Wednesday, June 28, 2006

Wednesday Morning Coffee (Anne Hathaway Edition!)

A WAR ONLY ON THEIR TERMS: Jonah Goldberg has a sharp (but depressing) column about how liberals believe that the proper response to 9/11 would've been more socialism and since they didn't get that, they will undermine our security while they get their revenge.

In the years since 9/11, all of these organs have given a megaphone to those castigating the
president for failing to unite the country more. September 11 was a “missed opportunity,” according to countless liberal voices, because in spite of the nation’s unity, the president didn’t ask for a shared sacrifice. All of these elite voices — and they number in the hundreds — subscribed to a pinched and narrow definition of “sacrifice.” Indeed, it was a grand game of bait-and-switch. Unity and sacrifice must be measured in terms of tax hikes and economic redistribution.

As befits his role in public discourse, Bill Moyers provided an illuminating caricature of this thinking. After the 9/11 attacks, he wrote, “This catastrophe has reminded us of a basic truth at the heart of our democracy: No matter our wealth or status or faith, we are all equal before the law, in the voting booth and when death rains down from the sky.” And because of this, Moyers argued, America must implement the usual laundry list of liberal social policies, including the repeal of NAFTA and the implementation of single-payer health care.


This month, the Times exposed the government’s ongoing program to track terrorists’ financial transactions — a policy the Times itself vigorously editorialized in favor of. There have been no allegations of abuse or illegality. There are no pressing constitutional issues involved, and nobody seriously disputes that it is an important program. The Times simply thinks it’s in the public interest to expose it and, hence, cripple it. The Times ignored pleas from a wide array of public officials, including the chairmen of the 9/11 Commission, who apparently see such efforts as the sort of “imaginative” work the government should be doing.

A glimpse into the thinking behind Times executive editor Bill Keller’s decision to green-light the story can be gleaned by noting his tactic of referring to this as a program of the Bush “administration” rather than a government program. It seems the Times has simply concluded that a president who won’t use the war on terror to unify the country on terms the newspaper finds favorable isn’t justified in fighting that war at all.
Read it all and realize why liberalism is a death sentence being sold as a panacea.

DIRK'S DISH DU JOUR: Since I'm swamped with work and will be unlikely to post any more depressing stuff today, here is a bonanza of shots of prior DDDJ girl, Anne Hathaway:

She was on Letterman last night - thus why she's on my mind now - and said she'd been dating some investments dude for a couple of years now. While it's nice to see an actress willing to date civilians, it goes to show that unless you're rich, you still stand little chance. Oh well.

No comments: