Canadian Cincinnatus

The wonderful Don Cheadle film, The Guard

Over the weekend I had a chance to watch the Irish movie, The Guard, starring American actor Don Cheadle. Structurally, it is a standard cop buddy film, the kind where two completely dissimilar police officers are paired up together to solve a crime, like the great Nick Nolte/Eddie Murphy film 48 Hours. Don Cheadle plays a straight-laced FBI agent sent to Ireland to intercept a large drug shipment from shipboard smugglers, and Irish actor Brendan Gleason plays an aging Gardia (Gardia is the Irish police, and hence the title is an Anglicization of that name) sergeant who is serving his pensionable time in a remote Irish village where most people still speak Gaelic, and who is far enough along in his career that he doesn’t give a damn what people think of him, or how offended they may be over his political incorrect observations.

For one example of the banter between them, during a PowerPoint briefing to the Garda, Cheadle’s character shows mug shots of the suspected drug dealers to his colleagues. They are white and Irish. Gleason’s character comments out loud that he thought all drug dealers were “black... or Mexican.” Cheadle responds, “That’s racist!” Gleason retorts, “Sir, I’m Irish. Racism is part of my heritage.”

To prove that Cheadle is not being subject to extra treatment simply because he is black, every group of people not from the small town where the events take place is subject to insult and mockery of some sort. For instance, every form of vice and folly is ascribed to Dubliners by the non-Dublin Irish. Another example is the widow of the sergeant’s partner: a Croatian babe who only married the officer to get an Irish visa. Throughout the movie she is referred to as ‘a Romanian’, even after she patiently explains that she is Croatian. But to the Irish, any dodgy Eastern European chick is a Romanian. Of course, it goes without saying that Protestants, the English and Americans are subject to similar verbal abuse.

In other words, this is just the way they carry on. They don’t hate blacks like Don Cheadle any more than they hate Dubliners (though they do hate Protestants and the English). This depiction of ‘casual racism’ strikes me as realistic. As a summer student at an Ontario Hydro power plant, I worked predominately with English, Scottish and Irish fitters and welders. They were always trading insults like this to one another - while hanging out together in the lunch room. It seems they had a derogatory name or rhyme or story about every little village in the British Isles. For instance, I learned from them that people from Hartlepool are called monkey hangers.

However, over and above the realism, this movie demonstrates that the Politically Correct lie - that any non-PC comment is the moral equivalent of racial terrorism - is hooey.

To take an example from the world of politics, consider President Harry Truman. He integrated the US Armed Forces and championed civil rights for blacks so passionately that the Dixicrats split off from the Democrat Party in 1948 and ran Strom Thurmond against him, splitting the Democrat vote. But in private, Truman used the n-word and enjoyed black jokes. Is civil rights champion Harry Truman a racist? Today’s PC zealots would say yes. Whoever wrote the screenplay for The Guard (as well as common sense) would say no.

Conservatives are fond of complaining about how the film industry produces nothing but crap. However, if you look carefully, there are quite a few gems out there with a positive message. I think it is incumbent on us to patronize these films to encourage more of the same. For this reason, I will continue to periodically highlight such movies and (increasingly) TV shows.

 

 

The left showers Dick Cheney with the compassion and tolerance that they are famous for

As most of you know, former Vice President Dick Cheney received a new heart in a transplant operation on Saturday. Here is a sample of the tweets that lefties made in reaction to the news that Cheney’s operation was successful and that his recovery is going well:

“Whoever donated their heart to dick cheney: fuck you,” tweeted @yokelesy.

“Cheney’s black soul keeps rotting out his heart. Fuck that bitch,” @SolidGlo. 

“Why in the contumacious fuck are we wasting a perfectly good heart on dick cheney?” tweeted @mr_senor_pete

“I’m glad Cheney survived his heart transplant because I’ve always wanted him to die in a horrible fire,” @Jedimasterbator tweeted.

“Also, bummed Cheney didn’t die. Might go celebrate Bulls win / mourn Cheney’s survival with beers,” offered @mybandowen.

“Angry villagers have gathered outside of Inova Fairfax Hospital with torches and pitchforks demanding the monster be put to death! #cheney,” tweeted @HVonHankelton.

“Fuck you, Dick. Cheney,” tweeted @winelibrarian.

Something to keep in mind the next time the left lectures us Rush Limbaugh’s intemperate remarks.

No word yet on whether President Obama will invoke the Sasha and Malia rule on these twit(erer)s.

 

Controversial artist paints Obama burning the US Constitution

One would be forgiven for thinking believing that it is all but impossible for an artist to be a controversial these days. After all, we have Piss Christ, Artist’s Shit, Richard Serra’s portrait of George W Bush as Saturn Devouring His Son and Marcel Duchamp’s 1921 dadaist masterpiece: the Fountain.

But now we know what it takes for an artist to be truly controversial. So all you aspiring avant-garde controversialists gather round and listen: painting a realistic picture of President Obama in less than flattering light. I know, I know, even speaking such a thing is itself borderline-racism, so pass the smelling salts and get near the fainting couch when you take a gander at Jon McNaughton’s latest portrait of President Obama.

Personally, as an aficionado of the avant-garde, I prefer his Forgotten Man. At least, unlike Picasso, he doesn’t paint anybody with both eyes on the same side of the face. That is getting so passe.

 

Why the US soldier snapped in Afghanistan

The American staff sergeant who murdered 16 Afghan civilians is provoking questions about how it could have happened. The distinguished military historian Max Hastings provides some much needed perspective by reviewing some of the many military atrocities committed by US and British forces since World War II. He concludes that the potential for this sort of thing is inside all of us. It is just that military training and combat operations can brings it to the surface, especially in counter-insurgency operations.

Personally, I think this atrocity cannot be understood without keeping items like this in mind. Embedded journalist Michael Yon states, “We’ve taken about 200 Coalition casualties that we know of from insider attacks.  How many do we not know of?” The thought process of a Coalition soldier is easily imagined: “WTF? I have to risk my life to train these A-holes, and they turn on me the first chance they get?” When Afghan soldiers go postal on their Coalition trainers, trust is not bred.

This does not, of course, excuse what happened (the sergeant apparently saw his comrade get his leg blown off the day before, probably by an IED that he likely believed was laid by the villagers he killed), but it goes a long way to explaining it.

War puts men under incredible stress but conventional war - though much deadlier than guerrilla war – has the advantage of moral simplicity: the enemy is over there; we must kill them any way we can; and that’s that. The only time when this moral structure is conflicted are those rare occasions when prisoners are taken.  In counterinsurgency operations, soldiers face severe moral conflicts every day. This is only exacerbated by Gen. Stanley McCrystal’s restricted rules of engagement. I believe the psychological stress it induces (trying to help a group of people while locked in combat with their kinfolk) is underappreciated. When morality is simple, people cope with stress better. When it is complicated, morality is not the same source of strength. As a result, some solders snap.

Perhaps counterinsurgency just asks too much from our soldiers (at least those who aren’t in special forces). 

For some time, I have championed an alternate strategy for Afghanistan (here, here and here). Don’t nation-build in a country where none existed before. Instead, work with the existing tribal structure: shower favours on friendly tribes and treat uncooperative tribes as the enemy. In this way, the enemy is clear to everybody and most of the fighting is done by other Afghans, who fight for reasons they understand. By attempting to woo Afghans with civil aid, we end up bribing enemies while neglecting friends. We present the Afghans a perverse incentive structure: fight us and get all the goodies (and the apologies). All we really want is for their territories to not be terrorist havens. Tell them that if they manage that, we will leave them alone and give them military aid (which they prize much more highly than schools and roads). Fail to do that, and we will hammer you - while aiding your ancient blood enemies.

I think such a mission would be more understandable to the Afghans and our solders as well.

 

Mitt Romney can’t close the deal, but here's how he could

Try as he might Mitt Romney can’t seem to convince conservatives that he is one of them, and he appears to be at a loss as what to do about it. His recent defeats in the Alabama and Mississippi primaries is a testament to that.

Of course, skepticism about Romney originates from the fact that his deepest convictions have tended to align with those of the voters he needs to convince at the moment. This coincidence leads people to believe that he is just shining then when he agrees with them. As Dick Morris said in The New Prince: 

 “When a candidate takes an issue position in the thick of controversy, voters feel that is the most reliable indicator they have of his true essence. Voters know he has chosen sides. They know the controversial position will make him enemies and alienate interest groups. The issue position becomes a form of symbolic speech, telling us what the candidate is all about. (p. 33)”

Suffice it to say, Mitt Romney has never done this, which leads many to doubt that he will dismantle Romneycare like he says he will. Romneycare, ooops! I mean Obamacare.

On Wednesday’s lunchtime video, Dick Morris explained how Romney could earn their trust. He advised Romney to stop nitpicking Rick Santorum and start going after Obama on the issues of the day. After all, Santorum isn’t their bogeyman, Obama is.

He gave a number of examples of current events that would make perfect subjects for Romney’s speeches. To name two: Obama is planning on giving US anti-missile secrets to the Russians, and the CBO just announced that the projected cost of Obamacare will be double what Obama said it was. One item I add to the list was a headline on Drudge Report on Tuesday: US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta required, on his recent visit to Afghanistan, that US forces be disarmed in his presence when he spoke to them. The US Secretary of Defense is afraid of his own soldiers! Why isn’t Romney - and indeed every other Republican – making hay of this?

And what about misogynist Bill Maher donating $1 million to Obama’s super-PAC? Why isn’t Romney on the air every day demanding Obama return his money? I don’t think he mentioned it at all. That this outrage is an issue is only thanks to the alternate media, who are doing Romney’s work for him.

There is a steady of stream of such stories and they are waiting for somebody, anybody, to use them. 

The alternate media wins the Rush Limbaugh – Sandra Fluke skirmish

It is said by political strategists that he who frames the debate, wins the debate. Therefore, the ability to reframe the debate when you have been ambushed is a critical survival strategy.

Back in the old days,  it would have been a slam-dunk: Rush Limbaugh would have lost and the left, backing their agent Sandra Fluke, would have won. The debate was framed by them and it would have been won by them.

But, unfortunately, it no longer is the good ol’ days. Enough people in the alternate media get politics. That is, they understand how political battles are fought and won. More importantly they understand how they are not won: with apologies and appeasement. 

They took the Malia and Sasha standard that President Obama applied to Rush (i.e. don’t say anything in public discourse that would offend his daughters) and threw it back in his face.

Alinsky’s fourth rule states: “Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.” As an old community organizer, Obama knows this, or should. But he was wholly unprepared when conservatives started demanding that he return the $1 million that Bill Maher donated to Obama’s super-PAC, because Maher has repeatedly and publically called Sarah Palin “a boob”, “a bimbo”, “a twat” and “a cunt”. Remember the Malia and Sasha rule, Barry, and hand back the loot. You hypocrite.

Debate reframed. 

Way to go, alt media!

 

Why was Sandra Fluke offended by Rush Limbaugh’s comments anyway?

As is well known by now, Rush Limbaugh had called a young lady and left-wing activist, who testified in Congress about contraception, disparaging terms that implied that she is sexually promiscuous.

Given that she is an advocate of free contraception, was active in suppressing the political free speech of pro-life groups at Cornell and is on record as supporting a mandate for free sex-change operations, it would seem to me that one would be on safe ground to assert that Ms. Flake is an advocate of the New Morality, the sexual philosophy that rose to prominence in the 1960’s. One of the tenets of this belief system is that any sexual activity that occurs between two consenting adults is OK. Even more than that, it is morally agnostic about those activities. In other words, if somebody morally elevates one form of sexual activity over another, that person is guilty of ‘judgementalism’ (a very serious charge indeed). As an activist for the New Morality, Sandra Fluke would have to believe all of these things.

So I repeat my question: regardless of the whether Ms. Fluke herself is sexually promiscuous or not, why would she take offense if Rush Limbaugh described her in terms that she herself considers to be morally neutral?

What is the nature of the 31,000 Elections Canada complaints anyway?

The description of the 31,000 complaints that Elections Canada has received concerning the robocall scandal in various press reports are vague: we are told some of them report deliberately misleading phone calls but others concern merely harassing calls. The approximate ratio of harassing call complaints to misleading call complaints I have not been able to find out (let me know the source if you do know). Hmmm... I wonder what that ratio is.

I venture to guess that most of the complaints concern harassing calls rather than misleading calls. As I already discussed the possible source of the misleading calls in a previous post (and most of those complaints originate from just one riding: Guelph, a riding the Liberals won handily), I will concentrate my attention in this post to the harassing calls. 

Why do I think most of the 31,000 complaints that Elections Canada has received are over harassing calls? Simple. Because I and many people I know were on the receiving end of those calls. The reason we did was because we are identified as Conservative supporters and the party did its best to get us to vote. As a result, our phones rang off the hook. Of course, none of us filed a complaint. Why? Because we are Conservative supporters and we want our party to do well. The calls we got during the writ period are just a petty annoyance.

So if Conservative supporters are not the people who filed the complaints, then who are?

Perhaps people who are not Conservative supporters. To see how they can end up on the list in spite of their views, we must understand how the party identifies supporters in the first place. One way it does is through door-to-door canvassing. In this process, a canvasser asks the resident if they support the local candidate. Sometimes the answer is an emphatic yes; sometimes a heated no; often it is more equivocal. That leaves it up to the judgement of the volunteer as to how to classify the response. This matter is not helped by the fact that there are only three options on the walk sheet: a smiley face (supporter), a frowny face (hostile) or a poker face (uncommitted). This means that a lifelong party supporter with the candidate’s sign on his lawn is classified the same as somebody volunteering a hesitant OK. Add wishful thinking on the part of the canvasser (most responses are uncommitted), to those expressing assent just to get rid of the canvasser faster, to people in the household who don’t agree with the person who answered the door, and you have the potential for a whole lot people getting robocalls who don’t like Harper.

I bet a vast majority of the Elections Canada complaints are of this nature.

The trouble for the Liberals and NDP is that annoying is not illegal. While the Liberals and NDP would doubtlessly assert pure motivations on their part as the reason why their phone banking has not elicited a similar volume of complaints, the answer is more prosaic: lack of money and organization prevented them from putting on the same campaign that Harper’s Conservatives were able to do.

Today, we are all Rush Limbaugh

Make no mistake about it, the media frenzy that greeted Rush Limbaugh’s uncomplimentary remarks on left-wing campus activist Sandra Fluke is a deliberate coordinated ambush, and most definitely not the spontaneous outrage over ‘unacceptable comments’ that it pretends to be.

How do I know this?

Look at the MSM’s silence over the left’s celebratory tweets and comments about Andrew Breitbart’s sudden death last week. Matt Yglesias, star blogger over at Slate, said this: “Conventions around dead people are ridiculous. The world is slightly improved with @AndrewBreitbart dead.” Click on this link to see worse, much worse. 

Other outrages the media has been curiously silent over: Jimmy Fallon Show band playing “Lyin Ass Bitch” to introduce Michelle Bachmann; President Obama calling Tea Partiers “tea baggers” (a sexual slur); the George W Bush assassination porn film; the ‘Bush is Hitler’ chanting in the good ol’ days when dissent was patriotic (in case you are wondering, it no longer is, but may be again after November); the aggressive anti-Semitism of the Occupy crowd; the misogynistic Barack Obama donor and one-percenter Bill Maher insulting every woman in sight; not to mention all the vitriol that has been hurled at Sarah Palin by the MSM.

If the MSM had any conscience at all, they would have hammered at this stuff instead of sweeping it under the rug.

It may be argued that the case between Michelle Bachmann, Sarah Palin and George W Bush is different from Sandra Fluke because unlike them, she is not a career politician but rather an idealistic student who merely wants to express her views. For starters, this gauzy portrait ignores her role in silencing pro-life groups on Cornell, which suggests that she is not a stranger to the kind of bare-knuckle street politics the left specializes in. And it doesn’t explain the MSM’s moral slumber when 60 year old David Letterman mocked Sarah Palin’s 14 year old daughter with rape jokes.

So by cataloguing all this left-wing slander, Cincinnatus, are you saying that two wrongs make a right? - that it somehow excuses what Rush said?

No. But juxtaposing the Sandra Fluke incident with this bile provides some much needed perspective (i.e. that Rush Limbaugh’s transgressions are relatively minor). It also suggests that the MSM's motivations are, how shall I put it, less than pure. Specifically, that they are not offended but merely engaged in a premeditated ambush.

Of course, they could not have known that Rush was going to call Sandra Flake nasty names when he did, but I bet they had the campaign organized and lying in wait for the day he said something provocative. When he did, they pounced.

You can see the progression: first, Lou Dobbs on CNN (for highlighting the illegal alien problem); then Glen Beck (for exposing George Soros); and now, the biggest fish of all: Rush Limbaugh.

The fact that a number of key sponsors are backing away from him so quickly, when they stood by him through past controversies, suggests prior planning.

The RINO instinct would be to distance ourselves from Rush, tut-tutting loudly and moralistically about ‘extremism’. As usual, the RINO advice is 180 degrees out of phase with the correct strategy. The situation is critical because Rush is the biggest conservative voice out there. If he goes, picking off everybody else is just a mopping up operation. We must take to heart that you either hang together or you hang separately. If you want an alternate voice, right now it is do-or-die time. We have no choice but to stand by Rush.

Oh yes, what motivated Rush to make the comments he did? Perhaps, he took to heart what the New Civility exponent, Barack Obama, once said:

“Bring a gun to a knife fight.”

 

The Great Andrew Breitbart

The conservative movement has lost a lion. Andrew Breitbart died yesterday at the young age of 43.

To me Andrew Breitbart, more than anybody else, represents the warrior spirit that conservativism needs in order to triumph in the end. In a movement filled with too many timid, go-along-to-get-along appeasers, Breitbart was the happy warrior.

If you don’t believe me, watch the last video in Dr. Roy’s blog post on Andrew’s passing. In it, you see him confront a left-wing mob by himself. There is a barrier between them, placed there to keep the mob at bay. But, by the time he is finished with them, the barrier serves more to keep Breitbart from the recoiling mass of cowards. 

Andrew reminds me of something that Abraham Lincoln said when asked why he supports a drunk like Ulysses S Grant as his top general: “Because he fights, sir, he fights.” Andrew fought, and perhaps more than anybody else in the conservative movement, took genuine pleasure in doing so.

For instance, because of the lightning rod role that he took on, he received a lot of hate mail. He retweeted as many of these threats and insults as he could, to show the world how contemptible and hypocritical the apostles of diversity and tolerance really are, but also because he looked upon this bile as a badge of honour. As Jonah Goldberg pointed out, Andrew thought that if you were taking a lot of flack, it meant that you were over your target. With the news of his passing, the left-wing twitter-verse is a-buzz with insults. Andrew would have doubtlessly been proud and considered all of them a fine epitaph, fit for his tombstone. 

From the bottom of my heart, I will miss him.