You Make the Best of What's Still Around

Emmett Tyrell's latest article is about how multiculturalism has failed. He argues that we are to tolerant in the west (particularly Europe) of people who don't like us, and that we teach history wrong.

I think it started with the way they teach their history. Militarism, colonialism and racism are all prominent ingredients of European history books, particularly British history. For that matter, American history stresses these ingredients also. I have been reading American college history texts, and they present an alarmingly ugly view of the Western past.

By presenting the West as repugnant and the other civilizations as our prey, particularly during colonial days but also in modern times, we encourage such social pathologies as jihadism.

I'm curious as to how you teach colonalism without talking about how Western nations preyed on native cultures. My guess is you simply skip over it. Tyrell would probably prefer the "let us now praise great men" version of history where we talk about the founders for half the term, and then blow through the rest of history, with stops at Abraham Lincoln (maybe), denouncing FDR, and wrapping up with the glory of Reagan.

Still this particular nonsense isn't a patch on what you find in the comments section.

Keep in mind that Jeb Bush is married to a woman of Hispanic heritage, another reason why we should never elect another Bush to the presidency. Compassion for the inheritors of failed cultures is not a rational ruling principle for a nation that used to assimilate immigrants in a generation or two but thanks to liberals' smarrny multi-cultural idiocies is not working any more.

european leaders have suddenly discovered that inviting huge numbers of hostile muslims to conquer their countries was not a good idea. brilliant. the obvious can be sooooooooo difficult to see. now they must decide what to do about it. there is only one reasonable answer, and that is the one answer the "leaders" will never ever suggest. lets see. we invited muslims who are breeding like rats, become increasingly murderous with each generation, and are demographically certain to overrun the continent in a few years. what to do............what to do..........lets see. in a decade there will be so many that we will not be able to get rid of them. lets wait 10 years. yes, thats it. lets continue to import muslims until it is too late to do anything but surrender. then we surrender!!!!!!!!!!!!! the cathedral of notre dame will make such a nice mosque. the sistine chapel will be a nice place for the sultan to molest little christian boys. nice plan, "leaders"

The answer is kill them all before they kill us.

Sending them back or putting them in ghettos are terrible ideas. No, extermination would be much more feasible, practical and makes much more sense. After all, sending members of a murderous cult to another part of the world does not negate them as threats. Six feet of dirt, however, does.

Pretty nasty stuff, from some Conservatives. Of course there are other conservatives who would disagree with these posters.

Transparency

Emmett Tyrell's latest article is particularly transparent. He is writing about Chris Coons, Christine O'Donnels opponent in her race. Tyrrel's point is the media lets Coons of the hook while slamming into O'Donnel.

But do you know what was being taught at the Yale Divinity School when Coons was there as a graduate student? Witchcraft! Had Christine been a bit older and presumably sophisticated, she could have attended classes with Chris and been taught witchcraft by scholars. Perhaps she could have earned a Ph.D. in the mysteries of reading chicken entrails.

Along with classes in witchcraft, there were classes in queer worship and feminist/womanist/gendered theologies, and in the Intro to Christian Ethics II, there was black liberation theology, a study Coons first picked up in Africa. Were the "values" taught in these classes among those absorbed by Coons at YDS? We do not know because Coons is not answering Lord's calls for him to release his transcripts.

. . . His promise to apply the values he learned at YDS does not even call into question what those values might be. Queer worship? Feminist/womanist/gendered theology? Black liberation theology? Witchcraft? The press is too busy digging up dirt on O'Donnell.

Apparently if you study at a university that teaches some flakey courses, you must have taken them and you must be a flake. Here's a newsflash - even Brigham Young University (where I attended, a very conservative Mormon college) has flakey courses. Or, to be more accurate, courses with titles that sound flakey. So this is pretty sad.

And of course Christine O'Donnel's more serious transgressions involve the misappropriation of election funds.

Mosques and Obvious Lies

Emmett Tyrell's latest article concerns the Mosque issue, and particularly Obama's decision to speak out on it. It's a common response; Obama is inexperience and stupid and out of touch or he would never have gotten involved in this particular SNAFU. While Tyrell pretty clearly attacks the Cordoba Center, at least he isn't calling Obama a secret Muslim.

Still he does tell a bit of a fib.

It put me in mind of his inability to defuse the controversy over health care. Any sensible president would have relented as opposition to health care reform grew to the majority position. He would have settled for some sort of compromise, but not the community organizer turned president. He wanted it all. He lunged on and created among the electorate a row over national health care that divided the nation and put some of us in mind of a civil war that continues to rage.

What a nasty lie. In fact Obama abandoned single payer immediately, and abandoned the public option not long afterwords. Yes the Health Reform bill improved a few things, but to pretend that the White House was unwilling to compromise is just to deny reality. They compromised enormously, and frankly more than they should have based on how many Republican supported the final bill.

As for the Mosque issue, and Islam in general, check out this post at the Slactivist, and consider who nice it is to be a Christian when it comes to the apology department.

Going on the Offensive

Emmet Tyrell's latest article strikes a pretty aggressive tone.

The liberals hate the middle class. There, I said it, and I am glad. Once again I am a truth teller, in this case speaking truth to stone heads. So certain am I of the truth of my asseveration that I honestly doubt any liberal will take issue with me. Can you imagine a liberal coming forward and saying: "Wrong, Tyrrell! I love the middle class." Well, I guess I can imagine it, because liberals are effortless liars. Yet what specifically about the middle class might the liberals adduce to demonstrate their affection? The middle class' sobriety? Hard work? Love of country? Love of liberty?

This is pretty transperent. Actually I do admire any American who works hard, loves his country, and loves liberty. Unless of course what Tyrell means by loving liberty is that they are conservative. Which, of course is what he does mean.

"Look middle class, liberals hate you because you are so conservative," works great if the reader is conservative. I'm not sure it works if the middle class reader considers himself or herself moderate or liberal.

Proof of our hatred of the middle class is found in our disdain for Sarah Palin. I don't know many members of the actual middle class who can essentially quit their jobs because it's too difficult and then get paid hundreds of thousands to do a sporting show and to contribute to Fox News.

Personally I want to see the middle class grow and be more prosperous, and therefore I favor programs that will accomplish those goals. I also favor snake-oil salesmen like Tyrell being ignored.

More on Appeasement

Where there's smoke, theirs fire. If people get upset at getting called Appeasers, maybe that's because the accusation strikes close to home. This is a popular explanation of why people are upset over President Bush's comments in Israel. For an example let's check out Emmett Tyrell's latest article.

The mere mention of "appeasement" apparently sets off paranoid tantrums amongst members of the political class. Once deemed a very enlightened tool of statecraft, "appeasement" has become a slur, a hate term. Speaking before the Israeli Knesset, President George W. Bush associated appeasement with those who "believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along." Kapow! The Democrats went on the offensive, though they had not been mentioned.

Kapow? Did the Democrats punch President Bush? No they disagreed with his characterization. As for the theory that President Bush didn't mention the Democrats, everybody on both sides of the aisle knew who he meant.

With this kind of partisan hackery you can't win for losing. If Democrats don't respond to attacks like this, they are pansies, if they do respond they have guilty consciences.

Godless

That's the song I happen to be listening too, off of The Dandy Warhols' "Thirteen Tales from Urban Bohemia." Good song. Eclipsed by "Bohemian Like You," of course, but still a nice album opening.

I suppose it could tie into the subject of this post, one of the more bombastic "War on Christmas" articles I've had the Misfortune to read, by Emmett Tyrell.

Ah, the Christmas season is about over, and soon I shall be liberated from the alarm I experience every time some benevolent authoritarians accosts me with the line "have a happy holiday." . . . These are the moralists who somehow always manage simultaneously to identify iniquity of one sort or another in conventional behavior and stamp it out good and hard. Some years ago they discovered cruelty and intolerance laden in the term "Merry Christmas," and now the term is gone or nearly gone.

It has been replaced with "happy holiday," and anyone who stands by the term "Merry Christmas" is immediately marked down as a provocateur, probably a bigot and possibly a cigarette smoker. At this time of year the use of the term "Merry Christmas" is viewed by the politically correct as a rude and aggressive act. Oddly enough it just might be by now. The politically correct have an inordinate influence over our language and manners. They have lured enough politically innocent Americans to their view that "Merry Christmas" is indeed a term of controversy and a consensus has probably formed. "Merry Christmas" is at least bad manners.

Laughable, really. I mean there's barely any point to refuting this, because if you believe this is what is happening, you are so deluded as to make rational discourse pointless. I might as well call you an artichoke and be done with it.

But I will point out one niggling point. The War on Christmas is not being fought by the hated mavans of political correctness; it's being fought by right wing pundits, who want to convince Christians that they are being persecuted because it suits their political ambitions (and cause writing articles of this strip is dead easy, and many of them are very lazy).

I'm letting the Bastards Grind Me Down

I was very energetic earlier this week. But today's list of articles has just worn me out.

Besides Ann Coulter calling for Treason Trials for the New York Times, we also have Hugh Hewitt and Jeff Jacoby condemning the Times for reporting on a program this administration has boasted about for years. I particularly liked this response to Hugh Hewitts article.

Stand 'em against a wall and shoot them. It wouldn't take but a couple 'til the rest of these petulent swine started catching on. Perhaps Mssr. Keller should be deported to Iraq and set out on a street corner in the Sunni triangle. Then he could BECOME news as we watched some of his good buddies saw his head off while screaming "Allah AKBAHR!"

I do wonder how long it is going to take for Conservatives to start acting out their murderous fantasies.

Tim Chapman is happy that the blogs have pushed Congress to consider passing a bill to censure the New York Times. Blog-O-Fascism is the future!!!

Michael S. Adams is upset that, as one of the three conservative professors in all of academia, his fellow professors don't seem to like him very much. I think the fact that he's a whiny jerk might have something to do with it.

"Humorist" Burt Prelutsky condemns Liberals for not being happier at the death of Zarqawi. I guess he's right; I mean now that Zarqawi is dead we see that there are smooth times ahead in Iraq.

See if I were Aquaman I could dive deep in the ocean and not be bothered by all these conservative jerks. Of course the fact that these articles make me yearn to be Aquaman might be another sign of how depressing they are.

Saving the most out of date for last, filthy liar Emmett Tyrell is still supporting the Swift Boat Liars with a bunch of lying. Part of me wants to go on a rampage showing what BS this article is, and another part of me realizes there's no point. If you believe the Swift Boat Liars, nothing I saw is going to sway you.

I think I'll go see how long I can hold my breath.

Rock and Roll is Dead

According to Conservative commentator R. Emmett Tyrell, that is. Cause nothing says hip like saying that rock and roll is gone. Unless you can also say that it's been replaced by Conservative Talk Radio. Yep - kids today ain't listening to rock, they are listening to Rush.

We are so screwed.

Oh wait, it's possible that Mr. Tyrell is full of crap. Let's look at what he says about rock and roll.

Through the years the peace of the grave has crept up on a lot of rockers, usually years before they arrived at the average life expectancy of almost any type of adult human being, including sky divers and inebriated jaywalkers. Given how preachy the average rocker became by the late 1960s, this is ironic. In their warbles they lectured ordinary Americans on what to eat, what to wear, even prayer. They lectured us on the value of the great outdoors and of world peace. An astonishingly high percentage of them then found themselves under arrest for random violence or ingesting substances that were decidedly unhealthy. So rock and roll, rest in peace. Besides, rock and roll has not come up with a worthwhile song in at least a decade.

It is nice to see Tyrell laughing about the deaths of John Lennon and Janis Joplin (among others). Shows the traditional Conservative charity.

At any rate, the contention that Rock and Roll is dead is nonsensical on the face of it. There is still plenty of good rock being made, and the problems Tyrell has with rock and roll are found in plenty of music beyond strict rock and roll (in all honesty I'm not sure how narrowly he intended to define rock and roll). There's hip hop that is just as preachy as any thing rock produced.

Next week I look forward to an article by Tyrell about how kids should stay off of his lawn.

Two things I am Tired Of

1. Republican / Conservative pundits giving Democrats political advice.

2. Republicans pretending that that democrats are the source of the mean-spirited partisanship in the capital.

Emmett Tyrell's latest column has both qualities in spades. The core point is one that a lot of conservative columnists are going to be making over the next couple of days i.e. "Things might seem bad for President Bush and Republicans, but they are really great. Who you going to believe, me or your lyin' eyes?" This is a popular variation on that theme, "Yeah things might look not great for us, but have you checked out the Democrats? What a bunch of losers." Or, to put it another way,

The reason for this is that the Democratic leadership is fractured and dominated by people who are hysterical, abusive and oblivious. The things they have called George W. Bush this past year are as excessive as anything Joe McCarthy ever called his opponents, but without the charm or, for that matter, the factual basis.

According to Tyrell, Democrats have one chance. Emulate good old Joe Lieberman. Loudly support whatever President Bush wants to do in foreign policy and keep our mouths shut on domestic policy. That's the way to win supporters and fans.

Well except for this troubling question. Given a choice between Conservativism and watered-down Conservativism, which do you choose? If you like Conservatism presumably you for the full throat kind, and if you don't like Conservatism presumably you stay home on election day.

Or at least that's how it looks to me.

Spielberg Should Stop Making Movies

Emmet Tyrell believes that the man behind a string of hit movies, including Jaws, Raiders of the Lost Arc, E.T., Jurassic Park, Schindler's List, Minority Report, and so on, namely Steven Spielberg, should take up sculpting rather than movie making.

I get the impression Tyrell thinks movie making should cease altogether. What is one to make of this sort of passage, for example.

Actually it is just another example of the camera's lies. Aided and abetted by sound effects, it jolts the senses with huge hands or other appendages thrust across the screen, towering men and women filmed from the ground up, from other weird angles, all to convey impressions that are dramatic but very unreal. Colors are brighter than real or darker than real. Sounds shriek, howl, and explode at the viewer. My friend from law enforcement has covered crime scenes and crimes themselves. She assures me the real thing is much less entertaining.

The problem is that movies are more interesting than real life?

Of course the centerpiece of this discussion is the movie Munich, which is about robots beating people up for no good reason. No wait, it's really about a terrorist strike at the 1972 Olympic games in Munich and Israel's response to that attack. Tyrell's big problem with the movie is that it isn't a boring documentary, but he also disagrees with the suggestion that Israel might bear even the slightest responsibility for the problems their nation faces. "Those who know the history of this conflict understand that the Israelis are defenders. The terrorists are aggressors and particularly brutal aggressors at that."

For a more reasoned look at Munich and the controversy surrounding the movie, you might check out this examination by Michelle Goldberg at Salon (warning, you'll have to watch an ad).

What is an American Liberal?

Yes this question has been puzzling us for generations, but Emmett Tyrell has the answer in his latest article.

What is the American liberal? I conceive the American liberal as a fat, florid-faced archbishop from some declining episcopacy in New England waiting around the buffet table late in the dinner hoping to scoop up a few extra desserts, another bon bon to put in his pocket or her purse, an extra glass of sauterne, and to burp when no one is within listening range.

Now a further question presents itself. What is Emmett Tyrell? Well let me tell you . . .

I'm sorry, the rest of this post has been deleted. While I (this is Cheery) appreciate Mr. Bryant's passion, this is a family site. Have a nice morning all. : )

Townhall Report

I just read every article over at Townhall for Thursday, June 23 (as of 9:10 in the morning, more articles may be added later).

There were articles by Brent Bozell and Ann Coulter about Dick Durbin's comments from last week. Apparently he said something along the lines of "you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime -- Pol Pot or others -- that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners." Republicans do not like this being said, apparently. They are pushing the idea that we are, in fact, too nice to our prisoners (Ann Coulters article is entitled "Guantanamo loses 5-star rating."

Emmet Tyrell and Robert Novak both wrote on Senator Biden. Novak reveals that apparently Biden uses political means to achieve his ends. Shocking. Emmet Tyrell's article is devoted to calling Biden (and any other Democrat he can think of) a liar.

Ak'Bar A. Shabazz also writes on congressional matters. In this case he covers an official Senate apology for failing to pass anti-lynching laws back in the day. He did make a minor misstatement in his article though. "Many have blamed 'southern conservatives' for filibustering anti-lynching legislation. They would be more accurate if they attributed the opposition to 'southern Democrats'. For, it was the Democratic Party that was most active in opposing civil rights legislation during that movement." While technically accurate, this formulation gives the impression that there were separaterate groups - Southern Conservatives and Southern Democrats. In fact, at that time, they were one and the same. It would be most accurate to say "Southern Conservatdemocratsrats." But perhaps accuracy isn't Mr. Shabazz's point.

Suzanne Fields rights on the sanctity of Marriage. Debra Saunders writes on PETA (wembarrassinglyngly enough, recently had some of their charges die). Larry Elder writes on how Senator Kerry's grades show him to be a dummy (compared to President Bush). Alan Reynolds writes a somewhat confusing article on why Oil Prices aren't controlled by demand for car gasoline.

This is tiring.

Terrence Jeffry comments on a subcontractor at Oak Ridge Nuclear facility who hired undocumented aliens. As you might imagine, he's opposed to that.

Cal Thomas comments that PBS and NPR are too liberal. And by too liberal, he apparently means liberal at all.

Both Ross Mackenzie and Tim Chapman do columns that collect a lot of different short themes in them. Kind of like this post really.

Finally, Michael Furtado writes a column filled with links on how Scientists will defeat Germs. Because Scientists are smart and Germs are not. And Marvin Olasky writes an article recommending his five favorite Civil War Battle Grounds for you to visit.

None of those articles is really jumping out at me to comment on so I present them all. Enjoy.

Junk Update

Junk Update

Haven't heard back from Emmet Tyrell on whether or not his piece was satire yet. You know what, I think I'm going to stop holding my breath. I'm going to go hold someone elses.

The Most Repressive Century in History

Emmett Tyrrel has written a piece at Townhall.com, in which he references this as being the most repressive century in history--but what is he talking? Smoking.

Here is the passage.

With regard to the last great persecution of the 20th century, is it possible that we are finally seeing light at the end of the tunnel?

The last great persecution experienced in this most repressive of all centuries is, of course, the hysterical persecution of tobacco. And the light that I hope we are seeing is the lighting of an elegant Marlboro poised on the lips of a sophisticated sybarite. Is it not about time that discerning adults be free to light up in a proper setting? In the land of the free and the home of the brave, I view cigarette smoking as a First Amendment Right.

OK, so apparently Mr. Tyrell is comfortable comparing the persecution of smokers to all the other atrocities of the 20th century, including Hitler's persecution of the Jews, the South's persecution of Blacks, South Africa's Apartheid, Pol Pot's Killing Fields, Stalin's Gulags, and so on. Boy, Smokers have it rough; they have to smoke outside instead of being allowed to blow their smoke in people's faces.

I also like the idea that Smoking is a first amendment right. What message is smoking intended to convey? "I'm not all that smart?" "I hope that future Iron Lung Models are more fashionable?"

Truthfully this article is bizarre--it's possible that it's satire, and I'm missing the point. Check out this passage; "There are other benefits to be derived from nicotine. It lightens up the gloom now experienced in such unwholesome venues as health food stores and aerobics studios, where the clientele is so morbidly obsessed with health that it has no time for life."

I'll e-mail the author and double check.

News from Parallel Earth

Townhall printed an article today by R. Emmett Tyrell. But I can only assume that this is not the normal R. Emmett Tyrell who lives in the same earth as we do, but an R. Emmet Tyrell from another plane of existence. One very much like ours, but with some key differences.

For example on parallel R. Emmet Tyrell's world, the Democrats have been decisively defeated. "Bush II's control of all three branches of government and the presence in his government of public figures whose eminence traces from the "Reagan Revolution" demonstrates that this presidency represents not just a change of government but the arrival of a new political era -- marking the final passing of the liberals, so-called." In our world, of course, we are well aware that Bush's victory in the midterm elections, while impressive, was not decisive. It seems likely that the Democrats are going to be around for quite a bit longer.

Also Parallel Tyrell comments on the Kissinger affair from a while ago. President Bush nominated Kissinger to head an investigative committee. Apparently in Parallel Tyrell's world, Bush stood by Kissinger rather than quietly standing aside as he removed himself from the position promised him. Perhaps that's because Parallel Kissinger was such a wonderful guy. Parallel Tyrell writes, "For decades, Kissinger's bona fides as a statesman and patriot have merely grown. All the paranoid charges against him, claims of plotting in Latin America and scheming in Southeast Asia, have proven as vaporous as the liberal Democrats' more recent paranoia over October surprises and Vast Right-Wing plots."

Of course as this universe's Molly Ivans has commented, Kissinger is a bona-fide war criminal. "Two generations of Americans have come to adulthood since Henry Kissinger last held political power, so I need to explain that War Criminal is not an affectionate sobriquet: The man is, in fact, a war criminal--wanted for questioning in Chile, Argentina and France (concerning French citizens who disappeared in Chile). He cannot travel to Britain, Brazil and other countries because they cannot guarantee his immunity from legal proceedings."

Still, it's nice to have a glimpse at another world, even if our own doesn't quite measure up.