One thing that is so very insulting to me about this incident is that although I've never written a book, I assume that there is a lot of hard work involved.  I think Jonah may have mentioned this on the Ricochet podcast.  He gets 10 to 12 minutes, and the interviewer insists upon ignoring all of his hard work and talking about stupid stuff just to waste Jonah's time. 

Perhaps the real cure to fixing something like the old Larry King Show would be to use a group of rotating hosts.  Like picking a good book reviewer, find someone who is actually interested and cares about the subject.

I wonder if perhaps the interviewer is about to quit, be fired, or is under pressure to be more confrontational to spark interest in getting higher ratings.

Well, I tried to watch that but I turned it off when the interviewer had no intention of discussing the book.  I fast-fowarded the video, and it was the same.  What a waste.

Jonah: "Of course, liberals have an ideology, but they don't understand it, they don't think about it, they don't question it..."

Interviewer:  (Let me dump this load of manure which has nothing to do with anything onto your conservative lap as I can't be bothered to think of more than one topic a day for my high-priced salary.)

Interviewer:  President Clinton's right!  President Clinton's right! President Clinton's right!  You must admit that President Clinton is right about killing Osama bin Laden.  Please validate my prejudice about how President Clinton is a foreign policy expert.

Jonah: "(Right, President Clinton) didn't do it when he had a chance."

Hmm, the interviewer didn't seem happy that Jonah agreed with him about President Clinton knowing something about Osama bin Laden.

Jonah must have paid this interviewer to act so stereotypically silly, but I don't really see the point.  I would rather have seen just a normal discussion.

More children without families crossing border; support services stressed

http://www.elpasotimes.com/ci_20500641/more-children-without-families-crossing-border-support-services?source=most_emailed

Marijuana?  Of all the things to worry about.

I guess at least the sick will be too stoned to complain when the ship of state slides over the cliff.

Sure, let everyone on the entire planet in forever to our crumbling welfare paradise.  There are only a few more million or billion kids left for American taxpayers to support.  Children know the difference between right and wrong, or they would if their parents weren't breaking the law. 

Forgiveness of crime only encourages more crime -- unless you wish to outlaw the concept of that crime.

It will be sad when the last World War II veteran retires.  I think we are down to Ralph Hall, Frank Lautenberg, and the two senators from Hawaii.

Personally, I don't mind the age as much as the length of service and the complete refusal to go away.  Young people full of ideas just means less freedom and after-tax money for the rest of us.  Cut their young energetic congressional staffs in half; I don't want an efficient Congress except in the area of spending less money and that only requires the word "no".

I do remember when NAFTA was being proposed that many conservatives said that one of the reasons that it was needed was to slow down immigration from Mexico.  I'm not sure whether I believed that myself.  I think I actually did, but I have never lived or even visiting any part of the United States close to the Mexico border, so what do I know. 

I generally supported free trade with Mexico, but I remember thinking that the NAFTA treaty which I think is about 700-1,700 pages, depending on the footnote and explanation page count, was almost as silly as the about 2700 pages of today's Obamacare.  At that rate in another 10 years the next big political document will be 10,000 and every congressmen who votes for that will claim to have read and understood all those details too.  At least NAFTA was a foreign-type treaty with two other countries, but were foreign treaties always this long?  Pages and pages and pages.  Sometimes it seems to me that battalions of government lawyers have launched a silent coop against our country for their own profitable gain.

Although I almost always consider myself to be a free-trader, this view of mine may be primarily linked to my complete disgust with big governments and various constant manipulations of the market by governmental powers.  I think free trade favors the large number of buyers over the small number of manufacturers.

However, Buchanan did get me to re-think one thing.  People who always claim that they do not want a trade war seem to fail to understand that we are never going to have a type of utopian trade peace.  I think Buchanan is correct in implying that economic matters are always a constant battle.  As someone who has always been self-employed I understand this.  I have to renegotiate my salary every day.  I'm not sure that trade barriers that target hostile or semi-hostile countries should be as disagreeable as barriers that target one product such as foreign automobiles or steel which are just political exercises to buy the votes in certain Rust Belt swing states.  

On the other hand, nations that trade together rarely engage in battle.  Supporting a MFN status for repressive Chinese dictators?  It was one tool we had against them.

Those counties in the southwestern corner of Utah voted about 75% for John McCain. 

(This should be a bit easier than when Star Parker lost by 45 points in her Congressional race in 2010 which was actually a decent result considering that the Democrat usually wins with about 75% to 85% of the vote.)

Didn't India and Israel slice off their crazy geographic extremist ends named Pakistan/Bangladesh and Gaza/West Bank?  I hope they at least leave us a warm weather Pacific coastal port such as San Diego and/or possibly Seattle.  Of course, that leaves us with Chicago not to mention places like Maryland and New Jersey.

A fatwā!

What a buffoon!

It's stuff like this that caused Christopher Hitchens to move away from the Left when they refused to defend his friend Salman Rushdie and freedom of the press.

"What's the worst area code to call from?"  What does that even mean?

Based upon my memory and the scraps of paper that I kept from over two years ago, I think almost all of the Hispanics were Catholic expect for perhaps one.

I think most of the African-Americans were Baptists or at least Protestant with Charlie Rangel and Lacy Clay being at least two of the Catholics and Andre Carson and Keith Ellison being Muslim.  (Arthur Davis, a Lutheran, was the one member of the Congressional Black Caucus to vote no and later wrote some pieces for National Review.)

Asians?  There aren’t that many.  I think it depends if a person’s family is from the Catholic-heavy Philippines or settles in a Catholic region such as Louisiana like Joseph Cao or Bobby Jindal.

The commercial has a, how should I say, Voice of America feel to it.  Run the commercial continuously in decent NATO countries and Japan that are too ashamed to fund their military even for humanitarian purposes.  The US spends 4.7% of its GDP on its military.  I think broke Greece is next in the NATO/traditional US ally sphere at 3.2%, followed by South Korea at 2.9%, Turkey and the UK at 2.7%, France 2.5%, Estonia 2.3%, Portugal 2.1%, Australia 1.9%, Italy 1.8%, etc.

I was a rather faithful subscriber of NR from 1991 (just as O'Sullivan became editor) until 2011.  I tried to find out some information about NR's history with the Derbyshire-types over the past 20 years.   The best source for this was VDare.com.  It seems as if there was a huge split at the magazine regarding Peter Brimelow's immigration views.  O'Sullivan with Buckley's support allowed the magazine to support these views, but apparently something happened and there is some suspicion that O'Sullivan's strong support of Brimelow's views caused O'Sullivan to be fired as editor.  Apparently, the mainstream conservative media continued to retreat from the immigration issue during McCain-Bush-Rove era until conservative establishment figures like Bill Kristol cried uncle under an avalanche of grassroots pressure in fear that a conservative split would damage Republican unity in support for the War on Terror. Non-American-born conservatives, at least of the Anglo variety, seems to have a different view of immigration/racial-type issues.  Some like Brimelow and Derbyshire seem to be too toxic for the mainstream while people like O'Sullivan and Steyn approach these issues with more tact.

Apparently when Andrew Breitbart was confronted with something outrageous, he would quite often reply, “So?”

Why couldn't editor Lowry have replied, "I haven't read that.  I don't know that I will read that.  Maybe later, after Easter.  I'm on vacation right now.  Are you going to church this weekend?"

The "So?" comment has been mentioned by Gavin McInnes.  As he points out, it is stressful to be hated.  It goes against our natural instincts.

To me, as I recall, this whole censoring or punishing a person for outside activities started when major league baseball decided to punish and fine Marge Schott about $250,000 for making major league baseball look bad.  Maybe things were a bit interconnected there, but I thought the nation was sort of supposed to believe in free speech and some common sense that Person/Owner #1's opinions aren't the same as  those for Person/Owner #2.