People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it. Welcome to From On High.

Saturday, May 14, 2011

Holding Newt's Feet To The Fire

In case you're missing the fireworks, Marc Morano over at Climate Depot has been beating up on Newt Gingrich unmercifully in recent days for the latter's inexplicable dalliance a few years ago with the despised Nancy Pelosi and her freaky "global warming" crusade.

It's a hoot.

And Newt deserves every swat that's impacting his (rather rotund) backside.

I ridiculed him at the time for it.  He's no less deserving of ridicule today.

In the words of some really smart guy: What was he thinking?

There'll Be a Whole Lot Of Hypocrisy Goin' 'Round

This is certainly true:
Adultery and Double Standards
Peter Wehner, Commentary

On my drive out to McLean earlier today, I was tuning in to The Mike Gallagher Show. I haven’t listened to Gallagher all that much, but the times I’ve heard him he comes across as a reasonable person. Among the topics that arose was Newt Gingrich’s marital infidelity. I felt like I was in a time warp, with Gallagher and his callers arguing that (a) we’re all flawed and imperfect; (b) it’s important to forgive people who slip up; (c) isn’t it unfair to keep people like Gingrich from serving in public life because of past failures; and (d) many impressive political figures, including past presidents, have committed adultery. Surely that shouldn’t be a disqualifier.

Those were exactly the arguments that liberals were making in defense of Bill Clinton’s various indiscretions 13 years ago, and many conservatives didn’t find them to be terribly persuasive at the time. Now, it seems, some of them do.

Thus infidelity in the case of Bill Clinton is a huge strike against him, but for Newt Gingrich the verses from John 8:7 (“Let him who is without sin among you be the first to cast a stone at her”) and Matthew 7:1 (“Judge not lest you be judged”) are the order of the day. [link]

Left unsaid - but perhaps implied - is the other side of that coin: the leftist media in this country - the same one that gave Bill Clinton a pass for his sexual deviancies - will be all righteous and Bible-thumping over Newt's failures from years ago.

In fact both deserve our scorn.

If there's a difference, however, it's in the charges themselves.  Don't forget, Bill Clinton didn't just play hide-the-cigar with one of his young female employees (a clear demarcation in itself); he was charged with rape.  And if his pals in the media defended him vigorously when he was trying to fend off Ken Starr, their actions were absolutely shameful in the way they handled - or rather didn't handle - Juanita Broaddrick's charge.

You'd think a president of the United States having been charged with rape would have been something the press would have taken an interest in.  But you would have been wrong.

Anyway, Newt's past is an issue.  And it shouldn't be denied.

And you can bet it won't be by that same press that was so willing to cut Bill Clinton so much slack those many years ago.


Can this be?

God, I hope not.

But I fear it's so.

Hmm II

A coincidence?

Ann Althouse's much-beloved weblog went down the other day.

The same day mine did.

Some see nefarious scheming behind it.

I wonder if it weren't simply the usual foul-up.

- - -

Related?  A note from Blogger:
Update (5/13 7:46PM PST): Nearly all posts since Wednesday are restored, now bringing back comments from last couple days. We expect the comments to be back this weekend or sooner.

What a frustrating day. We’re very sorry that you’ve been unable to publish to Blogger for the past 20.5 hours. We’re nearly back to normal — you can publish again, and in the coming hours posts and comments that were temporarily removed should be restored.  Thank you for your patience while we fix this situation.  We use Blogger for our own blogs, so we’ve also felt your pain.

Here’s what happened: during scheduled maintenance work Wednesday night, we experienced some data corruption that impacted Blogger’s behavior. Since then, bloggers and readers may have experienced a variety of anomalies including intermittent outages, disappearing posts, and arriving at unintended blogs or error pages. A small subset of Blogger users (we estimate 0.16%) may have encountered additional problems specific to their accounts. Yesterday we returned Blogger to a pre-maintenance state and placed the service in read-only mode while we worked on restoring all content: that’s why you haven’t been able to publish.  We rolled back to a version of Blogger as of Wednesday May 11th, so your posts since then were temporarily removed. Those are the posts that we’re in the progress of restoring.

Again, we are very sorry for the impact to our authors and readers.  We try hard to ensure Blogger is always available for you to share your thoughts and opinions with the world, and we’ll do our best to prevent this from happening again.
I was actually in the middle of a blog post when the site crashed.  Frustration, as you might imagine, ensued.

Was this what happened to Ann Althouse's weblog?  If so, y'all need to calm down and get a grip.

As that wise man once said: Shit happens.


Am I the only person who finds - in 2011 - the use of the words "Israel-Palestinian peace process" to be a bit threadbare? Shouldn't a process - at some time in its sixty years of "processing" - show some signs of fundament? Why do journalists and government bureaucrats continue to cling to the silly idea that there is or has ever been a "process" - or course of action - in place anywhere at any time in the Middle East?

For there it is again:
George Mitchell's exit marks low point in peace process
By Ben Smith, Politico

The resignation of U.S. Middle East special envoy George Mitchell on Friday puts a punctuation mark on the end of two years of high-profile meetings and quiet stalemate in the Israel-Palestinian peace process, which has all but collapsed on the Obama administration’s watch.

Mitchell, 77, a highly regarded international peacemaker and a former Senate majority leader, never found willing partners in Jerusalem or Ramallah for the sort of painstaking, grinding negotiations he hoped would bring peace. [link]
Mitchell will be replaced of course.  Israeli-Palestinian peace processors always are.  And the saga will continue.

But to my point:  If he weren't ever replaced, what would have changed with regard to that "process"?

Bizarre II


Can anyone explain what's going on there?

Who's in charge? What's the goal? What's the plan? What's the cost? Who are we fighting for? Why are we there?

It's crazy. Just crazy.