If you want to understand what the difference between the ends justifies the means culture of today & what we once had, this bit from Jay Nordlinger’s latest nails it:

At the U.S. Open, Matthew Fitzpatrick, the U.S. amateur champion, called a penalty on himself. This occasioned some praise in the press, as it should, really. But I couldn’t help thinking of Bobby Jones — who in the 1925 Open called a penalty on himself. He wound up losing the tournament by a stroke. Praised for his honesty and sportsmanship, he bridled, saying, “You may as well praise a man for not robbing a bank.”
In other words, “I am not a cheater.”

If you aren’t reading Jay Nordlinger you should be.

People often get confused by my position on the GOP establishment.

On the one hand I’m constantly hitting the establishment GOP in general and members of the establishment such as Sen Cornyn & Brown and regularly supporting and encouraging Tea Party candidates in primaries who oppose them.

On the other hand when such candidates run in general elections such as Gabe Gomez & Mitt Romney I support them and urge others to do so.

I’ve tried to explain this many times but I’d have a tough time making my case better than Jay Nordlinger did:

Obama has nominated Debo Adegbile to be the assistant attorney general for civil rights. Mona Charen devoted a column to the nominee, here. Adegbile appears to be a leftist out of Central Casting: a champion of racial quotas, a believer in “customary international law,” when American law proves inconvenient, etc.

He defended Mumia Abu Jamal, natch — Abu Jamal is the Left’s favorite cop-killer. (He killed a Philadelphia officer named Daniel Faulkner in 1981.)

In short, Adegbile is a conservative’s nightmare. And he will be hard, if not impossible, to block, because Harry Reid and his party control the Senate.

That’s the other side of the coin, I support Karen Testerman for Senate in NH. In Texas I like Dwayne Stovall and will make the case for them both to anyone who will listen.

But if they fail to win their primaries I’ll also support whoever the GOP nominee is in both state so that when the next Debo Adegbile comes down the pike he can be stopped.

I would ask all those who disagree to ask themselves this exit question courtesy of Mr. Nordlinger:

Who would Mitt Romney’s secretary of state have been? John Bolton, or someone like him?

Who would Romney’s attorney general be? And the assistant AG for civil rights? Who would John McCain’s AG and assistant AGs be?

That’s the bottom line

…because he says things lie this:

The Obama-Biden line this year might be rendered as follows: “We inherited a mess. We thought we could fix it in one term. But we need more time. Give us another term, please.” (I’m not sure they say “please.”)

Contrast this with the Reagan example. He too inherited a mess. The first years were brutal. In January 1983, the New York Times published an editorial called “The Failing Presidency.” It began, “The stench of failure hangs over Ronald Reagan’s White House. The people know it, judging by the opinion polls.”

Certainly by the time 1984 rolled around, however, we were rolling. Reagan curbed government and unleashed the power of people in a free economy. He was opposed by the likes of Joe Biden — not to mention the New York Times — every step of the way. emphasis mine

This is an important history lesson, in his previous column he delivered another one.

Ken Livingstone is going back to his erstwhile employer, Press TV. This is an English-language arm of the Iranian dictatorship. Livingstone is an old Communist, known throughout his career as “Red Ken.” He was taught to hate all things conservative, religious, right-wing, fundamentalist. That was his commitment.

And now he’s working for the mullahs? How can this be? You know how: The radical Left goes wherever the anti-Western action is, always. The form matters little.

There is a reason the left needs history re-written, if it is not and people remember it, nobody would turn to them. Jay Nordlinger calls them on it constantly.

Read Him

Jay Nordlinger’s Impromptus is out today (read the whole thing) and the opening on Justice Roberts Old Yellowstain was devastating.

Let me add two cents — not so much mine as those of a wise judge I know. “Incompetent,” he said. Roberts’s ruling was incompetent. “Silly, absurd, not worthy of respect. Ruth Bader Ginsburg was far more reasonable in her argument.” (Yikes!) “If a district-court judge pulled a stunt like the one Roberts pulled, he would be reversed by the next court in about two seconds.”…I said, “So, do you think Bush 43 may have inadvertently saddled us with another Warren Burger?” “No!” said the judge. “Burger would never have written something so stupid” as the Roberts ruling. “He was not incompetent.”

That is pretty bad and as Justice Roberts Old Yellowstain apparently reads the opinion pages that’s going to smart but for an honorable man the remarks within the … would be the most painful.

In the deepest cut of all, the judge said, “Roberts failed to do his duty — his constitutional duty. He’s not supposed to be looking at the political situation. He’s not supposed to think about his ‘legacy.’ He’s supposed to uphold the Constitution, plain and simple. The majority decision will come to be embarrassing. The dissent will stand as something true and admirable.”

As I’ve said before that courage is the virtue that is required before all others because without courage no virtue can stand.

When the country split into the secular and the traditional cultures the value of honor and an oath dissipated as the utilitarian nature of the secular infused the media. But there was a time when an oath and one’s honor meant something and to violate such an oath could only be justified in an extreme circumstance and even then one felt bad about it. Conservative still value such virtues and that is what makes this ruling so devastating to the Chief Justice’s reputation.

One can give a mulligan for a bad decision and one might even forgive and celebrate the positive political result that will come of this in November, but until and unless the issue of caving under pressure is addressed, either by a denial or by and admission with regret I’m afraid I won’t have it in me to trust Justice Roberts Old Yellowstain when the next big issue comes around.


The DaTechGuy Fundraiser is in progress, our goal is $3000 and any help is appreciated. I may not have the pedigree of a Justice Roberts but I promise not to cut and run when the MSM says BOO!

For details click here for the progress check the thermometer to the right and to kick in hit DaTipJar”.

Pam Geller has written about the Media embargo of 9/11 images often. If you wonder why that embargo is so important to the totalitarian left Jay Nordlinger discovers it at the Oslo Freedom Forum:

Manal al-Sharif, you have also met. She’s the young Saudi woman who broke the taboo against driving. She is a heroine throughout the Arab world (and beyond). Here’s something I did not know about her: She was once an Islamist, a supporter of al-Qaeda.

The “turning point” for her, she says, was 9/11. “I saw a man throwing himself from one of the towers. He was escaping the fire. That night, I couldn’t sleep. I couldn’t get that man out of my mind. ‘Something is wrong here,’ I thought. ‘No religion on earth can accept such mercilessness and cruelty.’

“So, I saw that my heroes were nothing but bloody terrorists, and that was the turning point in my life.”

The atheist says that God doesn’t exist period, let alone exists in the hearts of men. This woman was an Islamist, a supporter of Al-Qaeda. She was brought up in a religion where the life of the unbeliever was without value and yet, seeing this image something changed inside her.

It’s good to know that even in this horrible event, the seeds of positive change can grow.

This morning we talked about the left’s blind spot for dictator’s In Jay Nordlinger Impromptus yesterday he points out that the dictators and their families know who they are and who they love:

Mutassim (Qaddafi Gaddafi whatever) had a Dutch girlfriend, a nudie model. Here is a snippet from a Telegraph article: “The hedonist son also had ambitions for power, inspired by his father’s example. ‘He worshipped his father,’ Miss Van Zon said. ‘He talked a lot about Hitler, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez. He liked leaders who had a lot of power.’”

Oh, yeah.

By the way, what must a certain class of liberal think, when they see their heroes Castro and Chávez grouped with Hitler?

What indeed! I’m sure journalists will be scrupulously neutral on it.

Yesterday the AP reported on the existence of a group that has kept NY City safe since 9/11

Working with the CIA, the New York Police Department maintained a list of “ancestries of interest” and dispatched undercover officers to monitor Muslim businesses and social groups, according to new documents that offer a rare glimpse inside an intelligence program the NYPD insists doesn’t exist.

This is the type of thing of course that one would hope a sane government would do. The writer’s opinion on the subject however comes out in the next sentence:

The documents add new details to an Associated Press investigation that explained how undercover NYPD officers singled out Muslim communities for surveillance and infiltration.

Singled out! That’s like writing that Donnie Brasco singled out Italians for surveillance and infiltration of organized crime.

Jay Nordlinger starts out his impromptus column today commenting on this saying:

Here is a headline from yesterday: “Inside the spy unit that NYPD says doesn’t exist.” Well, I wish it were still under wraps.

He then says something that I think perfectly encapsulates what is wrong with liberalism in general and the western press in particular:

At some point in the mid-2000s, I was at Davos, making some comments on the War on Terror. I said that I was not a “neutralist” in this matter — that I was on a “side”: the side of the United States and civilization against barbarism. I also said that I was a citizen before I was a journalist.

The gasps in the room were audible, as were the groans. As was the scorn. I think one or two people may have had heart attacks. I had simply scandalized the room — which seemed so weird.

Long ago, I read something somewhere — don’t know whether it’s true. I read that Edward R. Murrow had a sign in his London office, saying, “It is more important to win the war than to report on it.”

Until the elites figure that out, they will be nothing more than useful idiots.

It is important to realize that this is not a new attitude, it was the thought process of the MSM long before there was an internet and Fox to push back at it. Remember the Ethics in America series on PBS and the famous exchange between Peter Jennings, Mike Wallace

This was recorded in 1989. How many times in the decades before and after this before there was the counterweight of the new media and Fox did this attitude shape the coverage of the United States, its military and their approach toward the cold war. How much history did it mold? I’ll tell you this, it is likely responsible for what Noah Pollak described in this piece concerning Liberal Jews on Israel:

No, what is interesting about the collective opinion of the Juicebox Mafia is the proposed rule of just war: Whoever kills more is the guilty party. This amounts to a total rejection of the distinction between aggression and self-defense and indeed the entire concept of deterrence. Taken to its logical conclusion, moral victory becomes impossible, because the moment one side has dispatched with a greater number of enemy than casualties have been suffered, justice has been forfeited. The only means of ethical conduct is pure immolation — which is indeed the prescription for Israel, which is expected to behave as the only true Christian nation on earth, responding to attacks by endlessly turning the other cheek.

There is something else about the Juicebox Mafia that is grating beyond its simple inanity: The only time its members write about Israel is when they can condemn it. The truth of the matter is that they have nothing invested in Israel other than their American liberalism and their Jewish surnames. Being a Jewish critic of Israel is ever so much more compelling and melodramatic than being just another leftist critic of Israel: Instead of trafficking in banalities, one can claim disillusionment, embarrassment, and betrayal. Pardon me if I call this out for what it is — moral preening and pure cynicism.

(Ht Josh Trevino on Twitter)

There is no right or wrong, there is only Journalism! If you want to see a perfect example of the Two cultures of America, this is it.

Update: Missed a link, fixed.

Update 2: Instalance, thanks Glenn, but isn’t it a sad commentary on the west that such a post even has to be written?

And don’t miss DaTechGuy on DaRadio this Saturday and every Saturday at 10 a.m. EST on WCRN AM 830 Worcester streaming at wcrnradio.com

Dial 508-438-0965 or 1-888-9-FEDORA

Today in the middle of a titanic struggle with a piece that just didn’t seem to be going places I took the time to enjoy Jay Nordlinger’s wonderful Impromptus and I noticed this bit.

I meant to write something more than a month ago: Rejoice over Cynthia Tucker, and say a little prayer of gratitude for what she did. She is an acclaimed columnist for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution — liberal, of course. And what she did was very hard. In fact, it’s one of the hardest things to do: She changed her mind about an important issue, and said so. What’s more, the issue has to do with race. What’s more, the columnist is black.

He goes on about how we should rejoice about both her column and her reversal on racial gerrymandering.

The political landscape has been transformed since the Voting Rights Act was passed in 1965 and amended 17 years later. The election of a black president shows that American voters are willing to look beyond a candidate’s skin color. It’s time to give up racial gerrymandering, which turned out not to be quite so benign.

How big of her, how delightful, Nordlinger rejoices saying we should welcome Tucker “coming over to our side” her late conversion not withstanding on race. He also credits her with bravery for it.

Do you think this column was easy to write? I’m sure you don’t.

You know I’m often accused (rightly) of looking at the world with rose-colored glasses and being a sucker; but this time I hate to say Jay, it is you who are being the sucker and it is my duty to bring you to reality.

I think that column was incredibly easy for Cynthia Tucker to write. I think it has nothing to do with mea culpas or soul-searching and everything to do with stopping the tide of conservatism that the liberal media has been unable to check.

Take a closer look at the column, note what her actual argument is, you will find it is less Martin Amis than Al Sharpton:

Hemming most black voters into a few districts also had a deleterious effect on surrounding areas, now “bleached” of voters whose interests tend toward equality of opportunity.

Ah so they are “Hemming most black voters” and “bleaching” voters. Never mind that all we are talking about is drawing invisible district lines, the imagery is of slave pens and segregation of black voters displaced as if they were packed up and forced to move.

Believe it or not it actually gets worse (emphasis mine):

Their absence encourages pols in districts left overwhelmingly white to use the “Southern strategy” of playing to the resentments of white voters still uncomfortable with decades of social change.

So now it’s all about White voters “uncomfortable with social change”. What change would that be? The end of Jim crow? The End of Slavery perhaps? It would seem to me that Ms. Tucker is saying to liberals something like: The GOP is playing to a bunch of crackers who are still angry about drinking from the same water fountain as a black man.. Anyone who doubts that our liberal friends (particularly ones of color) are not getting that message from that sentence has never read the comment pages of liberal sites where such belief is Gospel.

It seems to be she hasn’t thrown away the race card, she just switched from Whist to Bridge because her trump isn’t taking the hand anymore. Tucker Again:

If black voters think they have made substantial gains simply by having more black representatives in Congress, they’re wrong. They’d have more influence if they were spread through several legislative districts, forcing more candidates to court them.

That’s true, but it is equally true that if Blacks were voting even 60-40 democratic there would be a whole lot less incentive for the GOP to gerrymander their districts in this fashion. The truth is if every Black voter in Georgia woke up white tomorrow the districts would still be drawn the same way because it’s not a question of pigmentation it’s a question of voting patterns. Uniform Black voting patterns simply make it easier to identify the Democratic voters to gerrymander.

Indeed if Black voters want to increase their influence perhaps they should reconsider voting 90-10 for a party that in 40 years decimated the black family in the name of compassion, emasculated public schools (how’s that system in Atlanta working out) and ignored their positions on social issues like gay marriage.

I don’t know what Jay was reading but I think that column is self-serving. It has nothing to do about ending racial divisions, it’s about bringing liberals back from the brink that the voters sent them. Note that she constantly quotes South Carolina Democratic party Chairman Richard Harpootlian on the evils of majority minority districts. The real evil Harpootlian sees is the election of Republicans. I suspect a more honest take on his position might read like this:

My paramount object is to restore democrats to power in congress and is not for or against majority-minority districts.

If I can elect democrats by keeping majority-minority districts I would do it, If I can elect democrats to congress by abolishing majority-minority districts I would do it, and if I can elect democrats to congress by eliminating majority-minority districts in some places while keeping them in others I would do that too.

If Jay thinks that any other goal is driving Ms. Tucker on this issue, he is sadly mistaken.

On the hidden costs of evil

Just imagine how many more Nobel prizes would have gone to Jews if the Nazis and their allies hadn’t murdered two-thirds of them

I wonder how many potential Nobel prize winners in the US have ended up in medical waste containers in the name of “choice” over the last four decades?

As a rule one should always read Jay Nordlinger but this paragraph of his latest hit me:

So I see this headline: “Fetal surgery better for kids with spine defect.” It is over this article. And I’m thinking, What the hay? Surgery on . . . what? A “meaningless blob of protoplasm”? (That was a big phrase at one time.) Some irrelevant thing within the body, perfectly abortable?

I grew up with a slogan: “A fetus in a woman’s womb has no more standing than a hamburger in her stomach.” (That was a pro-abortion slogan, in case you’re wondering.) Now they’re operating on that hamburger?

As I said, science and reality eventually prevail against the mental and lingusitic hoops people use to justify slaughtering their children.