Come on Eileen

Kill it. Kill it dead. And notice, by the way, just how “representative” those parties in a “representative democracy” are when it counts:

Despite every major political party backing the Yes campaign, support for a No vote is growing daily. The most recent poll put the Yes voters at 41 per cent and the No voters at 33 per cent. That sounds like a healthy lead until you discover the Yes campaign was polling well over 50 per cent on the eve of another Irish EU referendum – on the Nice Treaty in 2001 – before the electorate delivered a resounding No.

The poll discrepancies make it pretty clear that it’s not only the politicians who are in the bag, but the media as well. I notice, by the way, that no other so-called “democratic” European nation is being allowed to vote on the European ConstitutionLisbon Treaty. “In Brussels, European parliamentarians are twitchy about the future of the EU’s 495 million citizens resting in the hands of the one million Irish voters expected to turn out on polling day.”

The Brussels mafia managed to silence the other 494 million, so that one million had better speak out very loud and very clear that fulfilling the dream of Napoleon Bonaparte and Adolf Hitler will not be done by Irish hands.

Vote NO, Ireland. If you disliked English rule, why would you think Eurofascist rule will be any more palatable?

The pleasure of being wrong

I am not yet conceding anything, but in the event that I am forced to do so, I shall find a fair amount of pleasure in admitting that Hillary Clinton will not succeed her ur-nephew on the Cherry Blossom Throne:

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) says she is regularly approached “by women of all races, of all ages, of all faiths. They stop me, grab my hand and say, ‘Look what they’ve done to her, we were so close.’ They wanted this for their daughters and granddaughters. . . . It’s so heartbreaking.”

I don’t know about you, but I’m finding it pretty darn hard to resist the urge to break down and weep. It’s getting just a little dusty in here.

Voxiversity: Thucydides S5

The quiz covering the events of Book Four, which took place during the seventh, eighth, and ninth year of the war can be taken here. Discuss at will, as all of the less interested parties have been shaken out by now. If you wish to take the previous quizzes, they are here. Next week’s reading is Book Five.

The History of the Peloponnesian War 1.1 to 1.115.

The History of the Peloponnesian War 1.116 to 2.46.

The History of the Peloponnesian War 2.47 to 2.103.

The History of the Peloponnesian War 3.1 to 3.116.

Sarandon should think twice

Italians aren’t all that big on immigrants these days. Canada would probably be the better option, since I can’t imagine her expatriating would make her any less annoying:

A class of primary school children in Naples has shocked Italy after submitting homework which supported the burning of gypsy camps. Teachers at the school had set the children the task of explaining how they felt about the persecution of the gypsies. The response was an alarming series of drawings and essays, many of which supported the vigilante action…. The attacks and essays come against a backdrop of growing intolerance to immigrants, fuelled by hard-line partners in the new government of prime minister Silvio Berlusconi….

Italy’s statistics agency, ISTAT, fanned the fires of anti-immigrant feeling yesterday by releasing numbers showing that immigrants are responsible for more than a third of the murders committed last year. ISTAT said foreigners had committed 70 per cent of all petty theft, 39 per cent of the sexual offences and 36 per cent of the murders.

As I wrote a few years ago, what’s happening in southern Italy will soon be happening elsewhere in Europe. Nationality is not merely an abstract concept there as it is in the United States. And the children are correct, because when a corrupt government not only refuses to recognize the will of the people but instead elects to repeatedly offend it, the people have no choice but to take force into their own hands.

And as students of history will recall, southern Italians have a long and rather famous tradition of dealing firmly with unwanted outsiders.

Women flee the vote rapist

The majority of the Democratic Party rolls over, wakes up, opens its eyes, and then cringes in horror at what it appears to have done:

Barack Obama’s favorability ratings among white women has declined significantly in recent months, particularly among Democrats and independents, presenting an immediate obstacle for the likely Democratic nominee as he moves to shore up his party’s base. According to a new report by The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, half of white women now have a negative perception of Obama…. White women as a whole now prefer John McCain over Obama, by 49 percent to 41 percent.

I have to admit, while I don’t think it matters much who wins, I have found this presidential campaign to be incredibly entertaining. It’s like watching really good slapstick.

Who hates women?

It’s deeply ironic that it is those who love to accuse their political opponents of mysogyny whose actions have led directly to the extermination of millions of little girls around the world:

The ratio of girls per 1,000 boys in these areas hovers around the 700s and 800s, with as few as 300 girls per 1,000 boys in some high-caste urban areas of Punjab. As investigative journalist Gita Aravamudan argues in her 2007 book, “Disappearing Daughters: The Tragedy of Female Feticide,” “Female infanticide is akin to serial killing. But female feticide is more like a holocaust. A whole gender is getting exterminated.” The problem extends beyond India….

A new study suggests that female feticide may be disturbingly common in some American communities. In an analysis of 2000 Census data published recently in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Columbia University economists Douglas Almond and Lena Edlund examined the sex ratio of births among U.S.-born children of Chinese, Korean and Asian-Indian parents. They found “evidence of sex selection, most likely at the prenatal stage.”

The sex of a firstborn child in these families conformed to the natural pattern of 1.05 boys to every girl, a pattern that continued for other children when the firstborn was a boy. But if the firstborn child was a girl, the likelihood of a boy coming next was considerably higher than normal at 1.17-to-1. After two girls, the probability of a boy’s birth rose to a decidedly unnatural 1.51-to-1.

If abortion is a penumbran right, then a woman’s motivation for an abortion cannot be called into question. As usual, the feminist position is a hopelessly illogical one; the inevitable result of basing one’s positions on egoistic emotion rather than principle-based logic.

The Bush Corner

K-Lo may not have read the book, but she has no doubt that it must be really bad. And its author is dishonest and dishonorable to boot. He must be, because, you know, he is insufficiently disrespectful of George W. Bush, the Greatest President Republicans Have Ever Known:

I’m confused about Scott McClellan’s book. Without having read it, I think a couple of observations are nonetheless fair. What does it tell us when a White House insider gets outside and says that all those other people he used to work with are incompetent liars. If, as McClellan claims, the president made a “propaganda campaign” of the Iraq war, why didn’t Scotty say something at the time? Why wait until he’s out of the job to do the honorable thing? What kind of person continues to speak for (and cover up) a dishonest campaign for war when he knows the truth to be something else? What kind of person later says, hey, know what? That whole time I was working for the president? I thought he was a dishonest dolt, but I did it anyway . . . because…? Wait, because you were collecting material for a book? I’ll tell you what kind of person does that: Someone who is either dishonest or dishonorable — or both.

This is the first of EIGHT posts about Scott McClellan, the former White House Press Secretary, by the NRO editor. I mention this to remind the good folks at National Review that it is this sort of emotional knee-jerk defense – or in this case, counterattack – that is why National Review is generally considered to be in the bag for Bush and therefore part of conservatism’s current problem rather than part of any prospective solution.

Whether Scott is right or wrong, we may never know. But why should we believe him now when, with the same straight face he offered as press secretary, he says we shouldn’t have believed him then.

I marvel at the fact that anyone could be surprised at an employee’s failure to speak his mind when he thinks his boss is a dishonest idiot doing the wrong thing. Has K-Lo never read Dilbert? Government employees aren’t exactly samurai, and while they are known for many things, honor and truthfulness are not two of them. The reason we should at least consider believing him now is because NOW HE IS NOT BEING PAID IN ORDER TO MANIPULATE PUBLIC OPINION.

You would think that a member of the professional media would know what a press secretary’s responsibilities entail.

UPDATE – Unfortunately, VDH elects to join the choir of the disingenuous Bush defenders:

But if all of the above were true, why in the world would McClellan have stayed on in 2004? So it is either: (1) I didn’t like the message of 2004, but did like my job that the new message provided?, or (2) Only now when promoting a book attacking my former employer do I realize that I was ‘blinded by the right,’ and in fact my idealism of 2000 was betrayed by the realities of 2004? In the former case, he is a dead soul; in the latter, a simple huckster.

Given that pretty much all PR flacks are soulless hucksters, by definition, how does this “logic” call into question the accuracy of McClellan’s charges. Methinks the ladies are protesting far too much.