Sunday, February 22, 2009

The National Review: RIP

To the soon-to-be-former Editor of the National Review,

After struggling simultaneously to retain my composure and finish reading Richard Nadler's bad imitation of a typical Wall street Journal editorial on the subject of immigration (At What Cost?), I found I was not able to do both and, since we were expecting company, decided that my composure should win out.

However, I decided that since I have read this all before, just not between the pages of NR, I skipped to the end to see what conclusion Nadler draws from his own shaky premises. OK, then I reflected again on how dumbstruck I was at reading this trash (in the National Review!) and how I should respond.

Should I simply go on about how this is yet another manifestation of the bad judgement that has prevailed in the post-Buckley era of NR? How my trust in NR's stewardship began to slip after reading Ann Coulter's experience with being rejected by John O'Sullivan (can you imagine rejecting Ann Coulter?)? Then slip again after suffering through Rich Lowry's stilted telepromted-performance as guest host on Hannity and Colmes?

Nadler seems to be trying to appeal to the conservative sense of business and economics. This reveals Nadler's ignorance of what conservatives actually believe. Also, he equates conservatism with the Republican Party, revealing yet more ignorance of what conservatives actually believe. At the same time I am at this moment praying that he is actually a Democrat because then I can at least say to my liberal friends who will delight in pointing out the existence of the Nadler...thing in the NR: "Well, what did you expect from a Democrat?"

His opening statement, that "Conservatives should stop trying to remove 12 million illegal aliens from American soil," may just as well have read: "I really haven't the foggiest idea of how my published in the National Review. I sent it to The Nation," which, of course, is where the thing belongs.

So here we have someone, who really hasn't a clue as to what conservatives should or shouldn't be doing, urging principled conservatives to pander to a few special interests in order to win back power for the Republicans so that we can continue to "stop trying to remove 12 million" illegal aliens from a majority position in Congress? This is essentially what he is asking us to do. Does this make sense to anyone?

So we must belong to a party that favors open borders according to Mr. Nadler, in order to advance what is left of the conservative agenda. I'm sorry but I think the liberals and the shameless opportunists in the corporate world already have that party.

At what cost? At the cost of our self-respect. For some self-respect is a commodity, cheaply bought and sold. For others (called conservatives) it is a priceless attribute, a character trait we proudly hold (or, as a politician once noted, cling to) as something that distinguishes us from the savage and the beast and the liberal.

Yes, give up your insistence on the rule of law; your foolish notions that illegal immigrants are lawbreakers first and foremost and that politicians local, state and federal are abetting this law breaking. Forget the borders! Who needs them? We need cheap labor! Cheap, ORGANIZED labor!! Just ask GM, Ford and Chrysler how much we need more organized labor.

Saturday, February 14, 2009


The Kapital editorialized last Friday about the disappointing showing to date of the slots amendment. But of course, no one can be blamed. Who knew that we'd be smack-dab in the middle of the "worst economic crisis since the Great Depression" on November 4th? The Kapital wrote:
"But no one anticipated the deep recession facing the country today. So, those who always scoffed at the inflated revenue estimates were proven right far more quickly than they anticipated."
What a minute, weren't we already up to our necks in the the Great Depression II by Nov. 4th? Yes. Hadn't the first tranche of TARP money gone up in smoke by then? Yes. Hmmmm. But I guess the news was a bit late getting out to Maryland provincial precincts. But surely our business and financial leaders at the various Chambers of Commerce could have warned us. They could have gone to the Kapital and Sun papers and pulled back.

"After warning Maryland voters this election season that if they didn't approve the slots amendment that schools would crumble around their childrens' ears, the state chambers of commerce is now advising the opposite," is a lede we would have liked to have seen.

"Given the rapid deterioration of the national economy," Maryland Chamber of Commerce President Kathy Snyder began in a statement this afternoon, "I no longer believe that the slots amendment will 'pump $600 million a year directly into the school system' as the ads on radio and TV you've been hearing would have you believe. So I am advising Maryland citizens to vote NO on Question 2 on Nov. 4."

But no. Not a peep was heard. I would have been shocked to have heard a peep, though. By November the Chamber of Commerce, the Democrats and gaming industry were locked in. Their money and their reputations were on the line.

Now, where are the stories comparing the cost, year-to-date, of regulating slots with the revenue? Hmmm? Where are the hard-hitting Liam Farrell interviews with Kathy Synder and the pack of bacon feeders at the MD Chamber of Commerce? I guess we are now going to have to raise taxes by $700 million AND live with a misbegotten amendment to the constitution, eh?

I don't blame the gaming industry for prying open the MD casino market. I blame current and would-be MD politicians for promoting this scheme and pimping our State Constitution and our children's education so shamelessly.

And I blame the gullibility of MD voters who swallowed this tripe hook, line and sinker!