Saturday stuff--and turning 43

Yep, I hit the big 4-3 today. Whatever that means. It has been a nice birthday. Played golf yesterday with some friends and then enjoyed a nice dinner last night with SOF. Today, we are attending a wedding, which is not my favorite way to spend my birthday, but sometimes that happens.

****

Couple of interesting stories in the news today. Chris Matthews (and I don't have the link handy) actually made a really good point this week about Bush's appeasement comparison. It has become very common for conservatives to shout "appeasement" anytime liberals advocate diplomacy or in any other way oppose Bush policy. The most recent (and shameful) example was Bush's speech in Israel comparing Democrats to those who appeased Hitler. Never mind the crap that Obama or Clinton would take for making such a speech on foreign soil (hell, the Dixie Chicks got death threats for saying Bush embarrassed them during a concert in England), but Matthews pointed out the obvious problem with the analogy. Appeasement, as he noted, was not talking to Hitler, but allowing him to keep territory. Talking to our enemies doesn't mean that we have to either trust them or give them anything. Talking is not appeasement.

*****

In rare form, Peggy Noonan accurately describes the problems with the current Republican party:

What happens to the Republicans in 2008 will likely be dictated by what didn't happen in 2005, and '06, and '07. The moment when the party could have broken, on principle, with the administration – over the thinking behind and the carrying out of the war, over immigration, spending and the size of government – has passed. What two years ago would have been honorable and wise will now look craven. They're stuck.

Mr. Bush has squandered the hard-built paternity of 40 years. But so has the party, and so have its leaders. If they had pushed away for serious reasons, they could have separated the party's fortunes from the president's. This would have left a painfully broken party, but they wouldn't be left with a ruined "brand," as they all say, speaking the language of marketing. And they speak that language because they are marketers, not thinkers. Not serious about policy. Not serious about ideas. And not serious about leadership, only followership.

That has been my point for sometime--that the current crop of Republicans are not trustworthy. They have stood in near unison with this President as he has tortured, invaded, and mangled our constitution.

*****

Heh. Well, Washington University went ahead and gave Phyllis Schlafly the honorary doctorate. As a sidenote, btw, as someone who worked his ass off to gain a doctorate, I resent these in most situations. Being famous is not the same thing. Nor, of course, is giving a lot of money to a University. One of the rare times when I thought an honorary doctorate made sense, was at OU when they honored Marilyn Horne for her lifetime of work as an American opera singer. That made sense to me.

Giving Schlafly a doctorate for, well, standing in the way of women's equality, imho, is not good. I have no problem allowing her to speak--if that is what you want. She has the right to air her ideas as much as the next person.

Anyway, many students and faculty agree with me, evidently, and stood with their backs turned to a speaker who has said that women consent to sex when they marry. And in a typical Schlafly graceless fashion, she called the protestors a "bunch of losers" and

As for her detractors, she said, "I’m not sure they’re mature enough to graduate."
If anything, she said she feels sorry for them because they’ve been misled by women’s studies classes. She said they do not respect the role of the full-time homemaker, a role that she has championed.

I am still not sure how someone who has spent the bulk of her adult life outside the home can really say that, but whatever.

Some photos of the protest here.

****