“They’re Not Evil, They’re Children!”

I was listening to Hugh Hewitt on the way home tonight. He was talking about the Left’s reaction to the spread of Middle-Eastern democracy, now exhibiting itself in Lebanon. He quoted from a TalkingPointsMemo piece by Ed Kilgore that denigrated any association between the public uprising in Lebanon and the Bush Doctrine. This in the face of today’s New York Times op-ed that – grudgingly – acknowledged:

The Bush administration is entitled to claim a healthy share of the credit for many of these advances. It boldly proclaimed the cause of Middle East democracy at a time when few in the West thought it had any realistic chance. And for all the negative consequences that flowed from the American invasion of Iraq, there could have been no democratic elections there this January if Saddam Hussein had still been in power.

But the comment Hugh made that piqued my attention was this, speaking of those on the Left who are in such denial:

They’re not evil, they’re CHILDREN!

I discussed this a bit in On Guillotines and Gibbets. My question is, “What difference does it make?” Because they’re not children. The majority of them are adults who never matured. (There are, as I noted in Guillotines, some who know exactly what they’re doing as they manipulate the strings.) But even so, children can be evil, and willfully. And they can commit acts while looking out for the adults who they know would punish them for their wrongdoing. In this case, however, we have biological adults who refuse to acknowledge reality, because it conflicts with their mental model. Once again, we have a textbook example of cognitive dissonance from the Left. Once again, the Anointed have had their noses shoved into the excrement they’ve been smearing on the walls, and once again they’ve declared that nothing’s changed and everything smells like roses.

But Hugh’s “they’re CHILDREN!” exclamation smacks to me of a dismissal of responsibility. Hugh Hewitt absently absolves the Left, yet two days ago Howard Dean backhandedly called Republicans evil, speaking at a fundraiser in Lawrence, Kansas.

“Moderate Republicans can’t stand these people (conservatives), because they’re intolerant. They don’t think tolerance is a virtue,” Dean said, adding: “I’m not going to have these right-wingers throw away our right to be tolerant.”

And concluding his backyard speech with a litany of Democratic values, he added: “This is a struggle of good and evil. And we’re the good.”

How tolerant. Apparently the Left is tolerant of everything but people who disagree with them. Then today in an impassioned Senate speech, Robert Byrd (D-KKK) compared Senate Republicans to Nazis over their threat to invoke the “nuclear nukular option” and change the rules on cloture for judicial nominees:

Hitler’s originality lay in his realization that effective revolutions in modern conditions are carried out with, and not without, not against, the power of the State. The correct order of events was first to secure access to that power of the State, and then begin his revolution. Hitler never abandoned the cloak of legality. He never abandoned the cloak of legality. He recognized the enormous, psychological value of having the law on his side. Instead, he turned the law inside out and made his illegality legal. And that is what the nuclear option seeks to do. To Rule 22 of the standing rules of the Senate. I said to someone this morning who was shoveling snow in my area. “What does nuclear option mean to you?” He answered, “Oh, you mean with Iran?” The people generally don’t know what this is about. The nuclear option seeks to alter the rules by sidestepping the rules, thus making the impermissable the rule.

Now, perhaps surprisingly, I’m with the Senator on opposing that rule change. If the work of the Senate grinds to a halt because one side wants to filibuster, fine with me. Let ’em. The less damage work the Senate does, the better. But invoking the Nazis?

Sounds like projection to me. They’re children. We’re Nazis.

I. Don’t. Fucking. Think. So.

But we’re the by-god ADULTS here. And Hugh’s observation certainly explains why I have a nearly uncontrollable urge to spank any liberal that spouts off near me.

Bittersweet Triumph

The inimitable Steven Den Beste has interrupted his hiatus to respond to a question that I must admit I had.

Terry writes:

I hope you are well and enjoying your “retirement” from blogging. I find myself reading Wretchard, Donald Sensing, and the Powerline guys and wondering how you see the amazing events unfolding across the middle east. I must say you hit it pretty square on the head in some of your old posts.

Steven (unsurprisingly) nails the dismount. Go read.

UPDATE 3/3: Steven leaves comments at Bill Quick’s Daily Pundit post on the falling dominoes in the Middle East, What Lies at the Bottom of This Slippery Slope?. As always, Steven’s insight is laser-sharp, and I am glad to read his words again.

Steven says:

This is the payoff. This was always the most important reason for the invasion of Iraq. I am a bit surprised by how fast it’s beginning to happen, but I never doubted that any of this would eventually take place. It was always the goal of what we did.

But it is not really the Iraqi election that set this off. It was, in fact, the US election that did it. The entire region held its breath because it needed an answer to this question: Will the Americans see this through? When Bush won, the answer was “yes”. Now they know that there will be four more years of American pressure, and they know that 4 years is a long time and a lot can be accomplished in that time.

If Kerry had won in November, turnout in the Iraqi election would have been low and none of the rest of this would have happened. A Kerry victory would have been treated in the region as an indication that the Americans had given up.

Steven made a damned fine argument for this position in his Strategic Overview of the cause of the war from July of 2003, but I’ve got to disagree – just a bit – with one point. I think if John Kerry had been elected President, the Iraqi election would have been postponed – indefinitely – as “too dangerous.” It would have been one of Kerry’s first actions, and it would have been the final indicator that America had given up.

Then there’s this response to a question of just why Bush’s foreign policy is so adamantly opposed by the Left:

(T)heir problem with it isn’t what is happening, but rather who is doing it and how they’re doing it.

Liberating the world is fine. But it’s supposed to be done by transnational governance through peaceful diplomacy. It isn’t supposed to be done through military might as an expression of nationalist power.

And the reason they’re becoming increasingly incoherent with their anger is that their world-view doesn’t even admit the possibility that these things can be done through military might and increasing nationalism.

Nationalism is the big enemy, from their point of view. That’s more important than little things like spreading democracy and ending repression. And when the Americans kiss off the UN, the ICC, the Kyoto accords, “international law” and all the other nascent manifestations of world governance the lefties have placed their hopes in, and then the Americans proceed to accomplish more in three years than those nascent organizations have in the previous thirty, it leads to big-time cognitive dissonance.

Because it forces them to confront the possibility that nationalism may not in fact be inherently and unredeemably evil. Nationalism may well be the savior of the race, the historical force which leads to a better tomorrow.

The lefties hate Bush because Bush is unapologetically nationalist, unapologetically American. Clinton and Kerry were at least willing to apologize for their nation; Bush won’t. Bush thinks America is a force for good — and to lefties who are invested in the idea of world governance, that is the worst threat imaginable. Because they cannot establish a world government unless they somehow convince the majority of Americans that the United States as a nation and the US Constitution as a political experiment are utter failures which must be abandoned and replaced by something better — i.e. by world governance and the emerging socialist utopia predicted by the sainted Marx.

And this follow-on:

I mean where is the evidence that “transnational governance through peaceful diplomacy” has EVER worked?

Joshua, for the lefties that isn’t an important question. Transnational governance is such an elegant concept that it must be the correct answer. Old fashioned ideas like “evidence” and “experience” don’t affect that calculation.

That’s why a century of failure hasn’t disenchanted them with the idea of socialism. True, every time it’s ever been tried it’s always failed, but that was because those doing it were stupid and corrupt. Socialism is fundamentally elegant idea; it simply has to be right.

…even if it isn’t.

Amen.

And this commentary fits perfectly into Jon Stewart’s outing of Nancy Soderburg that I posted on this morning.

No Sense of Humor.

I was listening to the radio on the way in to work this morning, when I heard that several newspapers were pulling Aaron McGruder’s Boondocks cartoon strip this morning. In the public interest, here it is:

C’mon. Sure it’s in poor taste, but that’s funny. (And with Aaron McGruder, that’s an accomplishment.)

Some people need to lighten up.

Grieve for the Fallen: Mark Allen Wilson

The Geek with a .45 has two posts up concerning the actions of Texas CCW holder Mark Allen Wilson in Sunday’s rampage shooting in Tyler Texas, and the memorial service for Mr. Wilson. (And also the excrable statement by Marsh McCartney, the Dallas Chapter President of the Million Mommies.)

The first post is written by Blackfork6, who was a friend of Mark Wilson, and who attended the memorial service and provides photos. The second post is by the Geek, and includes the letter written by Blackfork6 to the local paper in protest to Ms. McCartney’s spewing.

“Greater love hath no man but to lay down his life for another.”

Indeed. Give them a read.

Boy, it’s a Good Thing They Have All Those Weapon Restrictions In England.

This is London reports that a gang of vandals (more than slightly resembling their Vandal namesakes) ran through a commuter train smashing windows.

Passengers fled in terror as a gang charged through London commuter trains smashing more than 100 windows.

The vandals, believed to have been armed with iron bars, wrecked so many carriages that morning peak services were disrupted due to a shortage of stock.

When they finished with one train they boarded another and continued their spree.

Northfleet station in Kent was also attacked. Damage to equipment was so severe that part of it remained shut today. A spokeswoman for South Eastern Trains (SET) said: “This was just wanton destruction for the sake of it.”

Iron bars, eh?

And what stopped the vandals from deciding that smashing skulls would be more fun?

Oh, right – their “better natures.”

It obviously wasn’t fear of police intervention. Or an armed citizenry.

On Mark Allen Wilson

I was asked about this, and responded in comments, but the Geek With a .45 has said it about as well as anyone could, and the comments to his post by people who knew Mr. Wilson are very much worth reading.

To this I can only add that to risk your own life for that of another is the greatest sacrifice anyone can make, and Mr. Wilson, by all accounts, saved the life of David Hernandez Arroyo Jr. by his actions.

If there’s an afterlife, Mr. Wilson is receiving great honors there.

Oh, What the Hell.

Via Mostly Cajun, another blogmeme – your Senior Year of High School:

What year was it?

1980

What was your schedule?

You expect me to remember that? I had (IIRC) parking-lot duty first period, Civics (or whatever they called it then) second period, AP English third period, somewhere in there I had Calculus and Physics, and that’s all I’m really sure about.

What were your favorite bands?

Elton John, the Eagles, Eric Clapton (the three essential “E’s” of rock-n-roll.)

What was your favorite outfit?

“Style” is not and never has been a strong point for me. Blue jeans, a pocket T-shirt, and a plaid flannel long-sleeved shirt if weather required it. And boots. Almost never tennis shoes. I was “grunge” before Seattle ever thought about it.

What was up with your hair?

What about it? I got it cut when it started bothering me. Still do.

Who were your best friends?

Charles (now Chuck) Mangum, Chuck Persinger, Joe Mueck. But Chuck Persinger went to a different high school, and Joe moved to Florida the year before.

Did you take the bus?

Nope. I had my own car – a 1969 Simca 1118. Not much, but it ran.

What did you do after school?

Worked in a movie theater.

Who did you have a crush on?

Martha Ann Wagner. That was a long-standing one, too. One of the reasons I got the job in the theater. Never panned out, though.

Did you fight with your parents?

No, my brother did all of that. My parents and I got along fine.

Who did you have a CELEBRITY crush on?

I’m sure I must have had one, but I couldn’t tell you who, now. Probably Kate Jackson from the original Charlie’s Angels.

Did you smoke cigarettes?

Nope. My parents did, and my brother did, but I never could understand why someone would want to do that.

Did you lug all of your books around in your backpack all day because you were too nervous to find your locker?

You know, I’m not sure if I started using a backpack in high school, or if it waited until I started college. Probably college. It wasn’t a big high school.

Did you have a ‘clique’?

Hell no. I think I made a point of not fitting in anywhere.

Did you have Chili’s? Denny’s?

Not then.

Who did you want to be just like?

I can’t name anybody in particular.

What did you want to be when you grew up?

Well off.

Where did you think you’d be at the age you are now?

About where I am now. May be a little more well off.

Read Michael Bane’s Take on Lawsuit Preemption Legislation

I think he’s spot-on, myself.

The firearms industry is queasy about supporting .50 calibers. That’s because many of the Powers-That-Be come from hunting/shotgun sports backgrounds, and they’re uncomfortable with us barbarians from the practical pistol/tactical/long-range rifle buzz gun side of playpen.

Gun industry protection has been re-introduced in both the House and Senate. The antigunners — crippled, unable to raise funds, desperate for an issue that gets them back in the game — are trying to generate enough heat around .50s and “armor-piercing ammunition” to allow them to cut a deal on pre-emption. The antigunners suck it up and accept firearms industry protection against lawsuits if we sell out the .50s and the 5.7 X 28.

Michael’s recommendation?

• Keep up the heat on CNN.

• Let our industry representatives know where we stand.

To that I would add, let our elected representatives know where we stand, too.