Nightly Ramble Wednesday

Welcome, one and all, to the most intense nightly read anywhere on the Internet The BitsBlog Nightly Ramble.

• HEY… CSEA…. Glenn Reynolds suggests that public-sector unions should be illegal.  I think he’s right. Danny Donahue, are you listening?
• NOT SOCIALIST? FAIL….. Sorry, Mickey.  I’ve got a lot a love for you, man, but you missed this one .
  

  When the parties are competing domestically mainly on the issue of who can rev up the economy, will the relatively small differences between them (neither party’s socialist, neither is for killing Social Security or Medicare or-soon-Obamacare) yield more vicious campaigning, faculty politics style?

  Actually, they’re both socialist, to varying degrees… and precisely because neither is for killing Social Security or Medicare, or for that matter Obamacare, or any other form of governmental largess…  even though the majority of America would prefer them doing that if actually  given that as a choice. Are you beginning to understand why the Tea Parties are considered such a threat by both parties, now?

• THE CRABBY FEMINIST SYNDROME:
  

  It’s always been obvious David Brooks has always had a problem with women who succeed, but even I was surprised that his vendetta against famous, successful women became so hysterical this morning that he insinuated that Sandra Bullock should have been at home making a sandwich instead of winning an Oscar, and that would have saved her marriage.

  This from Amanda Marcotte… who I won’t bother linking here.  James commented on this last night at OTB:

  The juxtaposition of Bullock’s winning the Oscar and the revelation of her husband’s betrayal in such close proximately was striking. But the idea that her husband would have been faithful if only Bulloch had been less powerful in her portrayal of a mother adopting an underprivileged behemoth almost certainly never crossed Brooks’ mind.

  That Marcotte would read something so bizarre into such a benign column is just baffling.

  I tell him:

  That’s a polite way of putting it, James, but the fact is it isn’t baffling at all. She simply turning on “the angry feminist”. It’s clear, that everything that she comes up with gets filtered through that rather narrow mindset. Think Andrew Sullivan, the without the accompanying the transition to the far left. She started there.

  There seems to be something to the idea that she’ll go off the deep end like this every 28 days or so. Beyond that, though, there seems a syndrome not unlike what we see with Saint Andrew “The Incontinent” Sullivan, who also views the world through the militant distorted prism of his chosen sexuality. The other parallels involved, I will leave to your own discerning.

• CONSERVATIVE LEADER? Speaking of Saint Andrew, he notes Erick Ericson of Red State making a rough transition to the world of the lamestream media.
  
  Why in the world is he making excuses? Seems to me the “firey comments” are why he’s even being considered, here. And James? Just because someone with a history of conservative comments shows up on CNN doesn’t make one a “conservative leader”. (Consider the specter of Charles Johnson, for example.) Indeed, it cuts them down a few notches from that level. because of the song and dance one must do to maintain such a position.. as in what the vid shows us.
• BLACK TEA PARTY TYPES? I keep hearing reports from the front lines that the lamestream media types who show up to cover tea party gatherings go well out of their way to avoid showing any minorities who happen to show up.  Once again the blogs do the jobs the media refuses to, because the truth runs against their political grain.
• FRED PHELPS AND OTHER INVERTEBRATES : Yes, I did notice the case where the one man slug festival, Fred Phelps, won a point against a father whose son was killed in Iraq. In case you’ve been off planet for a while, Phelps is the moron who has been picketing military funerals and says the soldiers marines have been killed because, as he claims, God is punishing America for condoning homosexuals.  God may not approve of homosexual behavior, but I don’t seem to recall there being anything in the Bible about God hating anybody. Even Saint Paul (whose words are, I assume, the excuse that Fred Phelps uses to justify his own hatreds) …never said anything of the sort.
  Personally, I find Phelps and his Westboro group to be among the slime of the earth. In my view, it’s not God he represents, here. In my view, Phelps and his people are among the myriad reasons why church attendance has been dropping off rather dramatically in this country over the last twenty years.  Former churchgoers have figured out for themselves that all too often the leadership in the various churches are making their various stands, based on their own hatreds and frailties, and not on God’s love.  I suggest Phelps to be among these. If Phelps and his peoplthe  had any love in them whatsoever, they would understand that love has nothing to do with what they’re doing.
  That said, the ruling of the court was the right ruling to make.  To rule in any other fashion would set a dangerous precedent.  I must say though, I was pleased to see Bill O’Reilly dig into his own wallet to cover the $16,000.00 expenses.  I have long held that O’Rilley has been one of the larger horse’s backsides in the media today.  But, credit where credit is due.  He did a good thing here.  To the point where, frankly, I must give some thought to altering that long held position.
• WHY IS CONSERVATIVE MEDIA CRUSHING THE LIBERAL MEDIA? In yesterday’s ramble, I mentioned that the ratings for the liberal media, including CNN, were even more in the toilet than they have been.  Today Henry Blodgett discusses why. (BBCT Roger Hedgecock.)
• THE RUBIO CRIST DEBATE: Highlights here.