A jaundiced look at the ultimate solution...

The (5 days ago) memory hole update.

Nazi Memory Hole Update

Did I forget to mention that we're back to the Nazi future in Europe? Because they can't remember it?

Indisputably our moral and intellectual betters? I'm too polite tonight to say what I really think. But you should be able to make a good guess.

OOPS, I FORGOT to reemphasize that there's somehow a coincidence between euthanasia, assisted suicide and the real thing. Can't imagine why -- I'm going to go think REAL HARD and see if I can figure it out...

The Donald

The REAL Donald is back and definitely worth reading again...

UPDATE: Now including an update on innumeracy.

What HMX?

All You Need To Know About Jimmy (And More)

Shamelessly stolen from James today:

A Blessed Absence
A New York Sun editorial offers an amusing observation on the disputed election in Ukraine: Jimmy Carter is nowhere to be found, even though "in recent years, scarcely a trouble spot has been spared the ministrations of our ex-president." The Sun asks "why he has left Ukraine alone":

Search for the dog that didn't bark. It's not the post-Soviet thugs who are seeking to rig the contest in favor of Moscow's candidate, for they are noisily preserving their privileges. Nor is it the democrats who bravely and brazenly wish to align with the West. They aren't Mr. Carter's kind and can't lay claim to any sort of leftist legitimacy. Why, it's Karl Marx who's missing from the field. Ukraine is thus rescued by virtue of the fact that the peanut farmer from Georgia hasn't got a dog in this fight.

Hoo Haw!

Come to think of it, it's a BOTW kind of day: Marc Rich illustrating the Clinton's corruption by surfacing in the middle of the Oil For Food scandal, Peter Beinart pining for the ADA to return to the roots that it now ruthlessly stuffs down the Memory Hole, the correct analysis of battered Victocrats and the Palestinian's Eugene Debs angles for the Nobel Prize! Go there, for it is good.

UPDATE: The Trunk wonders too...

HOO HAW! Ott is on a roll. You need to read ^this for sure. But just start at the top and keep scrolling...

Projection 301: Projecting Corruption

Here's an excerpt from Horowitz' recent "Why We Are In Iraq" that's a wonderful summary of how we got to where we are:

At this point, it might be appropriate to ask how the Democratic Party got to the place where it is a party of appeasement in the approach to war and a saboteur of the war when it is underway. How did the Democratic Party get to the point where its leaders would break a fifty-year tradition of bi-partisanship in foreign policy, and over matters of war and peace? How did it come so powerfully under the influence of an historically anti-American left as to allow its presidential politics to be dominated by that left?

The short answer to these questions is that the leftward slide of the Democratic Party began with the McGovern campaign, when the anti-Vietnam left marched into its ranks and assumed positions of power in its congressional party. Obviously, the circumstances of the Iraq war and the movement to oppose it have a lot to do with the Howard Dean campaign, in particular, which was funded this left and driven by its passions, and whose success in the primaries turned John Kerry and John Edwards against the war. It also has a lot to do with the fateful decision of Jimmy Carter and Al Gore to make the war a partisan issue and break a half-century's tradition. But even before this moment it has to do with the McGovern campaign of 30 years ago, which was the original "anti-war" political campaign, demanding that America abandon its ally in Vietnam and leave the field of battle. Virtually all leaders of the anti-Iraq movement, including most of the leaders of the Democratic Party who supported that movement, were veterans of or affected by the anti-Vietnam campaign.

The left has never learned the lessons of Vietnam, a fact underscored by the way in which Howard Dean and Ted Kennedy and leaders of the movement against the war in Iraq invoked the history of Vietnam as though it showed that they were right and their opponents were wrong. As you probably know, I began my life on the political left and was one of the founders of the movement against the Vietnam War. My parents were, in fact, card-carrying Communists, and my first political march was against an even earlier war. I was nine years old in 1948 and marched down 7th Avenue with my parents and their political comrades in New York chanting, "One, two, three, four, we don't want another war." "We" called ourselves "progressives" and supported the Progressive Party candidacy of Henry Wallace, who had once been Franklin Roosevelt's Vice President but was now a captive of the Communist left. The war we marched against was Harry Truman's "Cold War" to prevent Joseph Stalin from conquering more of Europe than he had already acquired. The peace movement of that time wanted Stalin to "liberate" Eastern Europe, which he had in fact enslaved. This campaign was the seed of the anti-war movements of Vietnam and Iraq, and also of the political left's influence in the Democratic Party. George McGovern began his political career in the Progressive Party's 1948 campaign against the Cold War. The Democratic Party of Harry Truman was committed to the Cold War. But as far as the peace movements are concerned, not much has really changed in 50 years.

As a post-graduate student at Berkeley in the early Sixties, I was one of the organizers of the first demonstration against the Vietnam War. It was 1962 and I can tell you as someone who was there, everybody who organized that demonstration was a Marxist and a leftist who thought the Communists were liberating Vietnam the way Michael Moore thinks Zarqawi is liberating Iraq. By that time, I was a "new leftist," disillusioned with the Communism of my parents' generation, so I was aware that the North Vietnamese Communists were not Jeffersonian democrats as people like Jane Fonda and John Kerry seemed to think they were. I avoided the Winter Soldier Investigation into American "war crimes" that John Kerry and Jane Fonda were part of. Jane Fonda was an idiot (useful, to be sure) who had embraced the Communists and committed treason. Perhaps John Kerry didn't grasp that fact. He got himself in bed with people who had a hatred for the United States as intense as their current hatred of George Bush.

It is a curious hatred, suggesting that Democrats have collectively flipped their lids in their zeal to win this election. You may say many things about George Bush, but this is a decent, capable man. You may differ with George Bush, but he is not a "moron" or a bumbling incompetent. No one runs a successful national election campaign and a successful presidential administration without judgment that is fundamentally sound. This is a man you can disagree with, but you can't belittle or hate George Bush without those attitudes reflecting on yourself.

Loud, rudely mannered allegations of corruption supported on venomous, drooling gusts of hate. Yup -- take a look in that mirror. Or have they all been cracked into devilish opaqueness?

AND NOW: The Latrine-hadeen! And verrry eenteresting in light of this from Powerline...

Tolerance For The Intolerant

... is suicide.

No More

Victocrats and trial lawyers all in one fell swoop! Pray, pray, pray that this is true!

WOW! Go Ukraine!

The More Things Change

The more the Euros stay the same.

The Unbearable Stench Of Innumeracy

Smelly little innumeracy given a well-deserved Fisking. Enjoy...

UPDATE: And more on innumeracy...

Smelly Little Orthodoxies

Will hits one out of the park today with "Campus Conformists": (Hat tip Glenn)

"Schools of education, for instance, take constructivist theories of learning as definitive, excluding realists (in matters of knowledge) on principle, while the quasi-Marxist outlook of cultural studies rules out those who espouse capitalism. If you disapprove of affirmative action, forget pursuing a degree in African-American studies. If you think that the nuclear family proves the best unit of social well-being, stay away from women's studies."

This gives rise to what Bauerlein calls the "false consensus effect": Due to institutional provincialism, "people think that the collective opinion of their own group matches that of the larger population."

There also is what Cass Sunstein of University of Chicago, calls "the law of group polarization." Bauerlein explains: "When like-minded people deliberate as an organized group, the general opinion shifts toward extreme versions of their common beliefs." They become tone-deaf to the way they sound to others outside their closed circle of belief.

When John Kennedy brought to Washington such academics as Arthur Schlesinger Jr., John Kenneth Galbraith, McGeorge and William Bundy and Walt Rostow, it was said that the Charles River was flowing into the Potomac.

Academics, such as the next secretary of state, still decorate Washington, but academia is less listened to than it was. It has marginalized itself, partly by political shrillness and silliness that have something to do with the parochialism produced by what George Orwell called "smelly little orthodoxies."

Many campuses are intellectual versions of one-party nations — except such nations usually have the merit, such as it is, of candor about their ideological monopolies. In contrast, American campuses have more insistently proclaimed their commitment to diversity as they have become more intellectually monochrome.

They do indeed cultivate diversity — in race, skin color, ethnicity, sexual preference. In everything but thought.

And even better, now Hitchens has more or less defected from the left to a position more or less resembling Orwell himself.

But of course, Nazism and Communism aren't smelly little orthodoxies are they? Well, yes, actually. Just blown up to the rightful conclusion of all unchecked orthodoxies trusted with the power of the state. Eh tu, doc?