The Bosque Boys

Like legions of loyal conservative RCP fans, this morning I clicked onto this intriguing title: "Do Republicans Love America Too Much?"

What did I find? Joel Stein, columnist for the LA Times.

What's the big deal? I feel like a successful Diogenes. I think I have finally discovered an honest liberal pundit.

His thesis today (the Times headline writer was more descriptive than the RCP tag): "Republicans are blinded by love. Lefties just don't have the same feeling about America as the hard right does."

Can you believe a liberal is willing to admit this obvious but awkward and uncomfortable fact of life? Usually, that simple truth is "fighting words" for most left-of-center politicos. But Stein doesn't just own up to the "accusation," he patiently explains the merits of a healthy skepticism for the "tribalism" that compels patriots to slavishly adore their native land.

Savor this gem:

But I've come to believe conservatives are right. They do love America more. Sure, we liberals claim that our love is deeper because we seek to improve the United States by pointing out its flaws. But calling your wife fat isn't love. True love is the blind belief that your child is the smartest, cutest, most charming person in the world, one you would gladly die for. I'm more in "like" with my country.

How honest is Stein? His previous column addressed the awkward truth that Jews actually do run Hollywood. Did he really say that? Another must read.

Some of you may be thinking this is a familiar name. And some of you are undoubtedly thinking, "how could this ignoramus not know Joel Stein."

In fact, Stein made a big splash a couple of years ago when he wrote a column in which he explained that he did not "support the troops." Why? Because he opposed the war. And supporting the troops and opposing the war was a prima facie contradiction.

Stein:

But I'm not for the war. And being against the war and saying you support the troops is one of the wussiest positions the pacifists have ever taken -- and they're wussy by definition. It's as if the one lesson they took away from Vietnam wasn't to avoid foreign conflicts with no pressing national interest but to remember to throw a parade afterward.

One more must read, equally brilliant in its honesty and impeccable logic.

I am now recalling the dust up back then resulting from this piece. A lot of the right-wing talkers held him up as the ultimate disloyal liberal pundit. Too bad. That reaction misses the point.

In Joel Stein we have an incisive and honest (and laugh-out loud funny) opponent. My guess is that we can learn a lot from him. Stein is now a permanent must read for me.

The Nativity by E. Merrill Root

Here is the hinge of history--the hour
Wherefrom the years recede, the years advance--
The night when Love has victory over Power.

A new born child beneath a mother's glance,
God the creator is made manifest,
Born of his creature, flesh of circumstance.

Here, petal-soft against his mother's breast,
He lies who made the sun to be his rose;
Here he who strews the lightenings lies at rest!

O little hands that buoy the nightengale!
How can your fingers sleep in such repose?
And must you, of soft baby feet, rescale
The height of heaven on the driven nail?

I Am Santa Claus (Iron Man)

Full Metal Jacket Elves

We Wish You a Metal Christmas

Raging Rudolph

The Night Santa Went Crazy (Weird Al)

A lot to say here--but nothing you haven't already thought for yourself.

I tend to think most of the Obama-Blago connections are not especially damning (at least, relatively innocent on the "Chicago scale"). Moreover, a press corps not frothing at the mouth in pursuit of a president is refreshing--and I think a necessary change in our political culture.

Having said that, coming from where we've been, you must get a chuckle out of this relationship between the Fourth Estate and their hero.

Pretty funny stuff.

From G. Washington, the indispensible man. Story here from Brits At Their Best.

Here’s a holiday tip I learned over the weekend: A fruitcake can be used like a Duraflame log in the fireplace. Jay Leno

Fruitcakes make ideal gifts because the Postal Service has been unable to find a way to damage them. Dave Barry

Tis the season for fruitcake jokes.

I finally figured out a use for holiday fruitcakes--paint them white to keep people from parking on your lawn.

I found the ideal fruitcake recipe. Forget all the other ingredients and just use rum.

I happen to like fruitcakes myself. My mother made two or three every year. We ate one and the others were given as gifts. They were good. My wife makes a "bread" that really is a small fruitcake in a loafpan--one of my favorite Christmas treats. I grant that some of the store-bought fruitcakes aren't great, though some are, like the famous Corsicana, Texas, fruitcakes.

I suspect that most of the people who make fun of these Christmas confections of fruits, nuts, and spices in a thick cake batter have never tried one. They just go with the stereotype.

I am not innocent of going with the humor flow myself. For years I made fun of Spam, the canned meat. It is like I assumed that any sentence with the word Spam in it was the set-up for a joke.

Last month, in the grocery store with my wife, on a whim I picked up a can. I tried it, and I liked it. Now I know that the word "Spam" is not automatically funny.

C.S. Lewis in The Screwtape Letters defined frivolity as the assumption that the joke has already been made. It is the only form of humor encouraged by demonic temptors, because it creates the frame of mind in which virtue can be derided. Frivolous people act as though truth-telling, honest behavior, chastity, loyalty, and such are somehow literally ridiculous.

The older I get, the less patience I have with frivolous people, or with frivolous comedy. I wish they would try virtue before they ridicule it.

Story here, from The Washington Post.

WARSAW, Poland -- Poland's president celebrated the start of Hanukkah by visiting Warsaw's main synagogue Sunday, a gesture the city's Jewish community greeted as a historic step in its revival.

Lech Kaczynski's visit marked the first time the head of state has attended a religious service at a synagogue in Poland, whose Jewish population was nearly wiped out in the Holocaust and later suffered from communist-era repression.

Pre-WW2 Poland had a huge Jewish population, and huge anti-semitism among Poles. Simon Wiesenthal recounts his high school experience:

Two years before the outbreak of war the Radical elements had invented a "day without Jews," whereby they hoped to reduce the number of Jewish academics, to interfere with their studies and make it impossible for them to take examinations. On these feast days there assembled inside the gates of the High Schools a crowd of fraternity students wearing ribbons inscribed "the day without the Jews." It always coincided with examination day. The "day without the Jews" was thus a movable festival, and as the campus of the Technical High School was ex-territorial, the police were not allowed to interfere except by express request of the Rector. Such requests were rarely made. Although the Radicals formed a mere 20 percent of the students, this minority reigned because of the cowardice and laziness of the majority. The great mass of the students were unconcerned about the Jews or indeed about order and justice. They were not willing to expose themselves, they lacked willpower, they were wrapped up in their own problems, completely indifferent to the fate of Jewish students.
. . . In the side streets ambulances waited patiently and they had plenty to do on examination days. The police too waited to prevent violence from spreading outside the campus. . . .

Given this historical context, the visit to the synagogue by Poland's president is a very welcome step.

The attempt at a Final Solution was possible only because there existed in the populations conquered by the Nazis an embedded anti-semitism. There never were enough Nazis to carry out the Final Solution without help. In conquered nations where the Gentile population refused to round up Jews, such as Denmark, the Nazis were unable to put their plans into effect.

The voters chose a slogan not a plan,
an image, not a man.

Reflecting back on the star-crossed eight years of the George Bush administration, the outgoing chief executive might feel some gratitude to his predecessor. In a perverse way, Bill Clinton and his desperate campaign to retain power in the face of scandal probably saved the Bush presidency.

The framers designed impeachment as the ultimate (as in last resort) "check" against the misuse of executive and/or judicial power. Congress has used the weapon of impeachment sparingly over the course of American history. Two presidents, Washington and Jackson, when faced with a quarrelsome opposition in Congress, dared the legislative branch to impeach. On both occasions, Congress wisely demurred.

Jeffersonian Republicans (forerunners to the modern Democratic Party) pushed to consolidate gains against the Federalist Party and remove a troublesome remnant of the opposition within the judiciary. Through mostly good luck and/or providence, the scheme failed. In the aftermath of the Civil War, Radical Republicans attempted to remove the beleaguered Southern Unionist, Andrew Johnson. The Senate failed to convict the President (just barely), but the legislative succeeded in diminishing the executive for a generation. The power of the presidency did not make a real comeback until the administration of Theodore Roosevelt.

In 1974, a resurgent legislative branch finally succeeded in toppling a president. Although the House of Representatives never formally impeached him, Richard Nixon resigned once leaders of his own party assured him that he faced certain removal.

Enter Bill Clinton.

Initially, I believed that the low crimes and misbehavior of President Bill Clinton did not meet the threshold of constitutional removal from office, but it merited resignation. That is, although not quite impeachment-worthy, Bill Clinton's lying, cheating, and shameful behavior tainted the presidency and compromised the national security of the United States; therefore, an honorable President, made to confront his misdeeds, would have fallen on his public sword and slunk off into the shadows of American public life. But, alas, President Clinton did not see it that way, and he determined to hunker down and hold on to power with every ounce of his prodigious instinct for survival.

In the midst of his simultaneously craven and courageous full-court press to stay in office, I began to detest President Clinton and the gutter brawl he waged to preserve his power. Although I voted against him twice, it is important to note that I had never been a Clinton-hater before Monica. Before it was over, however, I loathed Bill Clinton and his entire team. In the heat of the moment, I cheered for impeachment, and I cursed the day he was acquitted (or "not proved") on all charges.

Today, I look back on impeachment sheepishly. Perhaps we over-reacted. Bill Clinton was pathologically untruthful, egregiously self-absorbed, and disdainful of many of the traditional social mores that serve to limit the worst excesses of human behavior. Worse, he seemed to view himself as above the law (although he was never formally charged with any criminal behavior).

On the other hand, we the citizenry duly elected him as president twice, and he clearly maintained the overwhelming support of the American people during the very worst of the revelations concerning his conduct. We got the leadership we desired. While the impeachment charges were serious and valid, they were also the product of overheated politics.

Looking back, the impeachment of Bill Clinton seems ill-advised, and his decision to eschew the myriad calls for resignation appears far-sighted. I grudgingly believe that he acted judiciously in riding out the storm. If he had left office under the pressure of the moment, the institution of the presidency would have suffered significant damage, and every president forward would have faced intense pressure to resign in moments of crisis and personal embarrassment.

More practically, one can reasonably argue that Bill Clinton's decision to fight for power, and his ultimate victory, saved the presidency of George Bush. Understanding the lessons of 1999, the Democrats of 2007 went to work to derail this president the old fashioned way (through obstructionism and violent calumny). Standing against fierce calls for impeachment proceedings from the left-wing fringe of the party, Democratic Leadership opted to wait for and work toward the Election of 2008 as the appropriate moment to chastise a president they had come to detest.

Who can doubt that an impeachment charade during the spring and summer of 2007 would have been a violently destructive and destabilizing national experience? Ironically, Bill Clinton's primal impulse to stand and fight back in 1998 played an essential role in securing our reprieve from a pathetic partisan show trial in 2007. Going forward, the consequences of the Clinton showdown will serve as a cautionary tale for any opposition majority. This is a good thing.

UPDATE: Welcome HNN readers. We are honored by the link.

The Party is Over, but, all things considered, of course, this development is for the best.

An Aside: the End of the Party should not be confused with the End of the World (which is still possible, but a different subject).

The End of the Party means releasing unreasonable expectations and assumptions about the nature and meaning of life. Earlier this week, Pope Benedict XVI pointed to the obvious silver lining contained within our long overdue reconciliation with reality:

The present economic crisis, causing so much suffering, can however help us to focus on the spiritual meaning of Christmas, and to welcome into our hearts the hope brought by God’s coming among us as man.

The Pontiff encouraged all of us to "rekindle our hope in God’s promises and, in humility and simplicity, welcome the light, joy and peace which the Saviour brings to us and to our world."

This is good advice.

Running the risk of mixing the sacred with the profane, allow me to point to another sign of hope in popular culture: the Country Music Top 40.

Last week the number one country song in the nation was "Chicken Fried" by the Zac Brown Band (you may view a live version here via YouTube).

It is a great song and a celebration of "simplicity and humility" and the "little things in life that mean the most."

This week, unfortunately for Zac and the boys, "Chicken Fried" dropped to number three. However, ascending to number one is another song about "slowing it down and looking around" and reconnecting with the more fundamental elements of human experience: "Roll With Me" by Montgomery Gentry (you may view the video here via CMT--if, ironically, you don't mind watching a commercial first).

Country folks will survive. If this is what is resonating in the heartland of America right now, we are going to be okay.

UPDATE: a hearty Texas welcome to Instapundit readers.