First, I think golf is a stupid game. My attitude is best summed up by the famous Michael Schumacher response to the question “Do you play golf?”: “No, I’m still young enough to enjoy sex.” (I love taunting my brother the golf fanatic with that).
But the recent uproar over August National has taken a turn for the stupid.
First, the leading critic of Augusta, Martha Burk, deserves an abject apology from Porphyrogenitus (of Ranting Screeds), Instapundit and Kathryn Lopez of NRO, for their dumb-ass misreading of her Ms. Magazine article. In well-read society, prefacing something with “A modest proposal” is usually a dead giveaway that what follows is pointed satire, as her article obviously was. (I wrote an economics paper for a Marxist economist a long time ago entitled “A modest proposal” in which I suggested that we simply make being poor a capital crime. Dumbass didn’t get it either, until I shoved Swift’s book under his nose.) Lopez then gives a half-apology here, in which she makes this profoundly wrongheaded statement:

I did, in fact, have the piece. I also suspected Burk didn’t really want to sterilize all men. However, Burk, a feminist writing that in Ms. was not the same as the likes Rod or Jonah writing the same thing on NRO. Ms. folks do believe men are the problem, and, frankly, anyone who has spent too much time exposed to feminist literature knows that.

So instead of relying on what Ms. Burk actually said, we’ll rely on what Lopez thinks she knows about her audience. Stupid, embarrassing, and the apology itself requires an apology.
Porphyrogenitus is usually a lot better than this.
Instapundit missed on that one too, and I trust that he’ll be as quick at backing off as he is in stepping forward.
As far as I’m concerned, Augusta has the absolute right to remain private and discriminatory. But they ought to have the decency to do so behind closed doors, and they gave that decency up when they started hosting a national, public (i.e. open to non-members) golf tournament.
If a bunch of old rich guys want to buy a golf course and go play with each other, I’m all for it. But don’t run a $10 million a year enterprise out of it and then keep claiming it’s a “private” matter.
Calpundit is all over this.
(added links)
(edited for tone and grammar)

Councilmember Janice Hahn is now working to find a venue for the veterans’ showing of ‘Tora, Tora, Tora’ mentioned here, here, here, and here.
For those who don’t live in Los Angeles, or who haven’t had much to do with city government here, let me take a moment for an aside.
We have a ‘weak mayor’ system, somewhat strengthened by the charter revisions we’ve recently passed, and a 15-member City Council. Each Council member is, in effect, the mayor of a city of roughly 250,000 people. City departments respond adroitly to council requests; and no development project will be approved in any council district without the consent of the district Councilmember. So Councilmember Hahn’s (that’s hahn-at-council-dot-lacity-dot-org) role here is fairly crucial.
Here’s today’s story from the Daily Breeze:

An uproar over a quashed plan to show “Tora! Tora! Tora!” at a San Pedro theater has prompted Los Angeles city officials to try to line up an alternative venue.
Veterans were stunned when they were told it would be insensitive to the Japanese-American community to go forward with a planned Dec. 7 showing of the 1970 Academy Award-winning film on the 61st anniversary of Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor.
While organizers said they appreciated the effort to find a new location, they are still steaming over the charges of insensitivity.
Los Angeles City Councilwoman Janice Hahn outlined her feelings in an e-mail sent in early November to the volunteer board of the Fort MacArthur Military Museum in San Pedro, which was organizing the commemoration as a museum benefit.
“The manager of the theater informed us that he had made his decision in part because of concerns whether the screening of the movie on that particular day would be seen by some as insensitive,” Hahn wrote. “. . . Every person I have spoken with has recommended that I concur with the department’s decision.”
Asked about the decision last week, theater manager Lee Sweet said his determination was based on there being a prior theater booking for Dec. 7.
And although Hahn’s e-mail did not mention a prior booking at the theater, in remarks Tuesday the councilwoman also stressed that was the overriding reason that the Pearl Harbor show could not be scheduled.
“In no way do I have anything to do with booking events or canceling events” at the city-managed 1930s-era movie theater, Hahn said.
The event was never canceled, she said, because it was never scheduled.
“It was never an event,” the councilwoman said. “It hadn’t even gotten that far.
“The only thing I was asked to do is see if I could overturn a booking which is not in my purview.”
When Hahn received a request from the veterans to intervene, she consulted with Assemblyman George Nakano, D-Torrance, and other Japanese-Americans before issuing her decision by e-mail.
“(Nakano), like the others I spoke with, expressed serious reservations regarding showing the film on that date,” Hahn said in her e-mail. Nakano could not be reached for comment Tuesday.
Hahn went on in her e-mail to mention that her father, the late county Supervisor Kenneth Hahn, was a World War II veteran and that she supported veterans.
“My support of the department’s determination was not in any way meant to offend anyone, most especially you or any veteran,” Hahn wrote. “I sincerely regret that it was received in this way.”
Veterans said they asked for Hahn’s help, believing she had the political clout to do so.
“It’s definitely not her job to book events, but by the same token, it is her job to stand up for what’s right,” said Joe Janesic, vice president of the museum’s volunteer board. “She could have called (the theater manager) and asked him to reconsider. . . . We knew that Councilwoman Hahn could have either some influence or would be able to outright reverse the decision.”
Veterans contend that they got the runaround from theater personnel, who first told them the night was booked but later said it wasn’t.
When the event originally was conceived last May, Janesic said they were told by Sweet that there was a prior booking to show the movie “Boys Town” on Dec. 7.
But later this summer, veterans learned that plans for the movie had fallen through. “Boys Town” now is scheduled to be shown later this month.
With nothing else listed for that night on the theater’s Web page schedule, organizers resumed efforts to schedule the event but were met with a series of city objections about finding a print and securing insurance for it.
The volunteers managed to do both.
Last week, Sweet said there was now a new booking for that night: Los Angeles Mayor James Hahn, the councilwoman’s brother, has reserved the Warner Grand on Dec. 7 for his holiday party. Councilwoman Hahn said she did not know about the party.
“I don’t want anyone to think we’re unreasonable,” Janesic said. “(The city) has every right to say what gets shown on their property, but when they start throwing in all these objections, it screams cover-up.”
Since it was published Sunday in the Daily Breeze , the story has been debated on talk radio stations and referred to by Internet sites.
Hahn said Tuesday that she has asked the city’s Department of Cultural Affairs, which manages the Warner Grand, to find another venue for the museum’s Pearl Harbor event.
“Now that I realize that the showing of ‘Tora! Tora! Tora!’ is apparently very important to the World War veterans in commemorating Pearl Harbor Day, I’ve asked the department to work with this group to find another venue,” Hahn said. Janesic said he appreciates the gesture, but added that finding a theater won’t be easy. The volunteers already have looked for other venues without success, he said.…

Comments to follow later today.

Instapundit has picked up the story on a conflict between some City of L.A. agencies and a veteran’s group (over showing ‘Tora, Tora, Tora’ on Dec. 7th) I talk about below, (but still no blogroll link!! where’s the justice??) and his opinions are certainly clearer than mine.
He suggests an email to the City Council member involved, Janice Hahn: hahn-at-council-dot-lacity-dot-org (I’d hate for her mailbox to get filled with spam…).
One thing that bemuses me about this one is that they took the position without any protest from the ‘offended’ community; they reacted in anticipation of offending someone.
Amazing, but true.

So Matt Yglesias and Josh Chafetz are listing some ‘core books’ for we wannabe political theorists.
Looking at the selections, it’s hard to find fault (except in myself, in my having missed a few of the books!); I’ll suggest that my bias is toward Josh, simply because I don’t think you can do a good job of understanding Enlightenment thinkers without having read at least Aristotle, Aquinas, and Machievelli.
Plus Josh references Schumpeter and Berlin, two of my touchstone writers.
I’ll throw a few more books onto the pile, then tomorrow or so try and boil the list down to one of my own, plus list the ones new to me that I now feel compelled to read.
Here are some additions:
De Toqueville: The Ancien Regieme and the French Revolution. The roots of revolution are the same now as they were then; read a more-or-less contemporary account by a brilliant political thinker.
Jurgen Habermas: The Legitimation Crisis. The self-consuming nature of legitimacy in modern society. Almost unreadable, but worth the grudging effort.
Ortega y Gasset: The Revolt of the Masses. Massification…and the dissolution of intermediate social structures…is one of the key social movements of the 19th and 20th centuries. Here’s a (florid, somewhat overblown, politically out there) seminal work in the area.
Berlin: The Roots of Romanticism. I’ve already beaten this one almost to death.
[Update for visitors from Oxblog: I added
I can’t believe I forgot this one:
Sartre’s play: Dirty Hands. An excellent examination of ideology, purity and praxis.]

Ann Salisbury and Jeff Cooper want me to adjust my medication. They think that I am misreading the Democratic Party in my post below, and ask me (thoughtfully, as friends do) to step back and reconsider.
I need to do some homework; it’ll take some time with Google and if I can get into it, Lexis. This is a crazy week, and I’m going to try and go to Comdex for a day next week, so give me a few days for a concrete reply. But here’s the deal.
I know a bunch of Democrats. I know people who run Democratic campaigns. I know people who are Democratic elected officials. They’re my friends, and I love them, and genuinely believe they are trying to do good, and often succeeding.
Every day, I read the L.A. Times, the Daily Breeze, and the Wall Street Journal cover to cover. I read CNN.com and all the blogs on my blogroll pretty much daily (all the ones with *’s every day, and many others); I probably spend an hour or so a day reading. I subscribe to The Atlantic, Harper’s, Granta, and Scientific American, along with a bunch of business, technology, and motorcycle magazines, and I read them all as soon as I get them. I pick up The Economist every other month.
I don’t say this to make myself out as some kind of font of knowledge, but to say both that I’ve got some direct knowledge and that I’m a pretty voracious media consumer (with the exception of TV and talk radio), and I’ll tell you now that when I think of Democratic patriotism, I still somehow can’t get the image of Michael Dukakis sitting in a M-1 Abrams out of my mind.
The ‘brand impression’ that I have of the Democratic Party includes many things; it includes compassion, justice, equality…but it doesn’t include patriotism.
The very word ‘patriotism’ makes me cringe a little bit as I say it, and that’s a problem.
This was triggered as I started to write an appreciation to all the American soldiers who had served. As I wrote, I started worrying about my phrasing. I was worried about being criticized for not qualifying my praise for the ones who had served in unjust wars, or who had somehow acted badly, or who had extended imperialism.
Maybe the folks I know are just a little to ‘left’ liberal. Maybe my filters, because of my personal history are just set in a certain way so I see that a little more.
Maybe this is a problem that exists only in my head.
…or maybe not. And if not … if I’m right, and the anti-American left has managed to create the brand all liberals have to live with … then we liberals have a much bigger problem to deal with, and we’d better start dealing with it.
Let’s dig a little and see.
(11/12: fixed dumb error re Dukakis’ name, added some emphasis, cleaned up some grammar)

…are dangerous. Dave Yaseen, of the usually smart blog A Level Gaze, posts what I pray to Woodie Guthrie is a slip of the liberal tongue. His post concludes:

Yes, this debacle of an election is the media’s fault. But it’s our fault as well, and we need to drastically change the way we do things in the Democratic party, not diddle around with how to phrase things to make them palatable to the electorate. If we have to drag American voters, kicking and screaming to chose their own interests, so be it.
(emphasis mine)

Well, damn. That’s the way to reach the poor uneducated voter and get them onto your side…
…or not. My comment to him was to say that I hoped this was a slip of the tongue (which all of us are subject to) and if not, that if this really represented the philosophy of the leadership of the Left, they’d better be prepared to be sleeping outside on the porch for the full length of a long, cold winter.

…and to thank the veterans alive and dead for protecting me and mine.
And worried that what I wrote kept coming out sounding either too qualified or would be interpreted as being too nationalistic.
And I realized something about my own thinking, a basic principle I’ll set out as a guiding point for the Democrats and the Left in general as they try and figure out the next act in this drama we are in.
First, you have to love America.
This isn’t a perfect country. I think it’s the best county; I’ve debated this with commenters before, and I’ll point out that while people worldwide tend to vote with their feet, there may be other (economic) attractions that pull them. But there are virtues here which far outweigh any sins. And I’ll start with the virtue of hope.
The hope of the immigrants, abandoning their farms and security for a new place here.
The hope of the settlers, walking across Death Valley, burying their dead as they went.
The hope of the ‘folks’ who moved to California after the war.
The hope of the two Latino kids doing their Computer Science homework at Starbucks’.
I love this country, my country, my people. And those who attack her…from guerilla cells, boardrooms, or their comfy chairs in expensive restaurants…better watch out.
I don’t get a clear sense that my fellow liberals feel the same way. And if so, why should ‘the folks’ follow them? Why are we worthy of the support of a nation that we don’t support?
So let me suggest an axiom for the New Model Democrats:
America is a great goddamn country, and we’re both going to defend it from those who attack it and fight to make it better.
And for everyone who is going to comment and remind me that ‘all liberals already do that’…no they don’t. Not when the chancellor has to intervene at U.C. Berkeley to get ‘permission’ for American flags to be flown and red-white-and-blue ribbons to be worn. Not when the strongest voices in liberalism give lip service to responding to an attack on our citizens on our soil.
Loving this country isn’t the same thing as jingoism; it isn’t the same thing as imperialism; it isn’t the same thing as blind support of the worst traits of our government or our people.
It starts with recognizing the best traits, and there are a hell of a lot of them.
They were worth defending in my father’s time, and they are worth defending today.
So thanks, veterans. Thanks soldiers and sailors and marines and airmen. Thanks for doing your jobs and I hope you all come home hale and whole, every one of you.
(11/12: edited for clarity and grammar)

So we had to go to the Valley for a funeral this morning. We were early, so we stopped at a Starbuck’s near the freeway exit, to sit and relax for a little while before going up to the memorial service and burial.
When we walked in, I immediately noticed two Latino kids sitting at a table arguing heatedly. They were dressed in Full Thug; baggy jackets, low-cut t-shirts, identical watch caps; and each had various words in script tattooed up their muscular necks.
My ‘threat assessment’ went from yellow to orange, as I watched them and started to follow their loud argument, and violent gesturing. The argument was being held in Spanglish, and while I understand Spanish pretty well, and given some warmup can speak a fair amount, this one had some words that took me some time to mentally translate.
“pointer”?
“set”?
“thread”?
…damn, they’re arguing over how to write a computer program in C.
Two years from now, they’ll be wearing polo shirts and Dockers and sitting in a cube somewhere.
And that’s what I love about this country.

Go read this great post by Matthew Yglesias on ‘tactics and strategy’ and what the Democrats need to do.

First, some damn good news. Here’s the ‘lead editorial’ in today L.A. Times (registration required, ‘laexaminer’/’laexaminer’):

There wasn’t much mystery last week about who would be elected to the state Legislature or California’s delegation to the U.S. House of Representatives. Party leaders in the Legislature stacked the deck last year when they drew new district lines to reflect population shifts on the basis of the 2000 census.
Those 153 districts were carved into enclaves of heavy Democratic and Republican voter registration to provide “safe” seats. Maps in hand before a single vote was cast, you could have picked the winner in virtually every district — 80 in the Assembly, 20 in the state Senate and 53 in the House. Only five of the 153 were true contests. All but one of the 49 California incumbents in Congress won by a landslide, with at least 60% of the vote. The other, Rep. Lois Capps (D-Santa Barbara), won with 59%. Democrats remain strongly in control of all three houses.
This cynical deal may serve the pols well, but it’s bad for California. It becomes virtually impossible to hold lawmakers accountable at the next election. The Legislature is increasingly polarized between Republican conservatives and liberal Democrats. In spite of their majorities, Democrats need some GOP votes to pass the budget and any other fiscal bill. That’s why this year’s budget was deadlocked for two months beyond the deadline.
It’s in the public interest to have clear lines of opinion and vigorous debate. But the Legislature is so fractured now, it’s virtually impossible to reach a compromise on any major issue, particularly on spending and taxes. The result of Tuesday’s election will be even more gridlock.
…

Sign me up!!
And in today’s Daily Breeze (the local paper), something that has me scratching my head…

Mixed feelings over SP film event
NO SHOW: Insensitivity to Japanese-Americans is cited. Vets are stunned.
It was going to be a night to remember.
Ushers dressed in World War II military uniforms, vintage cars pulling up to the curb, Pearl Harbor survivors and a recently restored 1940s military searchlight would be on hand Dec. 7 to greet the crowds at a special anniversary showing of “Tora! Tora! Tora!” at San Pedro’s historic Warner Grand Theatre.
The 1970 film — a joint American and Japanese production — is considered one of the most accurate depictions of events leading up to the 1941 Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor. Expected to attract hundreds, the showing on the 61st anniversary of the attack was to serve as a fund-raiser for the Fort MacArthur Military Museum in San Pedro.
But now the show is off.
Why? Veterans and museum members say it’s simply a case of political correctness run amok.
While there was a previous theater booking for Dec. 7, according to theater manager Lee Sweet of the city’s Department of Cultural Affairs, which manages the facility, Los Angeles City Councilwoman Janice Hahn concluded that the event would have been insensitive to the Japanese-American community.
“I wanted to be very sensitive to the Japanese-American community,” Hahn said. “Dec. 7 is a tough day, especially for the second and third generations of Japanese-Americans. Why do we want to do something that makes it more difficult?” The showing was planned this year to take the place of the Fort MacArthur Military Museum’s annual Pearl Harbor Day observance.
…

My knee-jerk reaction tends to be againt faux displays of sensitivity (‘faux’ being defined as those that have no real impact on people’s lives…as opposed to things like access to jobs, schooling, etc.). And Pearl Harbor is, like it or not, a part of our and Japan’s history. So I’m tilted toward the ‘this is stupid’ camp. Tenacious G, my SO, is Japanese-American, and on showing her this, she pretty much agrees…her comment was “I feel vaguely bad every Dec. 7, but it’s a part of all our history. This is just a way for people to pretend to be sensitive.”
But this one still has me thinking in circles…I’m interested in what other folks think.