I must confess that I had interpreted all the MSM reports that Fred Thompson had no fire in his belly for presidential campaigning, and that he was considering withdrawing last week, and this week, and next week as liberal wishful thinking at its worst.

But it appears that, for once, they were telling the truth.

Fred Thompson clearly was some kind of half-committed, thoroughly disorganized faux candidate, since he washed himself out on the basis of low attendance results from a couple of thoroughly non-determinative open primaries. Fred was like one of those Civil War political-appointee generals who marched up to the front, heard a little gunfire, and then rapidly beat a panicky retreat. His departure from the field can hardly be regarded as a major loss to Conservative cause, judged with respect to either his demonstrated competence or resolution.

It seemed like bad news at the time, but we’ll get over it.

The operational alliance between the radical left and the mainstream media was demonstrated in its most conspicuous form today, when a bogus exercise in propaganda by a collection of radical leftists (funded by the usual gang of wealthy poseurs) was served up as supposed “news” by AP

A study by two nonprofit (but highly partisan) journalism organizations (funded by George Soros, Barbara Streisand, and other less-than-disinterested parties) found that President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks.

The study concluded that the statements “were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses.”

The study was posted Tuesday on the Web site of the Center for Public Integrity, which worked with the Fund for Independence in Journalism.

and the New York Times.

Big Lizards explains who is behind this.

“A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations…”

The Fund for Independence in Journalism says its “primary purpose is providing legal defense and endowment support for the largest nonprofit, investigative reporting institution in the world, the Center for Public Integrity, and possibly other, similar groups.” Eight of the eleven members of the Fund’s board of directors are either on the BoD of the Center for Public Integrity, or else are on the Center’s Advisory Board. Thus these “two” organizations are actually joined at the hip.

“Fund for Independence in Journalism…”

The Center is heavily funded by George Soros. It has also received funding from Bill Moyers, though some of that money might have actually been from Soros, laundered through Moyers via the Open Society Foundation.

Other funders include the Streisand Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the Pew Charitable Trusts (used to be conservative, but in 1987 they veered sharply to the left, and are now a dyed-in-the-wool “progressive” funder), the Los Angeles Times Foundation, and so forth. The Center is a far-left organization funded by far-left millionaires, billionaires, and trusts.

Selective quotations and old leftist lies (including Joe Wilson’s) are simply repackaged in an on-line database by a gang of “progressives” funded by the usual suspects, and this exercise in self-gratification is treated as “news.”

This game allows you to assume the identity of one of the leading candidates then fight your way to the top by shooting your opponents with paintballs.

link

Yale University is in a tizzy this week as irate members of the Yale Women’s Center are reacting with ferocity to the above photo of a dozen Zeta Psi pledges posing in front of oppressed femininity’s campus refuge provocatively holding a sign reading “WE LOVE YALE SLUTS.”

A thoroughly groveling apology (which additionally accepts responsibility for the tragic incident) from the fraternity chapter’s president has proven inadequate to quell the feminist wrath or to deflect the aroused furies from their expressed intention of suing the fraternity, the University and the individuals in the photograph on grounds of sexual harassment and defamation. And the feminist group has issued a manifesto discussing the emotional and psychological impact of “the violence of hate speech” and expressing a firm intention of seeking judicial revenge.

Yale’s sexists love to say that feminists have no sense of humor. Here’s a good joke: lawyer up.

Angry Womynist Political Action Coordinator

David Brooks (the New York Times’ resident ersatz-conservative) thinks that the Conservative Movement’s definition of a conservative is too narrow, and ought to be enlarged to include not only himself but also Senator John McCain.

McCain is the MSM’s current anointed front-runner on the basis of having come in in first in primaries open to non-Republican voters in New Hampshire and South Carolina. I think myself all those primaries really did establish the fact that John McCain is, by a small margin at the present time, the favorite Republican candidate of non-Republicans.

When I contemplate John McCain’s candidacy and his political record, I feel obliged to agree that McCain deserves to be the presidential candidate of a major party, just not of the Republican Party.

What John McCain really is is a pre-McGovern era, non-urban patriotic democrat. McCain has been a reliable democrat vote in the Senate on every major issue, except for taxes (sometimes) and defense issues. He is not in the least conservative on restraining government, limiting regulation, or defending the rights of the individual outside the sphere of rights supported by the community of fashion. He is the sort of person who would sit comfortably in the Council of Foreign Relations, and who could be trusted to be largely guided by the perspectives of the editorial pages of the Post and the Times.

He differs from other democrats only with respect to a Scoop Jackson-like enthusiasm for defense funding and propensity to take the side of the US rather than that of any available foreign adversary in conflicts overseas.

Dave Brooks thinks McCain is a potentially winning presidential candidate.

If so, I’d say the party he really belongs in, the party of statism, establishmentarianism, and intellectual conformity, ought to be nominating him. He should not be trying to run as a Republican.

Andrew Sullivan is currently running the above photograph captioned only:

US President George W. Bush (C) leans over to talk with a girl (R) after Bush participated in a lesson for young children on the importance of Martin Luther King, Jr. Day during a tour of the Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial Library in Washington, DC, 21 January 2008.

But, at Free Republic, Andrew Sullivan’s post is linked (by a correspondent signing himself america4vr) with the following text which appears to have been originally Andrew Sullivan’s.

This picture will forever be branded in my memory as one of the most disturbing images ever. What child would not be thrilled, ecstatic to meet the President of the United States, particularly one with the goofy,likable charm of President Bush? Here you see him greeting, warmly embracing this child in the loveliest, purest of emotions. The look of revulsion, of vehemence, of utter contempt for the President on this child is one of the most haunting, disturbing images I have ever seen.

Certainly the family was aware that the president would be coming to the school in celebration of the holiday.This child has been brainwashed, her palpable prejudice is not one that can be ingrained overnight, one that requires an extended period of incubation.

What an absolute utter disgrace.

It’s possible that that comment is actually by america4vr, but one wonders if Sullivan may not have first posted it and then later removed it.

In any event, it is the interpretive comment which supplies the crucial food for thought and makes one look seriously at the picture.

Hillary and Obama really go after one another in this segment of the South Carolina debate.

7:36 video

Jonah Goldberg sounds the alarm over the elect’s revival of enthusiasm for coercive expressions collectivist paternalism.

Remember this? “There is nothing wrong with your television set. Do not attempt to adjust the picture. We are controlling transmission. If we wish to make it louder, we will bring up the volume. If we wish to make it softer, we will tune it to a whisper. We will control the horizontal. We will control the vertical….”

Younger readers may not remember the opening to “The Outer Limits,” a pretty good sci-fi rip-off of “The Twilight Zone” (and they may have only a fuzzy understanding that TVs used to have knobs to control the horizontal and vertical). But as they read the news these days, maybe they can find a new appreciation for the creepy feeling of powerlessness that opening once gave viewers. …

We are seeing a return to the idea — first championed by social planners in the progressive era — that government can and should play the role of parent. For instance, Michael Gerson, once a speechwriter for President Bush, advocates a new “heroic conservatism” — an updating of his former boss’ compassionate conservatism — that would unleash a new era of statist regulations. On the stump, Hillary Clinton refers to her book, “It Takes a Village,” in which she argued that we all must surrender ourselves to the near-constant prodding, monitoring, cajoling and scolding of the “helping professions.” Clinton argues that children are born in “crisis” and government must respond with all the tools in its arsenal from the word go. She advocates putting television sets in all public gathering places so citizens can be treated to an endless loop of good parenting tutorials.

Mike Huckabee, who represents compassionate conservatism on steroids, favors a nationwide ban on public smoking. Everywhere, from Barack Obama to John McCain, we are told that our politics must be about causes “larger than ourselves.” What we used to think of as individual freedom is now being recast as greedy and selfish.

Read the whole thing.

Tigerhawk notes the latest exercise in issue avoidance from the public’s supposed ombudsman Clark Hoyt.

The “public editor” of the New York Times, Clark Hoyt, remains as ever unwilling to challenge the paper’s editorial leadership on questions that matter. Today’s column is devoted to defending Supreme Court reporter Linda Greenhouse from charges from a conservative blogger that she has a conflict of interest when her husband — a lawyer — writes briefs filed in cases before the court. He basically concludes — and any blogger would agree — that the Times should be more transparent in disclosing conflicts or apparent conflicts. For my money, the whole column is a waste of ink — speaking as a blogger who finds something to criticize in the New York Times virtually every day, I have long thought that Greenhouse does a better job of writing neutrally than the vast majority of the paper’s news reporters.

The real question, of course, is why Hoyt spent his week defending Greenhouse against a cranky blogger instead of explaining why it was that the Times decided to devote its front page to discussing murder rates among American veterans without acknowledging that they are lower than for American civilians. Apparently we need another public editor to explain why the first one spends himself on trivia and the arcania of conflict policy instead of examining a front page story with statistical “reasoning” so unbelievably fraudulent it is hard to believe that it was not intentional.

Circulating in martial arts circles this morning are a pair of videos from Japanese television of an attempt by someone whose name I couldn’t catch trying to make his mark in the Guinness Book of Records in Tameshigiri, the cutting with a sword of makiwara (targets) made from tatami (rush floor mats) rolled around a bamboo shaft.

The particular feat being attempted is Senbongiri, 1000 cuts in as short a time as possible.

Introductory 8:24 video

1001 cuts in 36:06 7:28 video

In the year 2000, however, Russell McCartney of the Ishi Yama Ryu school of Seattle performed 1181 consecutive cuts without a miss in 1hr 25min: 5:45 video

“First they came for the fully-automatic machine guns, and I’d didn’t protest because I didn’t own a machine gun…”

As the BBC reports, even joke guns and toys swords must be registered and stored locked up in today’s Britain.

A Cornish village drama group has had to register a toy gun with the police to comply with health and safety rules.

Carnon Downs drama group in Cornwall have also had to keep their plastic cutlasses and wooden swords locked up for the pantomime, Robinson Crusoe.

Producers of the show called the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) rules “farcical”.

A spokesman for the HSE said the rules were designed to make risks “sensibly managed”.

The climax of the show is a fight in which actors use replica 4ft-foot long plastic cutlasses.

There is also a toy gun which produces a flag saying “Bang”.

The directors contacted police after receiving advice from the HSE and the National Operatic and Dramatic Association.

The HSE have a page on their website called Entertainment Information Sheet 20 which lays down strict rules for the handling of guns, swords and other weapons on set.

Drama group co-director Linda Barker said: “The cutlasses count as weapons even though they are replicas and made of plastic and apparently they could be mistaken for real ones.

“Our only gun was a panto pistol which produces a flag with the word bang on it.

“Our local police at Truro were fantastic and they have registered the gun, the two plastic cutlasses and our six wooden swords.”

She added: “It gets a bit farcical when you are dealing with plastic swords. It is not as if anyone is likely to be scared by them.”

Neighbourhood beat officer Pc Nigel Hyde said: “We have been informed and made a note.

“It seems a bit unusual but other forms of replica weapons have been used to carry out crimes and the consequences have been serious.”

A spokesman for the HSE said: “We do not want to stop people putting on pantos or having fun as long as the risks are sensible managed.”

Hat tip to Walter Olson.

But Bill Kristol observes: “You fight an election with the politicians you have.”

(Reagan) was a conservative first and a politician second, a National Review and Human Events reader first and an elected official second.

This is exceedingly unusual. The normal American president is a politician, with semicoherent ideological views, who sometimes becomes a vehicle for an ideological movement. …

This year’s GOP field is, in this sense, normal.

Sigh.

Kristol is witty, but I think his neocon perspective is wrong. Republicans electing non-ideological-conservatives, Nixons and Bushes, only results in more liberal policies, a larger federal government, and, finally, a Republican electoral debacle.

He is right in observing that, in this presidential election, and in recent American politics generally, no obvious unquestionably conservative leader has emerged in the nation and the Republican Party. We need to ask ourselves why. And we need to start producing them again, not settling for substitutes.