The Gonzocon Terror Lie

is now up on Antiwar.

Trouble In Scotland?

Earlier today, the National Review's boyish editor Rich Lowry published a post on NRO's Corner concerning some of the difficulties surrounding Tom DeLay.

It's title was tempting, just too tempting - Trouble in Scotland.

I just couldn't resist sending him this e-mail:

"Dear Rich,

Yep, Scotland and the Scots can be a pile, or, as we say, a 'wheen' of trouble.

Just ask Derb. He got himself into a bit of a guddle, if not an out and out fankle.

Best,

Martin Kelly
Glasgow"

NRO does the British General Election

here.

As a British conservative, I find myself utterly indifferent to its result. Whoever had won, I will be paying more taxes. Whoever had won, power will centralise futher in Brussels. Whoever had won, there will be no attempt at reformation of the abortion laws. Whoever had won, young men from Govan and Pollok will still get killed in Iraq. For what? Ultimately, was it all for this? Or this?

British conservatism is dead. Still breathing in the 1970's, it was mortally wounded by the Communists of the National Union of Mineworkers before the coup de grace was delivered by the aggressive, compassionless ultra-libertarianism of Margaret Thatcher. For 25 years the Tories have just been money men.

Not really my type of people.

If anybody has John Rhys-Davies' e-mail address...

Do please tell him to get in touch.

I'm sure he'd be very interested to know that this article is still appearing on the British National Party's website at least 14 months after he told them to get lost.

Some Thoughts on the Eve of the British General Election

is now up on Page 2 Politics on The Washington Dispatch.

For the reasons I've mentioned in the post, I won't be voting tomorrow. It saves me the trouble of having to decide which of them is the least worst option.

In all likelihood, if one of their candidates had been standing I'd have gone for Operation Christian Vote. I went for them in the elections to the Scottish Parliament last year, because they were the only ones interested in preventing euthanasia and stopping abortion. It has to be said that that vote was the best I have ever cast, the only one not cast out of blind loyalty to the Conservative Party and antipathy to Labour and the Liberal Democrats.

I do hope they do well.

You didn't think I'd forgot you, Steve?

Two days ago it was roosters: today it's horses, in order to prove the failure of eugenics.

One would have thought that the activities of the government of Germany between 1933 and 1945 would have been sufficient proof of the undesirability of eugenics.

Well, at least he's steering clear of the chimpanzees.

Asking David Frum a question

On May 1, David Frum posted this item on NRO in relation to the British general election on May 5.

Finding it intriguing, I sent him this e-mail:

"Dear David,

I'm fascinated by this post.

There's one thing about the Sunday Telegraph's coverage of the election that's troubled me, though. On Page 2 of May 1's paper edition, there was an article by David Bamber and Andrew Alderson called 'Police step up security attack against al-Qaeda election attack'.

I thought this was familiar, and checked back to NRO's 'Corner' of September 25 last year, and this entry by Michael Novak. It looks like Jose Maria Aznar's breakfast chat has been wrong on all counts so far. So, this is what's been bothering me: did Novak really believe it, or was it just scaremongering all along?

Tell you what, why don't you pop your head round his office door and ask him for me, would you? I'd love to know.

Best,

Martin Kelly"

Breaking News - John Derbyshire thinks less of Laura Bush!

Crikey!

Wonder if she would think less of him if she knew he had written dodgy book reviews about transsexuals!

Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Kos?

Well, Byron York by the sound of it, joining the queue behind Dean Barnett.

I read DailyKos from time to time; it's not my bag, and Markos Moulitsas' prose style is too aggressive for my taste. But these guys are missing the point, because his site is way ahead of any in the online conservative press in these respects; there will probably be others:

1. DailyKos is not a blog, it's more of a community, or if you're not prepared to go that far, call it a politically focused chatroom, or online activism. If you read NRO, Andrew Sullivan, Townhall, whatever, you are a spectator to the event; you are witnessing Jonah and K-Lo and Andrew being brilliant and talking to each other and talking at the readers; in Kos, Moulitsas is talking to the readers, and the readers are talking to each other. This is a very simple concept, which is it what makes it so brilliant. It is no wonder his reach is so great: it would be very interesting to know what viewer stats he has on the ratio of visitors to posters - 100/500/1000/10000? And if his members are able to talk about anything on 'Open Threads' throughout the day, is it any wonder they keep coming back?

2. The Internet is a visual medium: Kos is more interesting to look at than any in the online conservative press. NRO's 'Corner' is simple black and white, visually unstimulating. Moulitsas has clearly invested the time and resources necessary to achieve the look he wants.

3. He is committed. Doh. He's, like, interested in making it work. He works hard at it. He has had to go and get readers without the cushion of writing for the website of a print publication. As hard as it might be for some conservative folks to believe, he is hungrier for success than they are.

Kos' success should be no surprise. He has beaten the neocons at what they think is their game, and they can't handle it.

The Bushoculties set their faces like flint

against Wlady Pleszczynski, for daring to criticise Laura Bush.

A lot of this is ugly, personal stuff. Not nice. His criticism was perfectly valid.

A first - I agree with Michelle Malkin!

about Laura Bush's stand-up routine.

Although I can't understand why Michelle Maglalang Malkin keeps referring to the wife of the junior senator from Massachusetts as 'Theresa Heinz Kerry'.

Beats me.

Dr. Goldberg consults with Dr. Sailer on the incidence of coronary disease in black women

Dr. Goldberg's opinion can be found here; Dr. Sailer's, oh, well, if you must, here.

Well, one can agree with both of them on one thing: neither of them are scientists. My beef with Stevie Boy is that these women are reported as having been stressed by being made to feel 'less smart'; it's really mean-spirited of him to criticise that when he's made a career of out saying that there are racial variations in IQ with blacks always on the bottom.

Goldberg's points, although brimming with the usual yada-yada, are obscure: I didn't understand this at all:

"This doesn't mean people should ignore bigotry for the sake of their health, but it seems to me this study is counting angry people and then identifying a single cause for their anger. It would be interesting to know if they asked subjects about some non-racial grievances as well. Like: how often do you get parking tickets unfairly?"

Although the end result is the same, stress, the study quotes three triggers: "The women reported discrimination in the form of having poorer service in stores or restaurants, being treated as if they were less smart or being treated as if they were dishonest." Perhaps these ladies are particularly prone to perceiving discrimination where none exists. But it's disingenuous to say they're counting a single cause for their anger: this is 'another man's moccasins' territory. And to say that discrimination has improved is meaningless as long as VDare's around.

WFB puts an interesting spin on to the Social Security debate

here.

Very thoughtful.

Will David Horowitz ever let Marla Ruzicka rest in peace?

Not likely, by the looks of it.

Speaking ill of the dead seems to come naturally to him and his associates.

Most likely, today's article is blowback, a necessary rejoinder to the earlier, disgusting piece; and one can't help but think that the sympathy it expresses for Miss Ruzicka's passing is calculated, and therefore worthless.

Wlady Pleszczynski says what I'd been thinking about Laura Bush's speech

here.

Yes, sometimes it is good for a wife to rib her husband in public - but it's incendiary when so much of that husband's base so closely identifies with socially conservative values.

Conservatives for Taxes

strike again!

Beating up on Grover

I have a great new name for the National Review Online - 'Neocons Against Nuptials'.

The April 2 wedding of Grover Norquist, leader of Americans for Tax Reform and superstar of the Washington lobbying scene, to Samah Alrayyes, a Palestinian Muslim, has had the yuppy think tankers over at 'The Corner' in vapoured hysterics.

Out of the blue this morning, Jonah Goldberg posted 'Is Grover Norquist an Islamist?' at 08.41 in NRO's timezone. For the avoidance of doubt, today is May 2 - the dateline on the Daniel Pipes blog entry to which it linked is April 14. That's over two weeks - one wonders if this has been festering for a while, like old socks or kimchi.

This wedding, apart from being the public celebration of a private love which seems to be of enormous political significance to a very small coterie of journalists, is not news. Heck, even you know who had chipped in his tuppenceworth by last week, with this, albeit typically inappropriate, remark:

"At least one. Congratulations to Grover Norquist. Earlier this month, the ultra-energetic 48-year-old GOP activist got married to Samah Alrayyes. Norquist had been saying for a long time that he was going to slow down and start a family, but a lot of people thought he was too hard-charging. Good for him.

The Washington Post reported:

A friend of the bride and groom, Rabbi Daniel Lapin, presided and the reception featured a belly dancer. The always-quotable groom told us Friday: "This is fun! I'm wearing a ring and everything."

I presume the ceremony was nondenominational."

In fairness, Goldberg posted this shortly afterwards. However, it was followed shortly afterwards by this posting from Kathryn Jean 'Human Biodiversity Institute' Lopez, which linked to this article penned in 2003 by Byron York, NRO's guy on Capitol Hill.

And there is the root of the whole story. For two years, Norquist has been at loggerheads with Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., of the Center for Security Policy, a screaming neoconservative. York's article came out in April 2003. In December 2003, Gaffney published a massive, two-part anti-Norquist tract in 'Front Page Magazine' entitled 'A Troubling Influence' (Part I: Part2).

However, check the number of Google entries for "'A Troubling Influence'AND'Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.'". Now check the number of Google entries for "'Front Page Magazine'AND'Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.'". It sems Gaffney has achieved the peculiar distinction of writing an article that may be three times more famous than he is.

But the plot thickens.....Pipes is a 'Front Page Magazine' contributor of some vintage. But he is connected to Gaffney, or if not actually connected, they sure seem to think a lot alike, (precisely the same offence they accuse Norquist of committing with Islamist groups); like they do here; and here; and here; and here (on one of Pipes' websites).

It could be that Norquist has converted to Islam and is doling out a heavy hit of Taqiyya from the cocktail shaker. Pipes certainly provides ammunition for my theory about the behaviour of the soon-to-be-both-unelected-and-divorced George Galloway MP.

But maybe the guy just got married, an event from those with an axe to grind and a shred of human decency should just stay away before David Frum decides to join them is the warzone.

Moonbatting Across The Universe!

Plaut's Complaint (!) has another example of wackadoo Palestinian Authority agitprop this morning - this time about an Israeli 'death ray'.

It's good paranoia, though I've always been more partial to mind-rays than death rays. The 'piece de resistance' of mind-rays would be one that compels Islamists to, ahem, clean their teeth....

Rooster Sex Monster Watch!

Lock up your chickens!

Three points for readers:

1. This article contains just about everything I criticise Sailer for, it's a classic of its kind
2. Steve Sailer is a big fan of Robert Heinlein, whose books he's reviewed on Amazon here and here.
3. The only work of Heinlein's to have been filmed is, I think, Starship Troopers, and in the original book the revolution started in, where was it again, ah, yes -

Scotland.

This is a 30 second blog.
This is a 29 second blog.
This is a 28 second blog.........

How British is this?

Firstly, Americans goes to the trouble of founding 'The American Spectator'. They nurture it for years, promoting new talent, working like Trojans to get the advertisers on board, all the providing a constant flow of insightful and challenging material.

The Clinton White House tries to close them down. They keep on going.

They invest money in starting a daily web page. They then invest more in starting an online digital version.

A Brit then complains about the price.

And I thought it was just the Scots who were supposed to be tight.

My thoughts precisely

from Diana West this morning, although as far as I'm concerned one can transpose the words 'networks' and 'online conservative press'.

A last thought for Steve Sailer

While writing my earlier post today, I linked to this review that Sailer wrote of Frank Miele's, "Intelligence, Race and Genetics: Conversations with Arthur R. Jensen". It is glowing.

It is, of course, no surprise that Miele is a member of the Human Biodiversity Institute, that Jensen is the father of the concept of racial variation in IQ, that Sailer has reviewed it handsomely and has mentioned Miele's membership of the Human Biodiversity Institute precisely nowhere in the review.

This brings the number of intellectually fraudulent book reviews I have caught Sailer publishing up to eight; I'm now gunning for double figures.

Interesting stats on the presence of sex offenders in society from Doug Giles

on Townhall today.

In fact, I liked it so much I sent Giles this e-mail:

"Dear Mr. Giles,

This is a very interesting column, particularly with regard to the number of sex offenders currently outwith prison in the USA. 2 million is a heck of a lot!

Having practiced as a lawyer, and now as a Padawan blogger, it might interest you to note that the American conservative commentary community contains some folks who associate with advocates of an upscale perversion, the Sunday name of which is 'ephebophilia', or
the attraction of the adult towards the adolescent, as opposed to the pre-pubescent child.
Ephebophilia is really just a fancy name for trying to justify statutory rape.

These folks also peddle the idea that blacks are more stupid than whites, which, even for a commentator as robust as yourself, for whom words are a first-strike capability, may be pushing the limits of acceptable free speech to its widest possible margins.

I've laid it all out in an e-pamphlet called HBI Watch. If you're interested, please do read from the ground up.

Best,

Martin Kelly"

This entry completely encapsulates the mean-spiritedness of Steve Sailer's 'race realism'

On May 1, Sailer published this item on his blog.

Reporting on a study that's concluded that discrimination based stress can be a trigger for heart disease in black women, Sailer blithely concludes that,

"Not surprisingly, what this report is really saying is that black women who are angrier at whites have more heart problems.

Anger is bad for your heart.

Further, this suggests that the media's relentless attempts to inculcate black anger at whites over perceptions of discrimination may be killing blacks."

However, these paragraphs appear in the section he quoted:

"The study included 181 middle-aged black women from the Chicago and Pittsburgh areas. The women completed a questionnaire that assessed their experiences of subtle discrimination, such as being ignored or treated with a lack of courtesy or respect.

'The women reported discrimination in the form of having poorer service in stores or restaurants, being treated as if they were less smart, or being treated as if they were dishonest,'
(Tene) Lewis said."

Black ladies of a certain age get stressed, get angry and fall ill if people treat them as 'less smart'. Steve Sailer has made a career out of peddling the idea that racial variations in IQ not only exist, but that blacks are always at the lower end of the IQ scale. His persistent pursuit of this idea, whether on account of his own racial bigotry or for the sake of fame and profit, gets him readers. His repetition of this idea by rote, Aldous Huxley style, causes it to percolate into his readers' collective consciousness. They might just then duplicate Steve's ideas and treat black ladies of a certain age as less smart. The black ladies of a certain age then get stressed, get angry and fall ill.

Steve then says it's all their own fault for being angry with whites.

Sailer's post today says to blacks, 'I will say what I wish about you, but any harm that may come to you as a result is your responsibility'; the posture of an intellectual fraud.

He really is a mean-spirited SOB, isn't he?

Steve Sailer does it again!

Quoting Gregory Cochran without telling people Cochran is a member of the Human Biodiversity Institute.

Gotcha!