were gracious enough to entertain the correspondence.

Even socialists dream of Jeannie.....

[bilmore]

Originally posted by nononono
Ever emailed with him?

Don't think I could. It would be like a devout Catholic e-mailing the Pope . . .

Derb just gets too depressed sometimes. He says that everyone likes socialism, but he's wrong. What everyone likes is, Money For Nothing.

[nononono]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Even socialists dream of Jeannie.....

Heh. But if he were dead he's be rolling over in his grave to hear the mischaracterization, I am sure. Speaking of massive governmentalism, I scrolled quickly past something over there about the UN wanting to develop some sort of oversight over the internet. Here's what was in the Corner:

NORM COLEMAN VS. THE UNITED NATIONS, CONTINUED [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
This time, challenging their Internet-dominance lust.


Washington, D.C.—Senator Norm Coleman today introduced a Sense of the Senate Resolution to support the U.S.’s historic role in Internet government oversight in order to protect a handover of the unprecedented communications and informational medium to U.N. control. In a final report issued by the United Nations’ Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) this past July, WGIG recommended that the U.N. assume global governance of the Internet. Next month, the issue of the handover of Internet controlled is scheduled for review at the UN-sponsored World Summit on the Information Society meeting in Tunisia.

“There is no rational justification for politicizing Internet governance within a UN framework,” said Coleman. “Nor is there a rational basis for the anti-U.S. resentment driving the proposal. Privatization, not politicization, is the Internet governance regime that must be fostered and protected. At the World Summit next month, the internet faces a grave threat. If we fail to respond appropriately, we risk the freedom and enterprise fostered by this informational and communications giant, and sacrifice access to information, privacy, and protection of intellectual property. This is not a risk I am prepared to take, which is why I initiated action to respond on a Senate level to this danger.”

Of course, Coleman really gets the absudity of the corrupt U.N. of Oil-for-Food fame wanting to control something so vast. More from his office:

Tomorrow, October 18, 2005, Sen. Coleman will urge the adoption of extensive reforms that stemmed from his 19-month long Senate Investigations Subcommittee probe into the U.N. Oil-for-Food Program at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing titled, Prospects for United Nations Reform. Coleman has been critical of the lack of progress on reform at the recent U.N. World Summit held in New York, saying members failed to address the critical components of U.N. reform that have been proposed following revelations of widespread abuses and scandals in U.N. activities ranging from humanitarian programs to peacekeeping. To help restore the U.N.’s credibility and efficacy, the Coleman-Lugar Bill includes several provisions to lead the U.N. towards greater transparency, accountability, and oversight.

“The Internet is one of the world’s most important technological wonders and economic engines,” said Coleman. “It has flourished under United States supervision and oversight, and has been given the flexibility to evolve under market-based policies and private sector leadership. It is wantonly irresponsible to allow any expansion of the UN’s portfolio before that abysmally managed and sometimes corrupt institution undertakes sweeping, overdue reform.”

[nononono]

Originally posted by bilmore
Don't think I could. It would be like a devout Catholic e-mailing the Pope . . .

Derb just gets too depressed sometimes. He says that everyone likes socialism, but he's wrong. What everyone likes is, Money For Nothing.

Yes, he's dour. Too dour at times - I get frustrated with him. Sometimes I've thought it must mainly be a schtick, but I think it's pretty genuine.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Captain
Ah, yes, them. Why didn't they try to get the Alien & Sedition Acts declared unconstitutional?

Had John Marshall invented judical review yet? (Marbury v. Madison was 1803?)

S_A_M

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by nononono
Yes, he's dour. Too dour at times - I get frustrated with him. Sometimes I've thought it must mainly be a schtick, but I think it's pretty genuine.

Apropos of nothing, I still can't believe that you're a Republican. Sniff.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Had John Marshall invented judical review yet? (Marbury v. Madison was 1803?)

S_A_M

Damn. Good point. Madison and Jefferson had to attack the unconstitutionality with the available tools, which was state nullification..

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by bilmore
Don't think I could. It would be like a devout Catholic e-mailing the Pope . . .

Derb just gets too depressed sometimes. He says that everyone likes socialism, but he's wrong. What everyone likes is, Money For Nothing.

Money and guns. And fast cars. And hookers and booze. Not necessarily in that order, but the totality of which is certainly an anti-socialist regime.