Dennis the Peasant

Will The Neverending Horrors Of Republican Imperialism Ever End?

Well, it's 2010, there's a Democrat in the White House, and none of the progressive, liberal or Democratic Partisan Hacks give a hoot about this sort of thing anymore:

GUANTANAMO BAY - Welcome to the first courtroom logjam of what officials here call military commissions 4.2.

Omar Khadr’s pre-trial hearing this morning experienced an unexplained hour-long delay. Court officers filtered in at 10 a.m., without a certain important individual: Omar Khadr.

Probably got mugged by a rampant Dick Cheney.

Wait a second... Military commissions. Gitmo. Democratic president. That doesn't compute!

Or should I say that isn't supposed to compute.

Anyway:

Prosecution promptly called a Marine Corps captain, Laura Bruzzese, to testify that she informed Khadr at 5:15 a.m. that there was a hearing scheduled for this morning. Khadr had a blanket over his head and complained of pain in his left eye, which has been sightless after an injury sustained during his 2002 capture in Afghanistan. She had him escorted to the infirmary, where he received an eyedrop for the pain, and in Camp Delta security officers attempted to load Khadr into a van to transport him to court. Part of that transfer involved putting what Bruzzese called “Eyes and Ears” on Khadr: blackout ski goggles and earmuffs to block out his senses while in transit.

Hey! Andrew Sullivan! That's sensory deprivation. Where's the outrage?

The Cheney sadism endures. To Obama's shame.

Wow. That's some serious outrage you got there, Andrew. Hell hath no fury, eh?

(Note to Andrew: It's 2010. If there's sadism involved in this... It's Obama's. Period.)

Things continue apace:

Only Khadr refused. When Bruzzese asked him why he wouldn’t wear the Eyes and Ears — standard operating procedure for transiting a detainee, she testified — Khadr responded, “The only purpose is to humiliate me.” Under cross-examination, she testified that the van used for transport has no windows. Khadr wouldn’t, in other words, be able to understand where he was going even without the Eyes and Ears.

You have to read the whole thing to get the true Keystone Kops flavor of the proceedings. Of course, if it was 2005 and George W. Bush was still president, the Partisan Hacks would be in an uproar. But it's 2010, so today?

Not so much. Not even "Mr. Torture" himself, Andrew Sullivan.

His Mind Is Open, And The Sound Of The Wind 'Tween His Ears Proves It...

This week's theme amongst many progressive Young Partisan Hacks has been The Closing of the Conservative Mind. Which, unsurprisingly, hasn't actually involved the closing of any conservative minds. No it's simply the rather portentous labeling of Young Partisan Hacks waxing vacuously on why conservatives can't seem to understand (as YPHs do) that the only good Republican is a Democrat.

Example? Try this bit o' Matthew piffle on for size:

Charlie Crist and the Closing of the Republican Mind

It’s official—Charlie Crist is becoming an independent.

It’s another sign of the striking moves to the right the Republican Party has taken since Barack Obama’s inauguration. Crist was always on the less-conservative half of the GOP spectrum, but his main sins have been things that would have been considered banal a few years ago. There used to be a bunch of Republicans who supported climate change legislation and “governor of cash-strapped state supports federal law to help close the hole in his budget” is like the ultimate dog bites man story. But in today’s “everything Barack Obama supports must be evil” climate on the right, there’s no room for Crist.

Still, this isn’t nearly as shocking as the way Utah Senator Bob Bennett has gotten drummed out of the party. Bennett isn’t even a slightly moderate Republican—his sin is to have cosponsored a bill that would have replaced public sector insurance programs with private insurance, and then given private insurance to people who currently have no insurance.

If conventional pundit wisdom about how politics works were correct, this new much-more-rightwing GOP would be heading for an electoral debacle. Fortunately for conservatives, however, in the real world economic fundamentals trump policy positions and they should do fine in 2010 unless the economy starts growing faster than expected.

A closing of the conservative mind, eh? Well, Matthew, let me respond by way of exactly two words:

Joseph Lieberman

How have you and the rest of the progressive Young Partisan Hacks treated Senator Lieberman over the past seven years or so? Have you admired his open-mindedness in supporting George W. Bush's administration on the issue of war against Iraq and Afghanistan (Remember, Matthew, that was back when you were being told you were against wars of occupation. As opposed to now, where you've being told your for 'em.). Did you bewail the closing of the progressive mind when Markos Moulitsas and much of the progressive commentariat gave Ned Lamont their blessing back in 2006? Did you praise the suppleness of Lieberman's intellect during the debate over health care and/or insurance reform?

Of course not.

So answer me this, Matthew: What are you babbling on about? Republican voters in Utah and Florida are reacting to political apostasy in exactly the same way you and all your clever little friends reacted to political apostasy by Joe Lieberman. You didn't consider that close-mindedness then, and I doubt you consider it such now. If you don't have the intellectual wherewithall to provide meaningful analysis of what the Bennett and Crist situations actually might mean for the Republican Party, then please, go back to writing commentary on issues you really know something about...

Like banking reform.

More Envy. More Resentment...

Well, it has turned out to be Matthew Yglesias week here, hasn't it?

I know a number of you aren't thrilled, but hey; when he stops saying stupid stuff, I'll stop writing about him. Given the way things are going, I don't see either happening soon. Case in point:

I read something last night about the origins of the Securities and Exchange Commission and it’s frankly pretty hysterical looking back at the prophesies of doom that were made about FDR’s socialist innovation.

It's interesting that that's what made an impression on him. Personally, I'd probably centered my thoughts on (a) what was the SEC orginally charged with regulating and why, as well as (b) whether the SEC succeeded in its original mission over both the short- and long-terms, and (c) whether there are possible parallels to the present situation.

Then again, that's just me. I tend to concentrate on the boring stuff... You know, meaningful facts.

Anyway, what I wanted to point out was yet another example of how "Wall Street reform" is, for Matthew at least, much more a matter of personal issue than a matter of public policy:

The short story is that very rich people tend to be small-c conservative about changing the way things work because, hey, they’re already rich. The status quo works well for them. And Wall Street is full of rich people. But we shouldn’t listen to them.

Instead, evidently, when it comes to the merits of financial industry regulation, we should be listening to a 20-something Young Partisan Hack with a degree in Philosophy, no meaningful education, training or experience in financial matters, and who possesses a gigantic chip on his shoulder when it comes to other peoples' wealth.

Right.

And Today, Matthew Decides He's God...

When you don't have the education, experience or intellect to make your point via informed analysis, well, you can always fall back on your own personal prejudices, can't you?

Which just returns to the point that, though we’re reluctant to admit it in respectable circles in the United States, it’s the money as such that’s the real scandal here. If Lloyd Blankfein were living humbling on $800,000 a year (i.e., 15-20 times the median household income) and donating the rest to charity then I think you’d have to say that what’s good for Goldman Sachs is good for the world. But obviously that’s not what’s taking place. Consequently, I think it’s not quite right to say that nobody is doing anything wrong unless they’re committing actionable fraud. Becoming obscenely wealthy in the business world and then hoarding your money is, itself, morally wrong.It’s just not a critique people are very comfortable offering because obviously even those of us who aren’t making Blankfein bucks are still living higher on the hog than we in principle could.

Once again we see what happens when you take a precocious child who clearly doesn't understand the workings of either economics or capitalism and ask him to comment on events that involve both. And because Matthew is unable to argue his case in economic terms, the fall back is, of course, to simply pronounce the game and the players to be outside the bounds of morality. It's an old and feeble trick of the trade.

Matthew and his ilk love to think of themselves as living in "respectable circles" because they do something other than engage in commerce. They love money every bit as much as people like Lloyd Blankfein, but think it to be in bad taste to make a public show of it. And because they love money, they grow resentful when the consequences of their choice of a career offering modest renumeration manifests itself. We've all met this type, and certainly Matthew is one of them. This sort of resentment runs through his writing like a raging river.

Beyond that, it's worth noting that Matthew went to school at Harvard, and in doing so he crossed paths with many who have gone on to work at places like Goldman Sachs. He didn't like them then, and he doesn't like them now. There's nothing inherently wrong with that judgment, except when one carries it into discussions of public policy. Let's remember this: Much of the support coming from respectable circles for the "reform" of Wall Street has nothing to do with the public and everything to do with the personal. I'll leave it to you to sort out the morality of that.

Matthew And The Distributor Cap...

I am not a mechanically inclined type of individual. As such there never has been, nor will there ever be, a time when I can lift the hood of an automobile and understand enough of what I am looking at to know why exactly we are pulled over to the side of the road. And to an extent, Muffy does not understand that I am comfortable with that situation.

Because Muffy's father was mechanically inclined, and because Muffy's brother is mechanically inclined, she is of the opinion that all men must be mechanically inclined. And the experience of being married to me has, for some reason, not cured her of this belief. Understand, though, that it's not because I've tried to bluff my way through various automotive crises. Not in the least. I don't know enough about internal combustion engines to even fake it. But no matter how many times I tell my wife I don't know diddley-squat about car mechanicals, she persists in saying things like this:

"My car started making a funny noise on the way to work today, and on the way home it was still making the funny noise. Will you look and see if there's something really wrong?"

For the first 15 or so years of marriage, the answer I would give her in these sorts of instances was straightforward and honest and designed to keep her safe:

"Dear, I don't know my ass from my elbow about cars. Why don't you schedule to take the car in for maintenance. If you want, I'll take you to work."

I just assumed, for those 15 or so years, that Muffy did this sort of thing to keep me humble. It's never a bad thing to be gently reminded, from time to time, that we all have our limitations. But in that particular belief I was wrong.

I found that out about ten years ago, when Muffy's car died about two blocks from home. We called AAA and then went back to the car. Muffy insisted I open the hood and check the engine compartment. Rather than start an argument, I complied. I then did the guy thing: I pulled on a couple of wires, touched a couple of parts, and took off and the replaced the radiator cap. I threw a couple of grunts for effect.

All the while Muffy was watching me, knowing full well that I didn't have the faintest idea of what I was doing. Well I finally finished my examination she looked at me with those big brown eyes and said:

"Well?"

It was at that moment that I finally understood what was going on with her. She was looking for reassurance. She knew perfectly well that I knew diddley-squat about cars, and she also knew perfectly well that I had no idea what was wrong with the car. That wasn't the issue. The issue was convincing herself that everything was under control.

Armed with this insight, I gazed into those eyes and did what any loving husband would do in that situation: I lied my ass off.

"Looks like the distributor cap."

"Really?"

"Yep. Think so. It'll cost some money, but it's easy to fix."

And with that everything was Just Fine.

I've taken the time to relate that fascinating vignette because I was reminded of it while reading this post by progressive Young Partisan Hack Matthew Yglesias. When he came to this line:

The case for cutting banking down to size strikes me as more compelling than the case for shrinking any particular bank.

I knew exactly what he was saying.

"Looks like the distributor cap."

He's under the hood of the engine of finance - pulling on wires and touching things - and all the while his readership, which knows even less about banking than he does (if that is indeed possible), is standing there waiting for some sort of reassurance. All they know is the engine isn't running and they can't do anything to change that situation themselves. And Matthew, being the bright boy that he is, has figured out about banking what I've figured out about cars:

Sometimes the important thing is to let others pretend you know what you're talking about.

Look at what Matthew has said.

Think about it.

What does "cutting down banking to size actually mean"? Who knows? Surely not Matthew. As Wittgenstein would say, it's a statement that approaches meaning zero.

What sort of banking is he talking about? Investment banking? Commercial banking? Retail banking? International banking? Who knows? Surely not Matthew. I doubt the thought that there could be more than one type of "banking" even crossed his mind.

And why would "cutting banking down to size" make things better? Again: Who knows? And again: Surely not Matthew.

So what we have here is a Distributor Cap Statement. It's designed to send his dimwit readership off to work reassured that everything is under control. Now if any of them actually thought things through, they'd probably come to the realization that Matthew hasn't a clue and his pronouncements are pure partisan bluff, but that sort of insight would only cloud the essential issue...

This isn't about fixing the car, it's about maintaining the illusion that we're not helpless. 

Approaching Matthew on Banking from any other angle makes no sense.

Clearly The Boy Is Unacquainted With The Concept Of 'Irony'...

One Young Partisan Hack gets a bit pissy about another Young Partisan Hack:

If you’re a connoisseur of people pointing out that Jonah Goldberg isn’t a very intelligent man while simultaneously being too polite to come out and say so directly, I’d highly recommend this post from Conor Friedersdorf.

One thread of the argument I’m personally interested in, however, is Goldberg’s apparent belief that it’s somehow extremely difficult for a young conservative with orthodox views “to break-in at places like NR, the Weekly Standard, the Wall Street Journal, etc.” One could be snide and observe that the very fact that Jonah Goldberg (!) was able to break into those venues is indication enough that it’s in fact quite easy, but to be fair to other National Review writers when you’re talking about a case that extreme you actually do need a boost from nepotism.

My, aren't we catty. Trying out for MoDo's slot at the Times, Matthew?

Anyway, Matthew goes on to quote a bit of Julian Sanchez, apparently unaware that you can say as much for the left-wing institutional network that subsidizes YPHs like Matthew himself:

If you’re willing to toe a straight party line, on the other hand, let’s face it, you can be pretty damn mediocre and still carve out a nice little niche for yourself at any one of a welter of generously funded ideological publications and think tanks. Sure, it’s a smaller pond, but you get to be a relatively big fish. You’ll always have a book deal waiting at Regnery, a warm guest chair on Fox, editors at NR and the Weekly Standard eager to look at your pitches, handsome honoraria on your speaking tour of College Republican groups, and in your golden years, an undemanding sinecure as the Senior Olin Fellow at the Institute for Real ‘Murriken Studies.

And just to prove he really is irony proof, Matthew rips off these lines:

This is both a cost and a benefit of the fact that the conservative movement has built an enormous institutional apparatus. There’s this nice, very cushy gravy train out there awaiting anyone who wants to be a loyal footsoldier and one consequence of that is that the standards in terms of the personnel are quite low.

I guess we're all supposed to forget that Matthew makes a living blogging for Think Progress, which, the last time I checked, was the Official House Organ for the Center for American Progress. And the last time I checked, they qualified as perfect examples of Sanchez's "generously funded ideological publications and think tanks".

If anyone really thinks Matthew isn't above doing what it takes to make a buck and build a career, let's all remember that he was for single payer before his boss told him he was against it. It goes without saying that he was against Afghanistan before he was told he was for it. If that ain't anglin' for a fellowship, syndication, and a warm seat next to Rachel Maddow, I don't know what is.

I'd suggest the next time Matthew decides to slag someone for taking the easy way out, that he goes off on someone who doesn't fit the bill as his doppelgänger.

Sullivan-Style Journalism...

Andrew's still obsessing over the Darth Vader of Alaska, Sarah Palin:

For anyone in Alaska to speak openly about the Palins is risky. There is genuine fear out there of the Palin family and what they can do (ask Trooper Wooten).

Uh-huh.

Now, evidently, we are to shed tears over the plight of Levi Johnston's kin being unable to spend some quality time with Little Tripp. Andrew regurgitates the unverified tale of woe and then comes up with the sort of line you'd expect from a burned-out, brain-dead disgrace of a "public intellectual/journalist":

Obviously, I can't verify all these details, but they seem mighty genuine to me.

You can't make this sort of stuff up.

That's coming from the same Andrew Sullivan who is forever wailing about journalism's failure to properly investigate any and all aspects of Sarah Palin's life. I suppose the irony of him sitting on his fat ass speculating, rather than actually verifying, is lost on the Silly Old Poof.

A perfect example of why you cannot consider journalism a profession, as well as a perfect example of why you shouldn't smoke Arkansas Polio Weed.

Something Productive Like Journalism? Seriously?

Pseudo-polymath Ezra Klein passes judgment on that of which he knows nothing:

One of the common complaints about Wall Street is that it sucks up a lot of Ivy League talent that could be going toward more productive endeavors.

Like what, Ezra? Bluffing your way through current events for the Washington Post? You define a career in investment banking (which I'll lay money you don't understand in the least) as less economically (and socially) productive than a career in journalism?

Why? What's the rationale?

Ezra Klein is yet another partisan punk/hack in the mold of Matthew Yglesias and Josh Marshall. None of them have actually worked a day of their lives in either business or a profession (by any real measure, journalism is not a profession). And, consistent with their (uninformed) personal prejudices and cloistered existences, they can see no value in the work done by millions of citizens because it does not conform to their (uninformed) vision of what business activity should be.

You know, I've been working in a real profession longer than Ezra Klein has been alive. I've been a business owner for more than half of Ezra Klein's life. The idea that he has enough of an understanding of economics, business or life to pass judgment on the relative worth of investment banking is a bad joke. I don't know about you, but the fact that a 26 year-old still-wet-behind-the-ears punk like Klein could be doing anything other than covering school board meetings as a journalist tells me just about all I need to know about why newspapers are bleeding readers (and money).

The Enablers...

Want to know why Barack Obama feels he can ignore LGBT issues without fear of repercussion?

Look no further than Marc Ambinder's latest attempt at putting lipstick on the pig, and Andrew Sullivan's latest attempt at putting lipstick on the pig of putting lipstick on the pig. Ambinder ends his post with this bit of nonsense:

Does Obama favor gay rights, and do his actions support those beliefs? Yes. Is there a conspiracy inside the West Wing to block progress? I've found no evidence that there is.

And Sullivan ends his with this:

He [Ambinder] predicts:

By this time next year, [DADT] will be gone. Gay people will be openly serving in the United States Armed Forces.

For this to happen the Congress would have to act. Would a possible Republican House vote down the Joint Chiefs' recommendation? You bet your bottom dollar they would. That's the worry. And it's a real one.

Which is also nonsense.

With regards to Ambinder: First, DADT will not be gone by this time next year. That's because Barack Obama has shown no interest in ending DADT. Oh sure, he's mouthed the appropriate words once - in January's the State of Union address - but that's not the same as actually pushing the end of DADT to the top of the legislative agenda. Second, as Ambinder clearly knows, ending DADT becomes more difficult - not less - with each passing day. That's because it is widely anticipated that Democrats will suffer substantial losses in the House, and possibly the Senate, come November. Any fool could have seen that the best time to tackle DADT was the first day after Obama was sworn in.

With regards to Sullivan: It's a true measure of his own intellectual dishonesty (as well as decay) that he could actually opine that the real danger to the end of DADT lies in a post-November (i.e., Republican) House of Representatives voting down legislation designed to end DADT. This is where Sullivan's desperate need to maintain his man-crush on Obama blinds him to the obvious: If ending DADT was really important to either Barack Obama or the Democratic leadership, there'd have been legislation on the floor of the House long ago.

But none of that really matters. Ambinder and Sullivan aren't interested in ending DADT enough to cross the line into apostasy. Oh sure, they'll make noises - timidly - now and then, just to make sure we all understand they really do want and end to DADT. But when push comes to shove, it's clear that neither thinks it important enough to suggest that extracting a political cost from Obama for his inaction is actually appropriate.

And that's why DADT is going not going away any time soon. It isn't Republicans, and it isn't cultural conservatives that are going to keep DADT in place, becasue they aren't the ones keeping it in place at the moment. It will be the unsympathetic opportunists in the Democratic Party (such as Barack Obama) and the enablers in the media (Ambinder) and the liberal gay political establishment (Sullivan) that will keep DADT alive and well. Just as they are doing now.

His Mind Has Always Been His Achilles' Heel...

A quote for the ages from uber-swish Andrew:

Here's a revealing glimpse into how a delusional, incompetent, pathological liar has managed never to hold a real press conference and yet remains a credible public figure.

He's off on one of his Sarah Palin jags. Again. And it's still only 2010.

Would it be small of me to note that the obvious way for your basic delusional, incompetent, pathological liar to remain in the public eye seems to be getting a job blogging at The Atlantic?

He then goes on to explain that he still hasn't finished exploring the mysteries of the vee-jay-jay:

The reason I banged on and on about Palin's bizarre story about her fifth campaign prop during the campaign was not because I wanted to invade someone's privacy, or engage in loony conspiracy theories. The reason is simply that this story raised legitimate questions of fact, and that the press decided that it would never ask the relevant questions, and indeed ostracize and ridicule those who did. 

That's one way to look at it. Another way to look at it is that your just another woman-hating homo who's scared to death of powerful females. And as for being ostracized and ridiculed, Andrew, you earned that. Few things have been more distasteful over the past couple of years than your bizarre obsession with Palin's last pregnancy and son's birth. You're in Orly Taitz territory, you fool, and that's why you're being mocked.

Andrew continues his voyage:

Palin managed to sail through the campaign without any real scrutiny on a crucial matter of credibility, when proving her case would have been as easy as a simple fax of a readily available extract from what must have been voluminous medical records. But not even the McCain campaign asked for such evidence. And the press utterly bailed. Now, she is able to use one powerful propaganda outlet, press-restricted buck-raking speeches, and a book of magical realism to continue this creepy, unaccountable celebrified campaign.

This really is the voice of Orly Taitz, isn't it? Change a few names and a few words and you're a raving looney screaming about socialism and Obama's Kenyan birth. The only thing missing are the paper slippers and the lobster bib.

Of course, it's everybody else that's got it wrong:

The problem here is not really Palin. Every delusional, ignorant nutcase should have a chance to get away with running for national office. The problem here is the system - a system that allowed someone no-one knew anything about to get very close to being a 72-year-old's heartbeat away from the presidency, a system that deems some questions unaskable, a press that is more concerned with maximizing ratings and avoiding offence than in getting answers. This system is dangerous. If you construct a sealed media cocoon, and false narrative, and a massive money-machine, you can get further than most people imagine. And remember, presidents have been elected with 43 percent of the vote before. 

Ah, yes. The problem is The System. Not Andrew, The System. Nobody was willing to Walk Tall: Not the Obama Campaign, not the DNC, not the New York Times, not the Washington Post. Not one of 'em. Only Andrew. I wonder if the chaps chafed at all, what with Andrew being the delicate boy he is...

Not that The Danger of Palin has, to date, motivated Andrew to get off his fat ass, go to Alaska, and do some investigative journalism, mind you. No sirree. Being convinced Sarah Palin's pulled off a massive conspiracy that endangers the Republic and the world is Pretty Serious Stuff, but there are limits to what any one man can do. However, an idea comes to mind...

Andrew could take a cue from some of his gay brethren and chain himself to Palin's crotch. Or something. That'd draw some attention to the problem. Hopefully the press and get a few pictures before she closes things down...

In any event, don't lose hope. Although Andrew's sitting in his armchair drinking a cup of milky tea, you can bet he's getting ready to fight the Good Fight:

So I haven't given up on this line of inquiry. Trust me. I have not given up.

Whatever, Andrew. Whatever.

"I am Sarah's crotch, Andrew. Come to me. Resistence is futile, Andrew... Come to me."