I suppose it’s because he is seen as a turncoat — someone who used to be one of them, but has peered through the fog and rejected heroes of the left such as Howard Zinn, whom Horowitz condemned last night as “a Stalinist fraud.”

Once Nancy Johnson country, the Northwest Corner is now solidly blue. Still, about 75 people turned out see Horowitz at the Elfers music hall at The Hotchkiss School [see photo at left]. Before he began, Horowitz worked the room, introducing himself to everyone there. I chatted briefly with him about being a community journalist — a job he professed great respect for because “you really get to know the people you cover.”

The appearance was sponsored by the Hotchkiss Republicans and Young America’s Foundation, a conservative young people’s organization Horowitz has supported for years.

Horowitz, a nationally known author and activist who appears regularly as a guest on cable news shows, has long been a champion of academic freedom and has lamented the extent to which academia has been dominated by the left, especially on college campuses, but also in settings such as Hotchkiss.

In her introduction, Natalie Boyse, a junior at the school and a member of the Hotchkiss Republicans, lionized Horowitz in a way that would probably even make the Heritage Foundation blush.

(more…)

Of course, the piece is tongue-in-cheek. And I understand that Conniff is trying to make a larger point about the responsibility we all have to make society better and, yes, sometimes that requires tax increases. Who could disagree with that?

But his insistence that it’s the word that people object to rather than the concept strikes me as naive. As I pointed out in a post about labels more than a year ago, almost any word or phrase used to describe something regarded as objectionable or deficient by enough people will eventually take on a negative connotation by the sheer force of repeated use.

So changing the name of taxes, with its “punitive overtones,” to “dues” might make the concept seem a little more palatable. But over time, “dues” would be perceived just as negatively, notwithstanding the fact that the word “is rooted in social obligation and duty.”

What Conniff doesn’t understand is the concept of taxation has a negative connotation, not so much because of greed, but because too often people have seen public funds used for philosophically objectionable purposes (e.g. war, abortion) or wasteful ends (e.g. “bridges to nowhere”).

Nice try, Conniff, but you’re talking about nothing more than putting lipstick on a pig.

Two shocking things about it: the writer is English and “is Britain’s only self-confessed libertarian Marxist newspaper columnist.” In other words, a left-wing libertarian case against gun control and for the simple virtues of the Second Amendment. That guy has more personalities than Sybil.

Good Heston quote from one of his letters from 1999:

 A while ago, I was at one of those silly “A-list” parties and fell into conversation on all this with a stunningly beautiful, famous star (not a bad actress, either) who said, “Well, look what it says on the dollar bill: ‘e pluribus unum.’ From one, many.” “Actually, you’ve got the Latin backward,” I replied. “It translates, ‘From many, one.’ As in one nation . . . indivisible?” “No kidding?” she said, amazed. “Well . . . whatever.” And there you have it. We live, increasingly, in a “well, whatever” nation. God help us all.

* * * * * * *

John McCain attended a pro-Iraq war rally yesterday. Yes, believe it or not, there actually are such things. Mack said the usual words of encouragement about fighting terrorism and called Petraeus “one of [America’s] greatest generals.” But here’s what puzzled me about the story on MSNBC’s First Read:

Before McCain spoke, former Army Staff Sergeant David Bellavia introduced the Arizona senator, telling those in attendance he wants his sons to view McCain as a role model, versus someone like Tiger Woods.

Say what? What did Tiger do to deserve the designation of poor role model? Make a lot of money instead of joining the military? Seems to me you could say the same thing about Dick Cheney or Paul Wolfowitz or some of the other public officials whose war the sergeant supports.

But last night as the March winds threatened to pick my house up and throw it — Dorothy-style — to a distant land, I listened to a Hugh Hewitt podcast on SCOTUS’s recent oral arguments on the 2nd Amendment and the extent to which it does or does not entitle us to own guns. The case is really a test of D.C.’s handgun ban. Click here to listen and here for the transcript.

I think I can safely say it is the best half hour of radio I’ve ever heard. There were audio snippets of Kennedy, Scalia, Stephens and Souter battling it out, each followed by analysis and advocacy from two distinguished law school deans (Erwin Chemerinsky and John Eastman) elaborating succinctly and in layman’s terms.

To top it off, in addition to being a skilled radio host, Hewitt teaches constitutional law and continues to be a practicing attorney. If you’re interested in the Constitution, it doesn’t get any better than this.

(more…)

Why is it legal to pay someone to have sex in front of a camera (i.e. the pornography industry) but illegal to pay that same person to have sex with you in the privacy of a hotel room? No rationalizations, please …

“I made a serious mistake and betrayed the trust of my co-workers, my many clients, and my pimps,” she said in a quiet voice cracking with emotion. “I will be taking a leave of absence to earn their forgiveness, and redeem myself in the eyes of the entire expensive whore community.”

You can’t make this stuff up. Actually, you can …

H/T to Jake and IowaHawk.

Over the next several weeks it will be interesting to see how many additional details will be leaked and whether criminal charges will be filed. In his career as a public servant, Spitzer made many enemies. I’m told people at the NYSE literally jumped for joy at the news of his demise. Even the good guys on Wall Street hated Spitzer because of his tendency to go at them with a sledgehammer, destroying lives along the way.

State Democrats despised his arrogance and Republicans hated him for his use of the state police to try to smear his chief political foe, Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno. Bill Clinton had people willing to risk their reputations to go out there and defend him, but alas, poor Eliot had no friends left.

Some have suggested he is the victim of overzealous prosecution. Too bad. Spitzer himself was an overzealous prosecutor. I feel bad for his wife and family but I really have no sympathy for him. Good riddance.

* * * * * *

Ever heard of David Mamet, the distinguished playwright? As a drama major, I read several of his plays years ago. He’s just come out with a piece in The Village Voice announcing he is “no longer a brain dead liberal.” Most amusing are the howls of outrage in the comment thread from unreformed libs.

* * * * * * *

I predicted on a vlog just before Thanksgiving tha Eliot Sptizer would not make it through one term as governor of New York.

I may very well be right. Now in addition to siccing the State Police on his political enemies (a Nixonian trait), the NYT is reporting Spitzer has been linked to a prostitution ring (a Clintonian trait). A paranoia problem and a zipper problem. Doesn’t get much worse than that.

Someone here in the newsroom just said Spitzer has a death wish. I’d say that’s being kind. Who is the lieutenant governnor of New York anyway? We might be hearing a lot of that name soon.

P.S. It’s 2:50 p.m. and everyone is reporting Spitzer is expected to appear before the cameras soon.

The Board of Selectmen rightly refused to hold a town meeting on the advice of the town’s legal counsel that state law does not permit Connecticut’s towns to pass resolutions on matters over which they have no authority or powers of enforcement. The selectmen did agree to a special board meeting (held Jan. 16) in which the signers could air their grievances.

Despite evident frustration on the part of the petitioners at the meeting, the selectmen held firm. Both parties were respectful and a few conservatives even spoke out against holding the meeting at all.

I know many of the petitioners. They are honorable, decent people who are upset at the Bush administration and its alleged misdeeds. The self-described “instigator” of the petition, Dr. Bill Gallup, clearly would prefer impeachment, but has settled for milder language in his resolution since he knows Murphy does not support bringing the president and vice president up on charges.

But I think the petitioners are missing the mark here. To get the town formally involved in these sorts of issues is, as Michael Walsh said, “simply a supererogatory exercise in Bush Derangement Syndrome.”

(more…)

You know, it’s times like these that I’m grateful I don’t (and never will) command a huge military. My first reaction to Podhoretz’s piece (and indeed the whole notion of bombing Iran) was that it is a bit nutty and extremely dangerous. And most of me still feels that way.

But if you accept two logical premises in sequence (for both of which there is conflicting evidence, btw), then the choice about taking action becomes less clear: 1) If you think it’s obvious that Iran either has nukes or will develop them soon and 2) If you are convinced she will use them against Israel.

Now, Iran is major sponsor of terrorism, so I agree with Podhoretz  that it’s reasonable to conclude some of that nuke techonolgy could find its way into the hands of those who would use it to harm others, including us.

As for whether Iran would use nukes against Israel, I have no idea. But President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is on record as saying the Jewish state is “heading toward annihilation,” will soon “be liberated and “will be eliminated by one storm.” Apocolyptic rhetoric if ever I heard it.

Though officials there won’t admit it, Israel is also known to possess tactical nuclear weapons. If Iran attacked Israel and she responded, we could have a much more dangerous situation our hands than the simple political fallout from a U.S. attack on Iran’s nuke facilities. Indeed, the conflict could escalate well beyond the borders of the Middle East and have almost unspeakable consequences.

Now you see why I’m glad I’m not the guy with the security aid carrying around that nuclear football? Maybe what Podhoretz is hoping that if we don’t act (and despite all the saber-rattling, I’m not convinced Bush will) then Israel will.