Charley Reese worked at the Orlando Sentinel from 1972 to 2001, serving as more than just a writer. His colleagues remember him fondly, also here, and here.

10 of Charley Reese’s best columns (chosen by the Orlando Sentinel).

My favourite article by Reese is “The Trash Man“. Reese writes:

Ayn Rand, who was herself an atheist, wrote a long passage in “The Fountainhead” on how to wreck a society. One of the rules she cites is to teach them (the people) to laugh at everything. Comics like Maher are doing that. Not only do laughter and ridicule destroy the sacred, they also destroy the hero and the admirable person. The goal of such merciless humor is to arrive at a state of nihilism. That’s the spiritual death that precedes physical death.

Comedians have plenty to laugh at. We humans can be very funny. There’s pomposity to puncture; inflated egos to deflate; foolish and ridiculous ideas to ridicule. But leave the great people, the serious and good leaders, the religious people alone. We Americans owe so much to George Washington, I get angry when I see someone making cheap jokes about his false teeth or using his image in some commercial advertisement. The same thing goes for the flag.

Democracies are said to fail when the voting poor realise they can vote for handouts; but if this is going to happen anyway, then we ought to be the ones buying votes. Perhaps we ought to be the ring-givers, so to speak. Adopt popular positions; drop unpopular positions: sell-out except on the most vital issues. What is more important than saving working Americans from being overtaxed by the lazy? Immigration for starters! Also trade agreements, foreign wars, free speech, homeschooling, gun rights, affirmative action, the banking system.

Currently the GOP is fighting a losing battle for its foreign empire. A populist revolt would abandon these war hawks as dead weight. The war hawks are destined to fall as the US goes bankrupt. Populists should not allow themselves to be pulled down with them if possible.

I’m not a political science guru – just my thoughts.

An alternative is to pursue a strategy of political marginalisation to encourage secession by a dispossessed white minority. This latter seems to be the strategy most on the right favour. Rand Paul might win in 2016. That would be wonderful if he could reform the banking system, but beyond that libertarianism obviously has no future in the US. The ideology is like communism, unworkable; and voters want handouts.

His last blog post details one who confronted the reality of both the legal acceptance of “gay marriage” and the other notion, that soon Islamic dominance in France will do away with such a thing (i.e. learn to love the bomb).  Staring the nightmare in the face, he pursued an act of theater to encourage his positions.

Revilo Oliver, a veteran Far Rightist (a professor at the University of Illinois and in Bill Buck’s wedding party) died by his own hand in the nascent Internet Age, where as Mssr. Venner was able to provide a blog post (and apparently a more traditional written note) in a more grandiose final act.

As fewer Rightists, for a variety of reasons, are given the opportunity to exist as a Professor, a fact Mssr. Venner surely understood, consider his performance as something we might not see again.

Neanwhile,here in the real world, sectarian bloodshed is escalating in Iraq now that US forces have withdrawn. The majority Shia, now in power, have ruled with a heavy hand, precipitating a Sunni backlash that has many fearing that civil war in inevitable.

I’m talking the Presidency of the United States of course and while its inspiring to think what Sen. Paul could do in the Oval Office, chances are he could stepping into a prison cell come Jan. 2017.

The Cult of the Presidency creates the illusion of the power of one man to get things and indeed the President is one powerful dude. How many people you know can blow up the world at the push of a button? Yet in the modern Presidency, the person who holds the office often finds themselves trapped in the very facade of power the office itself  needs to project. Such power, the use of it, renders such a person slave to the Leviathan that is the federal establishment. How many Presidents have we heard on the campaign trail talk in terms of ‘openness”, “reducing the power of government”, “transperancy,” “reform”, “curbing abuses”? How many Presidents wind up well short of these slogans. Obama is just the latest. Any of the current scandals will do of a man a prisoner of his own Presidency. Hell, his own aides wouldn’t even tell him the IRS was under investigation. Now that’s a man who is in charge.

It would be wonderful if modern Presidents could simply reject the trappings of office. Unfortunately Jimmy Carter tried this and failed miserably. By late in his term, he too, tried to act like a President but it much too late for it to matter. An image has to be kept up and when it is then things must be done to keep up appearances. Likewise his successors (with the exception of George H.W. Bush I) all spoke of an “Imperial-less Presidency” and yet wound up like emperors none-the-less. No matter if it was the Cold War, the Kosovo War or the GWOT, events do have a way of preventing  the President from being anything less than Commander in Chief. But so does the system itself which supposedly is at the beck and call of the man in charge. It’s what gives the President his power yet it will turn on the ring-bearer if that person refuses to use it. Rand, if he’s elected President, immediately becomes “Leader of the Free World” even if he doesn’t want to be.  The whole national security and intelligence and defense apparatus at his command isn’t just going to go away even if he wishes it to. And once in charge, there is every temptation to use it or allow it to do what it wishes out of sight and mind, which is usually when the scandals arise.

Ron Paul relished the idea of downsizing the Presidency but very few agreed with him. Nobody, it seems, wants a Coolidge-like President.  Rand has to follow a different path for himself to power, but don’t think if he inherits this power he’ll start citing the Constitution for act he makes or, as a specific matter, free everyone at Gitmo. There are institutions which limit Obama’s real power over the national-security bureaucracy and indeed forces that power into directions he may not have intended when he first ran for the office but. No doubt Reagan and or Clinton or even Bush II, who seemed to relish that power, felt the same way. But so long as the people demand security (and judging by the cheers in Boston, they do) and apparatus demands action and power, the, President is simply their prisoner and what he does becomes directed by them or done in his name (spoken or not).  Unless there is a sea change in public attitudes, you may well be as disappointed President Paul as no doubt many are of President Obama and for many of the same reasons.

”

Sean objects to the “nationalization” of the immigration debate, a point he has made many time before. But immigration is one of the few issues that really is and ought to be national. The Constitution specifically grants to Congress the power “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization … throughout the United States.” While I certainly don’t object to states like Arizona adopting measures that attempt to enforce Federal rules, that immigration is a state issue seems silly to me. Does Sean really believe that California could have lax immigration laws and Alabama very restrictive immigration laws and that would be just fine? Once my state and some of my neighboring states have seceded, then I’ll be less concerned with how California wants to conduct its immigration business, but until then, we are all in this together.

Sean also implies that the demographic change we are concerned about is already a fait accompli. Well, to some degree it is, but that is why this debate is so urgent. We must halt the current trends as soon as possible before the numbers really do pass a tipping point. Maybe that point has already passed, but I’m not sure what the utility is in throwing up our hands. Let’s not stand around with our thumbs up our rears as the situation gets even worse even faster.

Sean also suggest that we are powerless because we don’t pay Heritage’s bills. I am keenly aware of how little power we paleos have, but what is the point in wallowing in that? I’ll just keep banging away on my keyboard in the blogosphere trying to help wake people up.

So then why (he asked in a 101 sort of way) would the House Republicans pick a Friday to cave on the Amnesty Bill, with the President at his weakest?

Men who are physically strong are more likely to take a right wing political stance, while weaker men are inclined to support the welfare state, according to a new study.

Researchers discovered political motivations may have evolutionary links to physical strength.

Men’s upper-body strength predicts their political opinions on economic redistribution, according to the research.

The principal investigators – psychological scientists Michael Bang Petersen, of Aarhus University in Denmark, and Daniel Sznycer, of the University of California in the U.S., believe that the link may reflect psychological traits that evolved in response to our early ancestral environments and continue to influence behaviour today.

Professor Petersen said: ‘While many think of politics as a modern phenomenon, it has – in a sense – always been with our species.’

I quite agree. Though we find ourselves in an unnatural environment of desk jobs and gooey yuck from Taco This and Burger That, we still have Ice-Age bodies that long for action and demand fulfillment.

What can we do? For starters, rebel against domestication and softness. Change your diet. Adopt the Paleo diet and lifestyle. Walk. Lift weights. Hunt. Raise a garden. Learn how to defend yourself. Know the exultation of pushing your body beyond endurance.

It might even affect the way you think about yourself.

Since the Kennedy Administration, it has been official policy of the United States to use the power of the state to dismantle all “rightwing” organizations of any significance.  The policy was contained in the Reuther Memorandum.  

It has been official policy of the United States to use, among other tools, the IRS to dismantle potential threats to the legitimacy of the regime, particularly rightwing organizations–though the Earth First! bombing (Ed Abbey always seemed more like on our side) should be considered.  The truly fascinating thing is that this is even a story–and this is reason to be optimistic.  The Againstists are having their day, screaming “have you no shame?”  The bureaucracy is so far behind the times, they don’t understand that they have already won.  There is potential that this was over-reach.

For most of us, there was no American Rightwing when we were born.  The only elements of the Rightwing that were allowed to exist, were those that served other agendas (an example would be 1980s ‘rightwingers’ who supported sending mercenaries into South America to fight Communism.)  This was the Era of PATCON, (see Earth First above) an evolution of the Reuther strategy.  New mutations of PATCON are still going on (e.g. Fast and Furious).

That the old IRS soldiers of the Reuther Memo are reduced to bothering with astro-turf Tea Party organizations is worthy of a chuckle.

And abolish the IRS already.  Have Bernanke print the difference; cannot be any worse then the current course.

Any idea or person that goes against leftist ideology is automatically “racist,” and therefore universally regarded as bad. And stupid. Here are a few examples:

Here’s Charles Johnson’s Little Green Footballs on Richwine’s refusal to apologize for his heresy:

Of course he doesn’t apologize; that’s the standard posture when right wing racists are exposed. They always double down and insist they were just “telling un-PC truths.”

And check out columnist Mary Sanchez, who condemns Richwine for “toxic views” and “pathetic scholarship” that are clearly “offensive and wrong.” Then she tosses this “fact” into the bonfire:

Immigrants have lower rates of criminal conduct than native-born people. And a new study shows that Hispanic high school graduates have now overtaken white students in rates of enrollment into college.

So, it’s “offensive and wrong” to state that Whites have a higher IQ than Hispanics, but there’s nothing wrong with asserting that immigrants make better citizens and scholars than native-born Americans. Viva la Raza superior!

But this statement signed by minority and leftist student groups at Harvard is so full of righteous outrage, it sounds like a satire of political correctness:

“We condemn in unequivocal terms these racist claims as unfit for Harvard Kennedy School and Harvard University as a whole. Granting permission for such a dissertation to be published debases all of our degrees and hurts the University’s reputation.”

See? Just lob that “racist” label at something or someone, and they’re automatically beyond discussion. No counter-argument needed. The Harvard fatwa, by the way, was signed by 24 groups, including all the usual suspects, such as the Latino Caucus and the Progressive Caucus. But it also brought together the LGBTQ Caucus and Arab Caucus, as well as both the Israel and Palestine Caucuses. And people accused Richwine of being devisive!

Spencer addresses the issue here

and here

and here.

The firing of Jason Richwine by the Heritage Foundation is the most depressing thing that has happened in American politics for many years—and that’s a very hot competition. Heritage was in an impregnable position:

*Richwine’s PhD was from Harvard University, and had been approved by the three of the most eminent scholars in the U.S. Anyone arguing with him on his specialty was going to lose.
*However, Richwine’s quantitative work on The Heritage Foundation’s Rector Report, on the fiscal cost of the 2013 Amnesty/ Immigration Surge bill, had nothing whatever to do with his Ph.D. dissertation and efforts to link them were clearly unsustainable smears;
*The Heritage Foundation, with a reported budget of well over $80 million in 2010, was simply not subject to the boycotts, faculty hiss fits etc. that enforce totalitarian Political Correctness in the corporate and academic world. It could afford to stand its ground.

Heritage could have honorably rebuffed efforts to smear it and insisted on focusing on its fiscal study—or it could have unleashed Richwine and started the debate about IQ, immigration and other social policies which the American Left has been struggling to suppress since the publication of The Bell Curve nearly twenty year ago. Either way, Cultural Marxism was headed for a major defeat.

Instead, ignominiously and inexplicably, Heritage caved—undercutting its own fiscal study and threatening the entire patriotic resistance to Amnesty/ Immigration surge.

More from Brimelow on Heritage’s shame.

Michelle Malkin

James Kirkpatrick on the “Cowardice of Conservatism, Inc.”

Jason Richwine has just resigned from the Heritage Foundation – a purely voluntary move I’m sure. The usual suspects have begun their gloating – but what really needs to be discussed is what the Heritage Foundation thinks it is gaining from all of this.

Interestingly, before this resignation, there were real signs of resistance within the Conservative Movement to the usual PC bullying. Michelle Malkin contributed a typically gutsy column enthusiastically defending Richwine. Ann Coulter slammed the anti-science left. Most importantly, Rush Limbaugh launched an extended discourse defending Richwine and his work and criticizing the “RINO’s” calling for his resignation.

However, the Heritage Foundation itself ran shrieking for cover from the moment it began. It embarrassingly searched for public relations flacks to help them explain away the controversy. It refused to clarify whether it had actually read Richwine’s dissertation before it hired him – which at the least suggests utterly incompetent human relations policies. Finally, it stuck its head in the ground regarding the resignation itself, muttering tersely that they don’t comment on internal personnel policies.

As Talleyrand said, it’s worse than a crime – it’s a blunder. Forcing or even allowing Richwine to resign is an admission of guilt. Tactically speaking, not only should Jason Richwine not have been pressured to resign, he should have been forbidden to resign.

Sorry we are late covering this story. I’ll make a separate post tomorrow compiling important links.

In 1997, with the weight of several years of Internet and more primitive mail order activism accusing the Executive Branch of gross criminal behavior, a new scandal was suddenly injected into the conversation: Chinese political contributions—we have laws about that!

In retrospect, the move seems almost comically brilliant.  The scandal expanded to tech transfers from Loral (which Richard Perle cleared up –scroll to the comments from this chap, JohnGalt for my old fans–,for his usual fee of course.)  And without breaking a rhythm, Laurie Mylroie had turned the OKC Bombing into something Saddam done.  Like he done 9/11.

Laurie Mylroie had once worked for the Clinton Administration, and was clearly in the Gore faction—anyone who thinks Gore, had he won, wasn’t going to invade Iraq still doesn’t get it.

 In the aftermath of the Benghazi SNAFU, the old rightwing blogshpere suggested the ambassador was gay, and that might have something to do with his death.  I keep in the back of my mind, that maybe that is the cover-up.

Bonkers Bolton thinks Benghazi will bring Obama down—like China Money brought down Bill Clinton, not, as they said.

The heart of the matter is that the CIA was using Libya to traffic arms to terrorists in Syria and some noise has to be created to obscure this reality.  Back at the time, WND rolled out Family Research Council spook and Waco criminal, General Boykin to say that CIA is not running guns to jihadist terrorists—someone figure out why he could say such things if not one of the actors?

But hey, never let it be said the U.S. holds grudges. After all Saddam Hussein was once a friend and so was Joe Stalin. Manuel Noriega, Fidel Casto, you name the leader or cause or country and no doubt the U.S has been either their friend or their enemy at one time or another. “Friends and enemies may change but interests don’t”  is an old diplomatic saying and if applied to Syria, what a friend we’re going to have in Al Qaeda as ally ourselves to bring down the Assad regime. Just think, you paid to clean-up the World Trade Center and not even 15 years later you’ll be paying the organization who made it a mess. Lovely.

Of course the powers that be will never says such things publicly given how politically sensitive it might be. And some naive and the stupid among them may really, truly believe they’re aiding democracy in Syria and making sure any U.S. weaponry go to the “right people”. Yes, well the largest and best armed of the rebel factions in Syria is allied to Al Qaeda and would like nothing better than to use the “Great Satan’s” guns to take over Syria and make it terrorist state just like Osama bin Laden did with Afghanistan, right in the most strategic place in the Middle East.

Actually, come to think of it, the U.S. does hold a grudge when it comes to foreign policy and it’s against Iran. The Hostage Crisis was 35 years ago but apparently to some in D.C. the calendar year hasn’t changed from November 1979. If we can be friends with Al Qaeda and I really don’t see why we can’t with Iran. No matter who runs the county, whether Shah or Mullah, both Iran and the U.S. share similar strategic interests. That we remain enemies after all these years really runs counter to those interests. Unfortunately two bad actors in the region prevent this from happening.

The first of course is Israel. Even they too were once cooperative with the Iranians and share similar interests as a non-Arab state in the Middle East, they are so determined to hold on to their nuclear monopoly in the region they will do anything to prevent the Iranians from doing so, even though owning the bomb had been an Iranian dream since the days of the Shah. 

They are also determined to stop Hezbollah even though the Shia based group in Lebanon once welcomed the Israelis as liberators in their 1982 invasion against the PLO which had taken over the southern part of the country. The Israelis needlessly made an enemy which now driving them to actually want an Al Qaeda state on its borders rather than Alawite Assad regime which has kept the peace since 1973. Sheer bloody madness.

Then there’s the real enemy of the U.S. and that is Saudi Arabia. Of course the Saudis want U.S. protections for the House the Saud to enjoy their oil wealth and keep their Shia population in eastern Arabia under their thumb and Bahrain as well (which has a Shia majority but is rule by a Sunni monarchy backed by Saudi tanks and the U.S. Fifth Fleet). To get rid of Assad means one less Shia to worry about. Yet this the same Saudi Arabia which finances the spread of their fanatical Sunni Muslim doctrines all over the world which led to bloody terrorism from Africa, to Russia, to the Balkans, Iraq, Syria, Indonesia, Afghanistan, India, Pakistan and right here in the U.S only few short weeks ago in Boston. Does anyone forget the 9-11 were Saudi nationals?

It is Saudi Arabia which needs to be dealt with if there is ever going to be an end to the so-called “War on Terrorism”. It is they who need to be stopped or else be threaten with Shia rebellion and Iranian intervention and oil embargoes. Both the U.S. and the world are past the point in the supply of oil to where the Saudis can influence the price. Instead it is they and their allies in the Persian Gulf which be brought to account for the terror and misery they’ve caused with their fanaticism. If we can somehow join with our once sworn enemies then we can also ditch our so-called friends and good start would be right on the Arabian Peninsula instead intervening in modern-day version of the Thirty Years War.

It’s long past time U.S. interests in the regional were finally aligned properly with the Shia instead of the Sunni. It’s long past time to ally ourselves with our real friends and deal with our real enemies.

And all are entitled to praise whenever they follow human nature by ruling others and end up behaving more justly than their actual power dictated.

We certainly think that anyone else taking over our position would make it clear whether we are moderate or not, but in our case even fairness has unreasonably resulted in more blame than praise.

In defence of colonialism more than slavery I quote Thucydides’s Peloponnesian War (Athenians speaking).

This is to say: Western Civilisation should be praised for having been so moderate. It could have behaved far worse, and others in our position would likely have done so.

-

1. Thucydides. The Peloponnesian War. Trans. Steven Lattimore. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing, 1998. 38. Print.

Stand up, and be counted. Over 280 thousand have already signed. Hopefully we can increase that number into the millions.

Operation Wetback was a success in returning illegal aliens to Mexico, over 1 million apprehensions made in 1954 alone. Amnesty has been tried before. It only encourages more illegals to enter, since they assume a future amnesty will once again grant citizenship.

Amnesty will cost US Tax Payers $6.3 Trillion.

The recent failed wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, both which true conservatives opposed, combined only cost between $4 trillion and $6 trillion (possibly an inflated estimate).

What’s in the Gang of Eight Bill? Take the Amnesty Quiz at: www.AmnestyQuiz.com

Little wonder people are so frustrated and frightened these days. How much confidence can they have in a political system when the anti-war, pro-civil liberty candidate wins the election, then orders yet another surge of US troops in an unpopular war, and expands both domestic surveillance and the exercise of arbitrary government power?

This poll reflects genuine concern about the abuse of power by a centralized, hostile federal government that Robert E. Lee predicted would rise from Lincoln’s successful counter-revolution against the principles of 1776. The dynamic that Lee foresaw – “aggressive abroad and despotic at home” – is made vividly clear today as civilian control methods perfected in occupied Iraq are beiing utilized here at home by an increasingly militarized police. What a perfect illustration of the mutual hostility and distrust between rulers and the ruled.

As DC hardens itself to reform by hamstringing potential third parties and nullifying local self-government, frustration with our increasingly inept and catastrophic government can only solidify and spread.

This is the first I’ve seen Rogers in video. His demeanor is perfect: tired but determined to continue the good fight – and authentic.

Also check out: The Color of Crime.

And the CofCC’s latest reporting on a media coverup of black crime: “Virginia Beach hate crime mob attack victim speaks out“:

A “College Beach Weekend, organized by six black colleges ended in a massive race riot. At least 300 calls were made to 911. Some sources say even more. There were shootings, stabbings, muggings, and other violence.

The Virginia media went into FULL CENSORSHIP mode and purposefully concealed who was behind the violence. The rioters were simply called “college students” in every single report.

And if South Africa, the much heralded “Rainbow Republic”, is any indication: Affirmative action and other special rights will continue to exist in the UK for nonwhites well after native Brits have become a minority.

The Scottish Sun writes:

— 2050: Britain will be most ethnically diverse nation
— 2066: White Britons will be in the minority in UK

BRITAIN will be the world’s most ethnically diverse Western nation after 2050, a bombshell study has found.

A massive influx of immigrants has given the UK the fastest-rising percentage of ethnic minority and foreign-born populations.

The report’s author says foreigners and non-whites living here will DOUBLE by 2040 — to make up a third of the UK.

He has even controversially claimed white Brits will be a MINORITY by 2066.

Professor David Coleman said: “On current trends European populations will become more ethnically diverse, with the possibility that today’s majority ethnic groups will no longer comprise a numerical majority.”

By 2040, he said, 37 per cent who live here won’t class themselves as white or British.

That will put us level with the world’s traditional melting pot the US — which we will then overtake.

Prof Coleman said migration has become the “primary driver of demographic change”.

Declining birth rates among white Brits is another factor. In England and Wales, 25 per cent of births are from foreign-born mothers, the report said.

A similar trend is seen in France and Germany.

Last week, senators blocked a compromise measure that would have compelled vegetarians to eat meat, despite polls that showed that 90 percent of the public supported the idea.

I’m a vegetarian who played a role in reducing forced meat eating in the nation’s capital. In 2008, in a landmark case I helped initiate, Heller v. District of Columbia, the Supreme Court declared for the first time that the Constitution protects an individual right to be vegetarian.

But the stonewalling of the forced meat eating bill was a mistake, both politically and substantively. Following a series of tragic cases of protein deficiency, public opinion is overwhelmingly in favor of reasonable legislation forcing vegetarians to eat some meat. There was also plenty in the proposal that vegetarians like me could embrace.

The compromise — carefully negotiated by two moderate vegetarian supporters, Senators Joe Manchin III, Democrat of West Virginia, and Patrick J. Toomey, Republican of Pennsylvania — should be reintroduced in the Senate. I am convinced that, with some modifications, it could still be passed, because it would add reasonable protections for both vegetarians and those concerned about protein deficiency.

Sounds reasonable to me.

New Cato President Robert Levy says there is a libertarian case for Manchin-Toomey. He says so in an op-ed in the New York Times. With friends like these?

Whatever the faults of Ed Crane, I doubt he would have written an op-ed in the New York Times defending gun control. What is the point of such a spectacle other than attempting to establish your “reasonable” street cred? I hope the Koch brothers are proud.

If the last week has made anything clear about the Wall Street Journal editorial board, it’s that they sure do not like Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) and his libertarian-leaning views on civil liberties.

Last Monday, the paper ran an editorial column lashing Sen. Paul and other libertarian-ish legislators “who keep insisting that the U.S. homeland is not part of the terror battlefield” in the wake of the Boston bombings. The editorial board asserted that Paul, several GOP colleagues, and “anti-antiterror types on the left” were “making the U.S. more vulnerable” by defending the bombing suspects’ right to due process and to be tried as a citizen of the United States.

And then this Saturday, Journal editorial writer Dorothy Rabinowitz took to the paper’s web show to offer up what can only be described as a trashing of the Kentucky senator.

Read more at Mediaite…

We’re not happy with all of the Younger Paul’s positions, but he has sure managed to attract the right enemies.

For those who found themselves on the dissident side, rather than seek it out, one could find various soothing ideas from over a hundred years ago (e.g. “we win in the end”) to find some out for positivism.

Failing that, a piece of prose: “the system will collapse under the contradictions of its own message.”

But that is not true either.  The totalitarian state is embraced and celebrated; where a contradiction was imagined, none existed.  One doesn’t actually trade liberty (read power) for security of course, one just cedes power and has little say.

The humiliation of it all encourages the reactionary support for symbols of power and strength.

__________

The events in Boston constitute a confirmation of what that area is.  Boston, as most major cities do, lives off subsidies funneled to the “higher education system”, Pharma & Hospitals, the MIC, and some tech, though now a shadow of its former self, as the former Wang and Digital employees enter the latter stages.

Boston isn’t really a city though—it’s a town.  Growing up in the area, everyone is somehow connected through high school sports or a local school.  The ethnic group friction is long behind, but the method of dealing with it (jokes about your mother) is still there, lending to the “salty” character of Bostonians, and now Greater Boston.

________

Unlike the security services in the time after the Marathon bombing, Boston’s local sports celebrities, eschew media coverage–even those who were involved in the events like former Patriots O-lineman Joe Andruzzi, who also gave an emotional talk after 9/11 which his three brothers, NYC firefighters, were subjected to risk.

A radio interview with a Mr. Jeff Bauman (trust I feel a natural connection as Bauman is considered an alt spelling to my last name—A Welsh Man), the chap who lost his legs and was saved by the grieving father of imperial action in iconic fashion—saved by a chap whose life was leading to that moment when he pinched the blood vessel closed with his fingers and conversed to keep the patient awake—indicated that it was himself who provided the description of the elder brother—not video or existing files the security services possessed.

Mr. Bauman was ignored by investigators on the scene, but he asked his friend by his side, before the dope hit, for pen and paper to write down what he recalled.  A sketch artist eventually arrived and he gave the description which produced something close enough.

When asked what he thought, in the interview, he recalled the theme of Pearl Jam’s Grunge Era anthem “Alive”: He’s dead, and I am sill here.

____

Somehow, the younger brother in the bomber duo was able to break the perimeter of the professionals. Dogs apparently did not smell the blood trail.  An MBTA (mass transit) cop was shot, but it appears to have been from the ever present “friendly fire”.

Security services recklessly pointed guns at civilians and terrorized home owners.

Dogs and professionals could not find the 19 year old pot head. 

A man, when told he could leave his home, went outside for a smoke, saw blood and followed the trail to his dry-dock boat…and then reported the situation.

Though unarmed, bleeding in a boat, the security services shot the boat full of holes.

____

There are many stories from the Marathon bombing–but they involve individuals, natives, the grief stricken wanderer, and the random boat enthusiast–the security services did nothing.

Dropkick Murphies, Shipping Up To Boston

To be attacked by a Gore Vidal, or an H.L. Mencken, one of the great wordsmiths of American criticism, while surely unpleasant, must have been oddly exhilarating for the poor souls on the receiving end. I, on the other hand, have the more dubious and prosaic distinction of being a regular target of Ian Millhiser.

So you’ve never heard of Ian Millhiser. You’ve never seen him. But you only think you haven’t. You have.

Ever met someone who’s dying to let you and the rest of the world know he holds all the approved opinions? Then you have met Ian Millhiser.

In every hysterical reaction to dissident voices – i.e., voices that (gasp!) differ from both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney! – you have seen him.

You have seen Ian in every social climber who would die a thousand deaths before entertaining an unconventional thought.

In literature and television we have the stock character: the absent-minded professor, the stuck-up cheerleader, the backwoods yokel. Millhiser, too, is a stock character. He is the thought controller: impatient with diversity, predictable, establishment, banal, humorless.

Read more…

I’ve never heard of Ian Millhiser until now. When I first saw the title, I though he was going to be going after Jamie Kirchick. But as Woods says, Millhiser is a “stock character.” So Kirchick? Millhiser? What’s the difference?

HT: Lew Rockwell

Jamie (now James?) Kirchick writes this for The Daily Beast. I’m Shocked! Just Shocked! That PC enforcer hack Jamie Kirchick has written another PC smear job about Ron Paul. Who would have guessed it?

Jamie Weinstein writes this at The Daily Caller. What’s up with Jamies being PC thought policers?

Walter Russell Meade says Ron Paul’s Institute will hurt Rand’s chance at becoming President. This is a not so veiled threat. “Shut up with the wrongthink Ron, or your kid gets it!”

The Week piles on, attempting to reinforce the Rand Paul link.

Tom Woods replies here and here.

Woods does what libertarians are wont to do and immediately appeals to libertarian first principles. Appealing to first principles is fine. I appeal to Constitutionalist first principles all the time. But when it comes to this thought policing nonsense, I think the thought policers need to be called out for being the pathetic little weeniefied thought slaves that they are.

Kirchick, Weinstein and Meade, grow a pair of intellectual balls, and quit being rightthink enforcers for the Conventional Wisdom. I do not believe that 9/11 was an inside job, but I don’t go running for the tall grass like some sort of intellectual fraidy cat at the suggestion. This desire to stamp out wrongthink is MUCH more dangerous than the wrongthink itself. Perhaps you should actually engage an argument rather than point and ridicule like some sort of middle school mean girl.

You have to wonder what is going on inside the head of people like Kirchick who seem to relish the role of righthink hit-man. Man up, develop some intellectual testosterone, and HAVE A FREE THOUGHT EVERY ONCE IN A WHILE!