Posse Incitatus

Friend of the Working Girl

Modern American women are often torn between whether they should work outside the home or stay home and raise their kids.  There are good reasons for either path and many of these depend greatly upon the circumstances.

Having made their choice, many women often doubt if they have made the correct one.  They either think of the career they might have had or the time they missed with their children.

In either case, do not question their decisions.  No matter which way you lean personally, you are guaranteed to piss them off.  Just stay away from the whole discussion.  You cannot win.

Oh, and even dumber – don’t stake out a public position.  That’s just suicidal.

Kudos to the Dems for wading into that quagmire.  Couldn’t happen to a nicer more deserving bunch of people.

 

The Zimmerman Distraction

Having watched the ongoing circus that is the Zimmerman Distraction for a few days, I think that there are two three items driving the publicity:

1.  The Obama Administration badly needs to fire up African-American voters.  A modern-day lynching is essential to keeping high turnout going into the fall election.

2.  If Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and the rest of the racial hustlers are to remain solvent, they need some incidents to feed off of - regardless if whether they fit the template.  Times are hard for these guys.  With so many interracial couples and a black man in the White House, it's just not as credible to claim that there are Klansmen behind every shrub.

3.  The MSM always loves a good race-riot story and this fits with their worldview, which hasn't changed since 1972.

Unfortunately for these groups, things are not likely to work out as they imagine.  For one thing, Zimmerman isn't white, he's Hispanic.  This, combined with Obama's nascent war on the Catholic Church, is likely to drive a deep wedge between the Latino and Black communities. 

This is of course the problem with playing tribal politics - eventually you create too many enemies.  But that's all the Dems know, so that's what they are doing.

THE REAL TRAGEDY:  While protest marches spring up across the country, we should note that Detroit is still a hellhole, Flint is a debacle and an entire generation of black children are trapped in decaying schools where - despite the expenditure of huge sums of money - they will get almost no education.  A few lucky ones will escape, but for the rest it is either the welfare dole or prison.

I have said it before, and I will say it again:  If one set out to utterly ruin a people, one could not easily exceed what the Democrats have achieved in Chicago, Detroit and the other urban nightmares.

But it does not do to dwell on this, because people might wonder who was responsible, so let's get all worked up over a shooting in Florida.

The Fruits of the "Fish Doctrine"

After a few days away from the ranch, I am pleased to see my beloved Spartans still in the Big Dance and the hated Skunk Bears bounced early by a MAC team from Ohio.

While I was away, a fellow with the unlikely name of Stanley Fish outlined the new set of rules for discourse:  Liberals can do anything they want because they are good while conservatives must always be abused because they are bad.

Much of the commentary in reaction to this has focused on how it reveals the hollow core at the center of the left, but to truly appreciate the implications we must (as usual) turn to the Belmont Club:

It is not correct to argue that ideology excuses everything; and provided that you mean well all is permissible. It doesn’t work that way. The Universe has an uncanny way of keeping score. You can run from consequences, but ultimately you can never hide.

 Indeed, but there is more to it than that.  There are to implications to the “Fish Doctrine” that I have not yet seen mentioned.

The first is that it ultimately demoralizes and therefore undermines the cause that adopts it.  Liberals like feeling good about themselves – and being revealed to be amoral hypocrites causes those good feelings to go away.  While it is true that the DC-Beltway liberal establishment has always had a Machiavellian core, the vast majority of the liberal base actually does believe in what it espouses. 

For those people to learn that their leaders are simply playing them and willing to throw anyone under the bus for the pursuit of greater power is to finally wake up and realize that the Easter Bunny isn’t coming and never came.

Some will defect to conservatism in outrage, but the more likely reaction is apathy and withdrawal from the political scene – something the Obama campaign is already seeing.

The second - and more severe - consequence is that by announcing that adherence to liberalism carries with it the forgiveness of all sins, liberalism will find itself attracting those with the most sins to forgive.

The left is now the avenue for those who crave power to gain it, and the ongoing advertisement that one can get away with giving full vent to the hatred within.  Anyone with anger issues or a need to settle scores is open to apply.

The fruits of this are already on display with the Occupy movement, and the media is dutifully airbrushing away the rapes, assaults and other crimes.

The end result of this second effect is to permanently alienate the vital center.  While it may hearten the liberal cadre to know they can get away with anything, ultimately the brand will suffer irreparable damage.

There is an old saying that liberals want conservatives to shut up while conservatives want liberals to keep talking.  This is one of those instances.

How to torture language (and logic)

In the response to my post on how liberals hate religious minorities, commenter Marcus Aurelius offers this specimen of the latest Dem talking points:

Yup. Giving people access to birth control is all about controlling them. That's how it works. Heaven forbid that people should have access to affordable birth control. The gov't isn't making you use it, it's just making sure that it's covered under your employer's health care plan. You don't have to be employed. Or even employed with a health care plan.

I emphasized the key words because they are essential to understand the way in which liberals are torturing both language and logic to make their case.

Let there be no mistake - this is not about access to birth control, it is about compelling religious minorities to pay for it under pain of law.

If you want birth control, there is nothing to stop you from getting it.  Given that contractives are both cheap and easily obtainable, there is no logical reason to compel third parties to pay for it - unless you are trying to drive home a point.

Indeed, Planned Parenthood's core mission is supposedly to provide free birth control.  What else do they do with the millions of dollars they recieve each and every year?  (Answer:  kill babies, but I digress.)

Note the language of the second sentence:  "The gov't isn't making you use it, it's just making sure that it's covered under your employer's health care plan."

But it is making you pay for it, even though you may find it morally abhorrent.  Using the exact same logic, the government could compel Jews and Muslims to purchase pork so long as they aren't made to eat it.  And actually, the case for compulsory purchase of pork is better since hunger can kill you, wherease lack of sex won't (though millions of teenage men have sworn to the contrary).

Moreover, what if both employer and employee don't want this coverage?  What compelling state interest is at stake by making Catholic Charities pay to provide The Pill to blue-haired ladies? 

The argument that this is about access is therefore a false one.  Every study undertaken in the last two decades has found that the number of people who want birth control and somehow can't get it is statistically meaningless.  For those that somehow can't afford it (can't come up with $30 a month?  Seriously?) there are numerous charities out there.

What this mandate is really about is power and control.

Also, while I too prefer the notion of simply refraining from making babies, it's really not an option for some people. It's bizarre to wrap one's mind around, but sometimes people have sex without enthusiastic consent, in order to gain something else. But hey, so long as it's not your problem, right?

You're right, it is not my problem. Nor is it an issue of national importance - certainly not one that requires federal government intervention.

The core issue at stake is the abuse of power.  A government that can order people to purchase things against their will can also order their use.  That is the supreme irony of the liberal argument.

(Edited for some typos)

 

Liberals to religious minorities: Shut up and do what we say

One of the strangest arguments in defense of the Obama Administration’s demand that Catholic institutions buy birth control is the notion that since most Catholics privately use birth control, it’s okay to make the Church’s charitable arms pay for it.

Comment threads all over the InterTubes are littered with the assertion that “98% of Catholics use birth control,” so this makes the administration’s diktat perfectly okay.

But what about the liberal concern for minorities?

For a bunch of folks who are ostensibly all about diversity, the modern left sure does love itself some authoritarian conformity, doesn’t it?

Old and Busted:  Respect the cultures and beliefs of minorities, especially if they are small.

New Hotness:  Conform to the majority, cultist freaks!

The whole point of the Constitution was to limit the power of government and protect the rights of individuals.  The Bill of Rights extended these protections even more, seeking to prevent the “tyranny of the majority” from oppressing the minority.

For the Obama Administration, thought, the fact that a minority is being oppressed is a feature, not a bug.  In this bearded-Spock world, the new mantra is “the wants of the many (voters) far outweigh the rights of the few, or the one.”  (Yes, I said “wants” because birth control is a want, not a need.  You don’t need free pills to not have children, you simply have to refrain from the act of conceiving them.)

I think that there are several reasons Obama and his minions are pushing this.

The first is that they love the power of telling other people what to do.  That’s just a given.

The second is that they particularly like sticking it to the Catholic Church.

The third is that they get to sing the virtues of Population Control, something the left has never given up on and is once again touting as the Solution To All The World’s Problems.

For the dedicated liberal, it’s still 1972 and the Population Bomb is going to go off any minute now.  The fact that affluent American women don’t receive cases of The Pill for free is now the Greatest Injustice Evah.  What, you might have to pay $30 out of pocket for some form of birth control?  Patriarchal oppression!

Seriously, that’s the way these people think.

If you think about it, it is the perfect inversion of the old “Keep Your Laws Off My Body” argument.  For the new liberals, the federal government should control everything about your body.  It was never about individual freedom, it was about power and control.

Further proof – if any was needed - that liberals are really authoritarians at heart.

Gingrich resurgent

As the almost total absence of my posts on the GOP primary demonstrates, I have little interest in the three-ring circus that has been playing out for almost a year.

One thing is clear:  Newt Gingrich has struck a nerve.  He also annoys a lot of Republicans who are convinced that his high negatives and long-ago political baggage render him ineligible for the nomination.

To this people, I have one word:  Hillary.

I seem to recall her being an incredibly unpopular figure, polarizing, grating, tainted with corruption and denounced by both right and left as a Machiavellian manipulator with ice-water in her veins.

Yet somehow, she became a viable candidate in 2008 - so much so that it was only the Democrats' bizarre "super delegate" system that allowed Obama to achieve the nomination.  He could win caucuses, but not primarly elections.

How could the woman who brought us the missing Rose Law Firm Billing Records, the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy and a dozen other egregious insults now be considered not only viable but - in many circles - preferable to the current president?

It boggles the mind.

GIngrich has far less baggage in that regard.  He is familiar, but comfortably retro as well - a divisive figure with more lines and perhaps a little more wisdom than when he was last in the public eye.

He has a reputation for saying stupid things - which I am sure the man who brought us 57 states and Navy Corpsemen will not really want to bring up.

I carry no water for Gingrich, as I've noted before.  I simply wish to point out that public opinion is fluid and often flows contrary to expectations and what the media wants.  The fact that Gingrich is already being roasted alive (gotta love the ex-wife being trotted out) and somehow is still in the race shows that all the baggage he's carrying may not be all that heavy.

It also shows that in a campaign certain to be nasty, the guy with the thick skin who can dish it out as well as take it has the edge.

 

The agony of defeat

 I did not watch the game.  I was busy Saturday and caught a few minutes on the radio and had to get up early Sunday.  I went to bed with the halftime score in my head and had beautiful dreams of roses.

Talk about a rude awakening.

Because controversy sells, there is a lot of it right now about how the Skunk Bears have “leap-frogged” MSU to get a BCS bowl despite finishing lower in the conference and losing the head-to-head game.

Now is a good time to remind people that college football is about making money, nothing else.  I personally like making money, and I laud the efforts of those that do so by creating something of value.  College football is great entertainment, and I wish the various athletic departments the best (well, not Penn State for obvious reasons).

Why is Michigan going to the Sugar Bowl?  Ratings.  Ticket sales. Money. 

Like Rick Blaine in “Casablanca,” it isn’t that I have no sympathy for the fox, I simply understand the point of view of the hound.

Bowl committees are there to make money.  They don’t much care who plays, they are entirely focused on revenue from ticket sales and television viewers.  Bigger names mean more of both.

This leads to my second point:  The BCS is not about quality.

Let me repeat that:  It is not about quality, it is about money.

The polls are nothing more than a popularity contest and “computer rankings” are a giant electronic thumb that is placed to the scale to ensure the desired result.

I want to be clear:  I have no problem with this.

None.

College football has always been a popularity contest.   Back in the day, there were multiple championships and the team that had the truly most impressive season was dubbed the “consensus national champion.”  Otherwise you’d get several:  UPI, AP, and so on.

Now we have one:  The BCS.  They get a crystal football and lots of attention.

But the fact is that these teams are not necessarily the best, merely the most popular.

So, having made it clear that I have no problem with this setup, what is my problem?

The mendacity.

The pretense that teams are something they are not.

Michigan is not a better team than MSU.  We know this.  It is certain.

But its brand is more popular.  For a variety of historical reasons, Spartan Nation is smaller and less influential than the Cult of Bo.

It is a sad fact, but a fact all the same.

Another fact:  The sports-industrial complex hates change.  The rise of upstart powers upsets too many apple carts and so when Michigan went into eclipse, it was inevitable that the Powers That Be would do everything they could to put them back on the top.

I do not have a problem with this fact either, I just am annoyed by the lies that must accompany it.

The sports pages are already filled with glowing tributes to the “Skunk Bear Revival” and how greatness has returned to Ann Arbor.

Whatever.

The Wolverines had one good game this season:  They beat Nebraska.  That was it.

Otherwise, they ran up the score on crappy teams, played eight games at home, beat a 6-5 OSU squad under a temporary coach, and avoided the Wisconsin juggernaut. 

Congratulations on those accomplishments.

And now they are puffing out their chests with pride that the BCS has proved itself to be corrupt as everyone knew it was.

It would be a simple thing to use computers to create a football RPI and sift through strength of schedule, margin of victory and so forth to create a ranking based on overall team quality.  College basketball does this.

But that would hurt schools like U-M that trade on their reputation and their glorious victories over cross-town rival Eastern Michigan.

In the short term, the Spartans have but one option:  Keep winning.  In the long term, the university should throw its weight and push for some change.  We got hosed last year and took it on the chin again this year.  Until the university is willing to do something serious, the treatment will go on.

 

Nuts for Newt?

I'm trying to stay away from politics, but I must protest the weight of hatred that the conservative media is throwing at Newt Gingrich.  Yes, he's a little nutty:  Sorry guys, that comes with the territory these days.  Given the media environment, no sane human being would run for president.

I find Mark Steyn's attitude particularly troublesome.  One of Mark's great heroes is of course Churchill, and certainly Gingrich would love the comparison.

But the fact that Newt likes it doesn't mean it isn't apt.

Pre-1940, Churchill was a world-class failure.  He drank like a fish, was grossly overweight and an ego that makes Newt look shy and self-deprecating.

In terms of policy and office, he had switched parties twice, launched the Dardanelles disaster and acquired a reputation as a wholly unpricipled mercenary on the constant lookout for glory - at any cost.

Now one can argue that Churchill got a bum rap on some of those allegations, but that's what people thought about him at the time.

History is replete with failures who kept failing until they somehow achieved greatness.  Abraham Lincoln comes to mind.  Ulyssess S. Grant also.  Say what you want, but at least Newt hasn't surrendered his forces to the enemy - something George Washington had to endure.

My point is not that Gingrich is the second coming of any of these folks, but merely that the knocks I've seen against him are not particularly damning.

Perhaps the most annoying is the idea that he cannot appeal to a wide enough electorate, that's he's somehow too polarizing.  I disagree.  I would like to point out that HILLARY CLINTON is viewed as a viable candidate these days, and they don't get more polarizing than her.

Gingrich may have been a firebrand in the day, but that was long ago.  His reputation is "baked in the cake" and his debating skills are superb.  So long as he can remain disciplined, he's likely to do well, and his attacks on Obama are sharp and keen.  The fact that the president's idiot minions are looking forward to running against him only demonstrates their own stupidity.

F. Scott Fitzgerald memorably said that there were so no second acts in American life, but he's wrong.  Nixon came back, and Gingrich may as well.  Given the field, we could do a lot worse.

 

The Carrier Classic was brought to you by the Obama re-election campaign

Well, tough break for the Spartans.  They looked good for a while there, but the kids in the Powder Blue Argyll jerseys were too much.  After watching North Carolina take control I ceded control of the television and busied myself with gun cleaning.

Overall, it was a cool event and the pause for evening colors was great.

I was, however, a bit put-off by Presidet Obama showing up and basically taking things over.  What is it with this guy?

I'm trying to think of a recent president that would have walked down to center court and done a mini-election plug like that.  Even Bill Clinton would have been content to wave from the stands and acknowledge the crowd.

You see, it wasn't about him.

Yet our Narcissist-in-Chief acts like everything is better once he touches it.  When he started on the "that's why I've signed into law..." I couldn't believe it.  Absolutely no class.

As for the rest of the presentation, it was great.  And of course because he was the president, no one could tell him not to talk on a Navy ship.  Pure, unadulterated abuse of power to hijack an unrelated event - an event that had nothing at all to do with him.

To some folks, this is nitpicking, which is fine.  But it would be nice for those of us who are getting burned out on politics to be able to watch a freaking college basketball game without the president popping into tell us how great he is.

Enough already.

Inside the Wolverine bunker

The Detroit News has been publishing excerpts of “Three and Out: Rich Rodriguez and the Michigan Wolverines in the Crucible of College Football,” by a fellow with the unlikely (but flavorful) name of John U. Bacon.

Normally I cannot be bothered to venture into the demented world that is Skunk Bear fandom, but I found the excerpts illuminating.

They proved that I was correct in assuming that the chaos in finding Lloyd Carr’s replacement as football head coach was the result of two factors:  Michigan’s inflated self-image and sabotage by Carr himself.

This is one of those telling quotes authors love:

"If I had to put my finger on anything," said longtime faculty representative Percy Bates, "it's this notion that, 'This is Michigan. Once the job is open, they're going to be banging my door down, and I'm going to pick and choose among all these great candidates. The only question is, which of these great coaches will I invite to accept the honor of coaching at Michigan?'

Yep, that pretty much sums up the Wolverine mindset.  They figured that once the position was open, applicants would be knocking down their door.

The problem is that anyone worth having already has a decent coaching job and would therefore be unlikely to jeopardize that by applying for work elsewhere.  Sooner or later the news would get out, and then their own players and assistants would wonder.

Essentially the fools in the Michigan Athletic Department figured that top-shelf candidates would willingly risk their own careers for the mere chance of coaching in the Big House.  It’s clinically deluded behavior.

The cruel truth was that U-M had been in a skid for years.  Even its best year in the last 40 – the hallowed1997 season – only brought half of the national title (point this out the next time a Skunk Bear fan argues that MSU’s Big Ten Title is somehow less of an achievement because it is shared).

By 2007, that high point had faded into obscurity to everyone except those wearing Wolverine-pattern do-rags on their mullet and swigging Bo Wine by the case.

Phil Fulmer won an outright national title for Tennessee – and they fired him when the program went down hill.  Fans were angry with Carr’s unimaginative coaching style, ossified play-calling and consistent failure to beat Ohio State.  He knew his days were numbered and the unprecedented loss to Appalachian State only made things worse.  He had to leave before he was kicked out.

Carr’s problem was that none of his assistants were ready to take over.  That was what he really wanted.  How else to explain his erratic behavior after he retired?

LSU’s Les Miles definitely wanted the job, and Carr wanted anyone but him.  Apparently Carr suggested RichRod, and then immediately undercut him by offering to sign transfer waivers for anyone who wanted to leave.  This latter development was the origin of the “bare cupboard” excuse.

It seems to me that either Carr was setting up RichRod to fail because none of his people had a shot, or he was simply irrational.  Either way, the result was the same: the Skunk Bears, who were already shaky, got to experience their own version of the John L. Smith era.

If anything, the excerpts show how important it is for hiring decisions to be made in a far-sighted and deliberate manner.  Like MSU, the Wolverines were in a panic and utterly unprepared to find a replacement.  The outgoing athletic director, Bill Martin, was utterly clueless.  This successor, Dave Brandon, is better but still made questionable decisions.

For one:  Why not fire RichRod for the NCAA violations and avoid the buyout clause in his contract?  Why wait until after the bowl game – a game everyone knew U-M would lose – to drop the axe?

He may have tried to make it look like he wasn’t trying to railroad RichRod, but it should have been clear that RichRod deserved the sack simply through his own ineptitude.  He was a terrible hire and a lousy coach.  He lied about his previous contract with West Virginia and U-M had to pay for most of his buyout.  Consecutive losing seasons despite a velvety-soft schedule built around a preponderance of home games should have told anyone that the Skunk Bears had an awful coach.

As I noted yesterday, U-M is structurally set up to win a minimum of eight games every year simply by showing up.  It takes extra effort to lose to teams like Toledo, yet RichRod managed to pull it off.

This track record is why I remain skeptical of Brady Hoke.  So far, he hasn’t done anything noteworthy.  The offense is the same and while the defense in improved, it took consistent, tireless effort to make it stink as badly as it did under RichRod.  Short of feeding the students valium in the pre-game meal, I don’t see how it could have gotten worse.

Given Michigan’s fan base, financial resources and recruiting pool - a lot of kids in the Midwest dream of playing there because of its reputation and don’t care who is coaching – the U-M football team was never going to be as hapless as the men’s basketball team.  The alumni would not allow it to happen.

The sportswriters are insisting that Hoke won’t let the team melt down, but I’ll believe it when I see it.  It wasn’t that long ago that the Skunk Bear faithful were wearing “May the Forcier Be With You” T-shirts, hailing him as a Heisman prospect.  Where is Tate Forcier now?  He’s a Spartan – no, not that kind – he’s at San Jose State University.

Forcier’s fate exemplified everything that was wrong about how RichRod ran his team. 

Hoke is doing better, but that’s a pretty low bar.

I’m not about to go buy the book, but the excerpts were illuminating.  As they say, read the whole thing.