Archive for the ‘Sasoc On-deck Circle’ Category


Read Full Post »

Beware Liberals…

The sasoc has been cooking up something tonight that is going to eat you alive, and the beast is rumbling.

Read Full Post »

I saw this phrase in a NYT review of the new X Men movie and wondered about which version of the Cold War audiences will be subjected to:

His anger and Shaw’s evil drive a story that leaps from World War II to the cold war when, as the United States and the Soviet Union play a rigged game of chicken, the adult Erik (Michael Fassbender) will brood across a chessboard at a future nemesis, Charles Xavier (James McAvoy).

“…play a rigged game of chicken…”

It’s hard to tell whether this means the movie does a disservice to the United States, though with Hollywood these days this is probably a good guess.

On the other hand, the biggest reason I’m excited about the movie is that it was made by the same guy who made the near-masterpiece Kick Ass: Matthew Vaughn. Anyone who can create a movie hero — Hit Girl — that brings the pain to the enemy the way she does is likely to do a good job with other material.

X Men is in the sasoc on-deck circle.

Read Full Post »

Beware, Mr. Leonhardt, you are in the on-deck circle, and soon you will be in the box dancing to some chin music as the endless flaws in your recent piece are exposed and corrected. You will be roughed up, but in the end you just might embrace the tree of knowledge and be transformed.

Read Full Post »

The most recent Editor’s Note in the Atlantic Monthly turns nakedly partisan and for a moment I thought I was reading the pukings of Graydon Carter, the cry-baby Liberal (aren’t they all?) editor of Vanity Fair. I love the Atlantic – it is my favorite monthly, and I hope it stays that way. A shame then that Mr. Bennet drives himself right over the cliff.

The magazine’s theme this month is how the Baby Boomer generation has let the country down and put it into critical condition. Mr. Bennet uses the last three presidents – all of them “boomers” – as fodder for articulating the boomer archetype.

But his pathetic argumentation has earned him sasoc number key status:

We’re now on our third Boomer president. The first, Bill Clinton, who is fond of referring to himself as the oldest of the Baby Boomers, is generally seen as the generation’s archetype, because of a tendency (1) to indulge himself (2). But it is the second Boomer president, George W. Bush, who best represents the generation, at least so far; it is Bush who performed the (stereotypically!) defining generational feat of making the least of the most opportunity (3). Under a cloak of moral seriousness (4), he led the country on a heedless eight-year binge (5) that would have embarrassed even Zonker Harris, if he followed the news. By the time Bush left office, he had almost doubled the national debt to more than $10 trillion, with two wars (6) and little else to show for it (7) beyond new federal giveaways that are still digging us into an ever deeper hole (8).

Three for me, and none for you.

In (1) and (2) Bennet is bending over backwards to be polite when discussing the most un-serious man to ever inhabit the White House. Bill Clinton had a “tendency” to “indulge himself”?? What an obviously ridiculous statement. The man was ejaculating on interns in the Oval, and when he wasn’t doing that he was groping and fondling assorted other women as a prelude to eventual character assassination by his henchmen (e.g., ‘That bitch is CRAZY!!  Don’t believe her!!’). Such chronic pathological and self-destructive behavior constitutes far more than a “tendency” and helping himself to fistfulls of flesh belonging to women other than his wife is a bit more than an “indulgence.” But this morally bankrupt predation of a dozen women would not have risen to national tragedy if it hadn’t eclipsed his duty to his country and to the office of the presidency, which it very obviously did.  To paraphrase a brilliant movie:

Our enemies had only two ways out: death, or victory.

In (3), Bennet would have us believe that doubya was more distinguished in the category of “making the least of the most opportunity” than Slick Willie Clinton. This is another ridiculous statement and I thank Mr. Bennet for giving me the pleasure of dismantling it piece by piece until there is nothing left of it.

A shortfall of the kind Mr. Bennet seeks to highlight involves two measures: the (A) actual performance and the (B) height of expectation. In short, felonious Clinton scored lower, and higher, on these measures, respectively, giving him the largest gap and making him the clear winner. That Mr. Bennet is so blinded by his leftist leanings that he can’t weigh the scales properly is very disappointing. Let me cure his blindness:

Height of Expectation. Did anyone expect George Bush to do great things? Uh, no, not even Republican thought he’d be anything special (just better than the alternative). Bush was no great scholar, as Clinton supposedly was, and no great intellect, as Clinton supposedly was. Between the two men, it was Clinton, not Bush, who entered the Presidency with great opportunity and expectation. It’s not even close.

Actual Performance. Mr. Bennet, clearly a one-eyed man of the Liberal variety, only sees Bush’s failures and not Clinton’s. This is quite a trick when you consider the failures of Clinton, which were of epic scope and scale, and included

  • Deregulation of Wall Street under Bob Rubin, his Treasury Secretary and ex-Goldman squid, paving the way for the crash of ’08;
  • Looting of Fanny and Freddie with simultaneous promotion of home ownership to those with poor credit, paving the way for the crash of ’08;
  • Feckless non-responsiveness to terrorist attacks against American interests around the world, combined with a simultaneous and related non-stop bacchanal at the White House, all of which emboldened our enemies and paved the way to 9/11;
  • Encouragement of an asset bubble that burst spectacularly during his last year in office (does anyone remember the dot-com crash of 2000, when trillions of dollars were vaporized by the inevitable end of the true “decade of greed”?)
  • A direct assault on women’s hard-won rights to establish a pattern of conduct against their male abusers in the work place (what’s that Mr. Bennet? You thought impeachment was only about blowjobs? Then read this and you will understand);
  • Being the second President in U.S. history to be impeached, for perjury and obstruction of justice

To be fair, Clinton had a few successes, such as brokering peace in Northern Ireland, and declaring the era of big government to be over. Oh, and he signed the Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage as “the legal union between one man and one woman,” right Mr. Bennet? And no, James, Clinton does not get credit for the sustained economic growth during his presidency because it was a function of the 1994 Republican landslide that (a) caused interest rates to drop immediately, creating a sustained and ongoing credit stimulus to businesses, and (b) so neutered his economic agenda (including Hillarycare) that the economy was allowed to grow unmolested by Washington. Don’t buy it? Then look at the graph here.

I will defend our country from attack, but I'll bust that Treasury if I wanna!

As for George W., how soon we all forget that early in his Presidency the country suffered several shocks, including the recently crashed NASDAQ market and associated jobs-creation engine of startup companies (small business was wrecked by the Clinton bubble and took years to come back), and of course the terrorist attacks of 9/11, which impacted not only the national psyche, but also the economy directly: no one traveled for awhile, a phenomenon that rippled through more than just the transportation industry.  Mr. Bennet in (4) says that Bush acted “under the cloak of moral seriousness,” but I believe Bush’s response to 9/11 was entirely serious in a way that Clinton never demonstrated (save for his seriousness about his selfish and petty personal aims – on those things he was deadly serious). In (6) and (7) Mr. Bennet references Bush’s “two wars” and suggests that he/we “had little to show for it.” Oh really? How about the fact that we were never attacked again during his two terms? That by itself is the greatest testament to Bush’s effective leadership of America while under attack.

On the flip side, Bush was a terrible President in several respects, and Mr. Bennet highlights a few of them: in (5), he rightly points out that Bush and a Republican Congress (for that matter) spent like drunken sailors, and in (8) he rightly points out that Bush created some “giveaways” that will add their fair share to bankrupting the Treasury (James, do you see what it’s like to be a two-eyed man, able to criticize politicians from both parties on the way to a fair and balanced judgement? I didn’t think so). I’ll go one further and fault Bush for having a soft spot on the greatest threat to our Republic since the Civil War: 12 – 20 million non-assimilating illegals.

But back to the point at hand: which President made the least of the most opportunity?

One final point before the case is air tight and Mr. Bennet is forced to tap out. Clinton’s record is not only constituted by what he did do, it is also constituted by what he did not do, and this is where he will rank among the biggest squanderers of opportunity in centuries. As we all know, Reagan won the Cold War and Bush 41 , after muddling through a bit of messy transition, bequeathed a largely peaceful world and recovering economy to felonious Clinton. Beginning in 1992, the American President could have led the nation and the world down a path of cohesion and renewed commitment to enlightened ideals. This would have been the work of a statesman committed to the hard work of building a lasting foundation for global democratic ideals, human rights, and international cooperation. But instead, Bill Clinton said: “Let’s Fuck!!” and chose to lead a bacchanal for eight long years while Al Qaeda executed military strikes against us and plotted 9/11.

In conclusion, it was Bill Clinton, and not George Bush, who entered the Presidency with very high expectations of success and loads of opportunity, and it was Bill Clinton, and not George Bush, who failed miserably as President and made an absolute mess of himself and his office while simultaneously sowing the seeds of our destruction across political, economic, cultural, and military dimensions.

Whether Bill Clinton is emblematic of the baby boomer generation is another question, and I for one would take it as the worst possible insult if he were said to be so.

Read Full Post »

Beware, Mr. Bennet, you are in the on-deck circle, and soon you will be in the box dancing to some chin music, courtesy of sasoc number key destruction.

Read Full Post »

Oh the joys of a target-rich environment. Matt Bai wrote a piece in the New York Times last weekend that is an orgy of Liberal nonsense and it has brought me hours of pleasure. Pleasure, that is, of dismantling it word by word and sentence by sentence. This particular demolition has been like drinking a bottle of Chateau Haut-Brion slowly and deliberately, over days. I almost don’t want it to end, but the real pleasure is in the sharing, which I will do soon.

Read Full Post »