I hate my Generation!!!

I offer no apologies.

I am a bit down today, and a bit pissed off. I was driving around at lunch listening to Rush Limbaugh (as is my wont) and he was going off on how this tragedy in New Orleans is largely the Environmentalists and Leftists fault. If environmentalism Whackos (his term, not mine) hadn't prevented New Orleans from building better leevees, New Orleans would be safe (or something like that).

Of course, in part, he was responding to leftists, like posters at Democratic Underground, who spent all yesterday castigating President Bush for not immediately returning to Washington DC to head up relief efforts. Many Democratic Undergrounders also seem to be of the opinion that we need to abandon New Orleans, and that the ensuing catastrophe will mean the end of the American Economy and/or American Imperialism.

Meanwhile hundreds have died and the toll will probably go into the thousands as hunger and disease take their toll.

A tragedy on this scale, well, it's just another reason to bash our political enemies.

And, if I'm honest, exactly the same passions I'm bemoaning in others are in me as well. I want to use this tragedy as a club to hurt those I disagree with politically. If I am going to hate Rush Limbaugh and a few at Democratic Underground (which, under normal circumstances is a wonderful discussion board) I have to hate myself as well.

At any rate it's very depressing.

Bill Murchinson Knows What People Want!

Yep. And one thing people don't want is comic book movies. I know you might be thinking, hey didn't the X-Men and Spiderman and Batman movies do pretty good at the box office? Even Fantastic Four did alright. But you'd be wrong. In truth the movie going public wants adult movies (not that kind of adult movie, but movies made for adults), like they used to make.

Adults tell stories; juveniles crash cars and fixate on their childhood heroes and hang-ups. Juveniles, in terms of maturity if not chronology, run the motion picture industry, telling the "stories" juveniles enjoy -- not about life but about hang-ups and rude noises and bad language.

And comic books! If 10 percent of the money spent on bringing comic book characters to cinematic life found its way into the telling of honest stories about the human condition -- love, fear, ambition, hatred, sacrifice, etc., etc., etc. -- half-empty theaters might fill once more.

Well first off, Mr. Murchinson doesn't know much about Comic Books if he thinks they don't cover ambition, hatred, fear, and sacrifice (although, admittedly, comic books don't do as good a job with love (superhero comics I mean)).

The truth is that in every generation a lot of crappy movies get made. That's kind of the way it is. The other truth is that since the 70s (at least) movies appeal to a younger generation. There are plenty of smart films that older people can enjoy, but they aren't the target audience anymore.

I think Murchinson assumes that if a significant number of movies were made that catered to older generations, those generations would start going to the movies as regularly as the younger generation. I don't think that's necessarily true. The older you get the more you value your time; it takes more for a movie to get older people in the theater. And even then they are less likely to see a movie multiple times and more likely to say "well that looks good but I'll wait for it on DVD." So which generational group do you aim your movie for? Assuming you want to make a profit of course.

Also how do you tell a story about rude noises or bad language?

Updates to the Site

First of all we discovered a few problems with our Logo Gallery, so we have fixed them. Also we are adding links to the stuff section over there on the right.

Good News for White Males

It's hard being a white male these days. I should know because I am, in fact, a white male. Well, now there's relief, in the form of an easy to read 7,500 word article with over 70 footnotes. Something with that many footnotes has to be good. Check out this fascinating selection.

Since we live in an age when students are likely to hear more about Marie Curie than about Albert Einstein, it is worth beginning with a statement of historical fact: women have played a proportionally tiny part in the history of the arts and sciences.4 Even in the 20th century, women got only 2 percent of the Nobel Prizes in the sciences—a proportion constant for both halves of the century—and 10 percent of the prizes in literature. The Fields Medal, the most prestigious award in mathematics, has been given to 44 people since it originated in 1936. All have been men.

The historical reality of male dominance of the greatest achievements in science and the arts is not open to argument.

See I'll bet you didn't know that most of the scientists and artists you studied in history were males. Is that due to women not being allowed to participate in such works before 1900 (and not all that much since then)? Nope. Apparently, according to Charles Murry (the author of this wonderful article (wonderful for us White Males of course, not for the rest of you)), women's brains are smaller. Mr. Murrey also talks about how we White Males compare to other races (basically Blacks), and, surprise surprise, we come out ahead there too.

So why is it so important to recognize the supremecy of the White Male?

Elites throughout the West are living a lie, basing the futures of their societies on the assumption that all groups of people are equal in all respects. Lie is a strong word, but justified. It is a lie because so many elite politicians who profess to believe it in public do not believe it in private. It is a lie because so many elite scholars choose to ignore what is already known and choose not to inquire into what they suspect. We enable ourselves to continue to live the lie by establishing a taboo against discussion of group differences.

The big problem is that brave scholars like Charles Murrey are not given huge research grants and allowed to appear on talk shows constantly to explain the dominence of the white male. See if we didn't have political correctness all the women and non-whites would naturally rise to their appropriate place, and we white males would run everything as genetics intended!

So to sum up, all hail the White Male! That rhymes, and you know it rhymes!

Note: if some of you do not recognize B.S. when you see it, you should maybe start here. Enjoy!

The Gallery

For those interested, here is a Gallery of logos that have appeared on the site. Kind of fun to take a look back - particularly since our recent redesigned overwrote all our previous designs. Anyway hope you enjoy.

Good morning

Hey slow posting today. Cheery is at the dentist and I am being held by work. Grumbly was given a weeks suspension after the incident last week, I'm afraid. The monster phoned in from Zhanjiang, China, and, after listening to Cheery's tearful complaint mandated that Grumbly Muffin be suspended for one week or until she had "got me one hundred squirrels!" Me being the Monster.

I assume Grumbly will wait out the week.

Anyway since I can't post much, here's a few links.

Echidne of the Snake has a nice story that refutes the whole "why don't peaceful Muslims ever protest against the terrorists?" So naturally this will be ignored by conservatoids.

Bark Bark Woof Woof has a story on how Cindy Sheehan Did get to meet with an American President. Kind of nice.

The Goblin's Lair has a selection on why we shouldn't be ashamed to be "liberals." Damned inspiring, if you ask me - go read it and see what you think.

Anyway hopefully we'll have some more later on, if things quiet down.

Lamps too

OK, I think I got the Lamps Page fixed up. Here it is, for those of you interested.

Meta-Commentary

I know you are all smart enough to pick up on these parallels yourselves, but I think I ought to underline where Grumbly Muffin might have acquired her "flexible" relationship with the truth.

I mean, Cindy Sheehan is just Bill Burkett. Her story is nothing more than forged documents. There's nothing about it that's real, including the mainstream media's glomming onto it. It's not real. It's nothing more than an attempt. It's the latest effort made by the coordinated left.

- Rush Limbaugh, August 15.

Apparently, what's out there is that I said that Cindy Sheehan is no different than Bill Burkett, that Bill Burkett lied and Cindy Sheehan lied. They're actually out there, people saying that I am accusing Cindy Sheehan of making up the fact that she had a son and making up the fact that her son died in Iraq. And of course, I've never said this.

- Rush Limbaugh, August 17.

You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war.

- Pat Robertson, August 22.

Wait a minute, I didn't say 'assassination.' I said our special forces should, quote, "take him out," and "take him out" can be a number of things including kidnapping. There are a number of ways to take out a dictator from power besides killing him. I was misinterpreted by the AP, but that happens all the time.

- Pat Robertson August 24.

I'd just like to say that all of the readers of this website are TOTAL MORONS.

- Grumbly Muffin, August 24.

I've noticed a lot of people commenting that I said something "hurtful" to our readers or that I called our readers total morons. I don't know how these sorts of RUMORS get started, but I think it's telling that the left has to resort to blatent DISTORTION to win arguments.

- Grumbly Muffin, August 25.

Now to be fair, Mumbly Gruffin's comments were a little different than Limbaugh and Robertson's. They waited two days before they started making stuff up; she only waited one day.

Lamps

As mentioned previously we are gallerizing some of the artwork presented at this website, such as it is. Mainly because this is turning out to be a slow day, and also because the Monster likes pictures. Anyway, those of you who remember my lamp pictures, here they are. Enjoy!

Edited to add - this isn't working right - need to figure out what I did wrong.

Ben Shapiro

I would like it better if Conservative Americans did not have any power or very little power. Let me amend that. I would like it better if the neo-conservative boneheads along the lines of Ben Shapiro, Pat Robertson, and President Bush, had no power to implement their policy. I don't think they add very much positive (if anything). On the contrary the influence of this type of modern conservative has been very very negative. So I would like to see these people, others like them, and people who support them lose power in America.

Of course there are certain constitutional and moral limits to how far I can go in shutting them up; in reality I'm mostly limited to trying to present an alternative view and, more often, criticizing their own bonehead statements. Which brings us to today's article by Ben Shapiro.

Ben Shapiro is still lamenting that as a young conservative he may be criticized for hosting a talk show in Oklahoma City rather than enlisting to fight a war he supports (and apparently four or five other wars he also supports (when we get around to them)). In this article Ben Shapiro lets out a deep dark secret; people like Michael Moore and Susan Serandon would rather see people who think like them making decisions for this nation.

What a shocker. This is totally different from young Ben who, of course, favors people who think different from him. Oh wait, that's nonsense.

What clearly gets young Ben's goat, besides the personal angle to this argument, is that this has proven an effective technique. The right wing in this nation has spent all day and every day telling America that Liberals are unpatriotic, that we don't love our country, that we don't care about regular Americans, that we are elitist snobs and so on and so forth. SO when we get a comeback that punctures this particular line of attack, well, it's worth using.

Ben Shapiro also throws around the word "pacifist" pretty loosely in his article. Apparently in the Shapiro Family Dictionary, a pacifist is anybody who doesn't support any war. It's a bit like virginity, I guess; once you think a war is stupid and you oppose it, you become a pacifist forever more.

Anyway it's nice to see Ben, in an article criticizing the democratic for making (effective) ad hominem attacks, he can't stop himself from using an ad hominem attack.

Chavez and Robertson

My colleague, Grumbly Muffin, wrote below on Pat Robertson and Hugo Chavez with typical restraint and insight. Why is it that the Republicans, who claim to be the "adults" when it comes to governing, always seem to be reenacting old Sylvester Stalloine/Arnold Schwarzenegger movies?

That said, I'm intrigued by the logic of Roberts words.

. . . if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it.

I just want to let you all know that I think you are trying to give me big bags of money. Yep. I am convinced that there are dozens of my readers trying to give me money.

Just thought you'd like to know.

Further Proof of the Liberal Media

Here's how an article on Cindy Sheehan and Camp Casey, and a counter demonstration opens, written by Angela K. Brown, and distributed by the Associated Press.

A patriotic camp with a "God Bless Our President!" banner sprung up downtown Saturday, countering the anti-war demonstration started by a fallen soldier's mother two weeks ago near President Bush's ranch.

See how liberally biased this is? It fails to mention that the Anti War Demon-stration is made up of people who hate America and hate soldiers. It fails to note that Cindy Sheehan has already met with President Bush and is a crazed liberal activist. About the only think this little snippet gets right is describing Fort Qualls as "patriotic." That's a little subtle though - stupid people may not realize that this automatically implies that the people at Camp Casey are the opposite of patriotic.

When will we rid ourselves of this insane liberal Media???

Changes

We are making some changes to the website today - for one thing, we, at long last, appear to have successfully succeeded in installing an Atom Feed. This has long been a dream of mine - and I finally succeeded in doing it, I think. Anybody who can confirm this, please do thou so.

The Site Feed is here --> http://feeds.feedburner.com/MakeMeACommentator

Also we are going to redo the look of this website once more - I like this look, but it does not allow one to link to individual posts - instead each link goes to that week, which is not very satisfactory. So I am going to change it a bit.

Also we are going to open, in honor of this new switcharoo, the Make Me a Commentator Blog Heading Gallery, but that might take a few days.

Reality Used to be a Friend of Mine

Using a title of a PM Dawn song, to show you how hip and relevant this blog is.

Compare and contrast these two statements, both by Rush Limbaugh.

I mean, Cindy Sheehan is just Bill Burkett. Her story is nothing more than forged documents. There's nothing about it that's real, including the mainstream media's glomming onto it. It's not real.

That statement is from his August 15th broadcast.

Apparently, what's out there is that I said that Cindy Sheehan is no different than Bill Burkett, that Bill Burkett lied and Cindy Sheehan lied. They're actually out there, people saying that I am accusing Cindy Sheehan of making up the fact that she had a son and making up the fact that her son died in Iraq. And of course, I've never said this.

That is from his August 17th, broadcast.

So my question is, does Rush realize he's on the air? Does he realize that people are capable of remembering what he said just two days earlier? Or is he so far gone that reality, for him, is what he says it is?

After Roe Vs. Wade

I don't really know what to make of this, partly because of the source, so I'm presenting it without comment. This is from Larry Elder's latest article.

USA Today conducted a state-by-state analysis. Their analysis expects 11 "conservative states" to immediately pass laws prohibiting abortion. But those "conservative states" only had 122 abortion providers in 2000, less than 7 percent of the nation's 1,819 abortion providers. "Most of those 122 providers (65) are in Texas," writes USA Today. "If pro-choice forces can hold on to Texas (not unlikely, given the feisty Democratic minority's tendency to flee to Oklahoma to deny the Legislature a quorum when its members are miffed) we're down to 57 providers. If the Democrats controlling the Alabama and Arkansas legislatures decided to act like Democrats, not Dixiecrats, that total could fall to 36."

That leaves eight "conservative states" with only 36 abortion providers between them -- an already difficult proposition for any woman seeking an abortion in those states. In six of them -- Mississippi, Kentucky, the Dakotas, Missouri and Nebraska -- a woman cannot find an abortion provider in 97-98 percent of those states' counties. In other words, as it stands now, conservative states reduce abortion to almost non-existence, so a post-Roe world, at least in those states, changes little.

I will add one thing; I have heard that Ohio has considered an abortion law that would make it illegal to seek an abortion in Ohio, but would also make it a crime to seek an abortion elsewhere. I don't know how many of these states would consider such a law.

Live from Fantasy Land; it's Ben Shapiro

Yes young Ben seems reality challenged this week. His article is about how wrong it is for Liberals to use the Chickenhawk epithet. Apparently.

Apparently pointing out that many Republican leaders supported the Vietnam war and yet were unwilling to fight in it is an attack on their right to speak. Pointing out that young Republicans support the Iraq war, we are suffering from not having enough troops, and yet young Republicans are unwilling to enlist is similarly wrong. Not just wrong. UnAmerican.

The "chickenhawk" argument -- which states that if you haven't served in the military, you can't have an opinion on foreign policy -- explicitly rejects basic principles of representative democracy.

No it doesn't, young Ben, any more than the hundreds of ad hominem attacks you and your kind have launched over the year mean that Democrats Liberals shouldn't be able to have an opinion on, well, anything.

His flight from reality comes in the last bit.

The "chickenhawk" argument proves only one point: The left is incapable of discussing foreign policy in a rational manner. They must resort to purely emotional, base personal attacks in order to forward their agenda. And so, unable or unwilling to counter the arguments of those like Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney and President Bush, they label them all "chickenhawks."

. . . American soldiers fight for the right of all Americans, regardless of race, class or past service, to speak out on foreign policy issues. If they fight for the right of pacifist anti-military fifth columnists like Michael Moore to denigrate their honor, they certainly fight for the right of civilian hawks to speak up in favor of the highest level of moral and material support for their heroism.

OK, a few points.

1. Liberals have lots of substantive arguments against the insane policies of the Bush Administration. To pretend that our entire counter argument consists of screaming "chickenhawk" is nonsense.

2. Fifth columnist? Denigrating their honor? Criticizing this war is not the same thing as criticizing the military forced to fight in it, and if you spent even a few moments reviewing Michael Moores statements you'd find the truth. Consider this quote from Fahrenheit 9/11, voiced and presumably written by Michael.

I've always been amazed that the very people forced to live in the worst parts of town, go to the worst schools, and who have it the hardest are always the first to step up, to defend us. They serve so that we don't have to. They offer to give up their lives so that we can be free. It is remarkably their gift to us. And all they ask for in return is that we never send them into harm's way unless it is absolutely necessary. Will they ever trust us again?

I don't know how you read that, but to me that doesn't sound like a slur against the troops.

3. And, incidentally, how is "fifth columnist" better than "chickenhawk?" I mean other than the fact that there is some truth to the phrase chickenhawk and none in the slur fifth columnist.

4. The Republicans in Congress and in the White House have consistently fought to lower veteran's benefits. The penny-pinching Donald Rumsfeld, eager to protect the Bush Tax Cuts, fought the Iraq war on the cheap. It's Democrat and Liberal Activists who have pointed out both of these facts.

Anyway I admit to being of two minds about the Chickenhawk epithet. On the one hand it isn't really a response to a conservative foreign policy argument. It would be better to point out the inconsistencies and nonsense in their arguments directly. On the other hand, chickenhawk goes to a very real attack Conservatives have made on Liberals. Conservatives like to pretend that they are the party that lives America and that Liberals are the party that doesn't love America. Chickenhawk cuts right through that, so why not use it?

Any thoughts?

A Proud Day for American Conservatism

I got this from Fox 23 (Albany New York).

A pickup truck tore through rows of white crosses last night near President Bush's ranch, where a woman has been protesting the Iraq war.

The crosses stretched along the road at the Crawford, Texas, camp, bore the names of fallen U-S soldiers. No one was hurt.

Of course I am sure that there are many conservatives who would find this action reprehensible.

It all balances out

As it turns out there's no need to worry about the vast numbers of people who are barely hanging on in our economic system. Their kids are doing better on tests, and they are belonging to more voluntary associations.

This cheerful news comes to us via Michael Barone's latest article, in which he references a number of recent articles which suggest that Social Classes may be becoming more hardened. Mr. Barone, suprisingly, does not dispute the core premise of this article. Instead he, more or less, argues that there's nothing wrong with this. Which is, I have to admit, a refreshingly honest approach.

Meritocracy may mean less mobility, but that is bearable if, as Brooks says, "America is becoming more virtuous."

It is comforting to know that Mr. Barone and Mr. Brooks, both wealthy columnists are willing to bear a certain lack of mobility. And, I could be wrong, but isn't there something a little bit patronizing saying it's ok to have lots of people struggling to get by if we can get them to be more virtuous?

Odd To Ann Coulter

Marvin Olasky's latest column is kind of a backhanded ode to the leggy conservative writer.

But show business pulls us in the opposite direction: Fighting words sell. Ann Coulter, for example, says people don't respond to subtle reasoning and need to be bopped on the head.

She's probably right: Rapid-fire attacks keep people awake.

But there's more to Ms. Coulter than just slamming into liberals. Apparently she also believes in the saving power of Jesus Christ.

But the columnist has another side that a former student of mine, Amy McCullough, caught in describing a Coulter appearance at the University of Texas: "When a young, conservative woman asked how she could stand the awful things people said about her because of her stand on abortion, she hesitated, messed with her hair, and said: 'Well, it's the same way I don't care about anything else: Christ died for my sins, and nothing else matters.'"

You know I pretty much agree with Ann that Christ's sacrifice is pretty darn important. On the other hand I would also place some importance in following his commands. Christs sacrifice doesn't excuse us from following his words; rather following his words allows us to better understand and accept his sacrifice.

So consider these words from the Bible.

Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice:

And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you. - Ephesians 4:31-32

Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:

But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. - Matthew 5:21-22

If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man's religion is vain. - James 1:26

I would not put it on myself to judge the state of Ann Coulter's soul. If she has felt to commune with God; that is good. I would merely point out a contrast between the harsh and hateful words of Ann Coulter and the admonitions one finds in the Bible.

Mr. Olasky also seems aware of this conflict, incidentally.

How would the apostles act in today's culture? How, for that matter, would 18th century members of the religious right like Samuel Adams and Patrick Henry? Coulter can join that distinguished host as she finds more ways to rout liberal stereotypes without fulfilling others.

I have my personal doubts that she would(for one thing I still think, protestations aside, that it's all about the benjamins for Ms. Coulter), but certainly it would be nice if Ms. Coulter took a higher road.

We've Got the Whole World In Our Hands

Since the death of the Soviet Union, we are unquestionably the world's only superpower, the world's remaining empire. Acquiring an empire requires a different mindset than maintaining and expanding one. Empires either decline or they grow. If America is to survive and flourish, Americans must realize that empire isn't a choice: It's a duty.

This is from Ben Shapiro's latest. Shapiro goes on to call for the US to invade Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt, and Pakistan (as well as "others"). I know that's not very believable. Surely even young Ben couldn't be that bloodthirsty and jingoistic (not to mention unrealistic). But I don't know how else you read this paragraph.

That is why impatient isolationism serves us ill in Iraq. Did Iraq pose an immediate threat to our nation? Perhaps not. But toppling Saddam Hussein and democratizing Iraq prevent his future ascendance and end his material support for future threats globally. The same principle holds true for Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt, Pakistan and others: Pre-emption is the chief weapon of a global empire.

So, there you have it. Of course young Ben is only speaking for himself. Doubtless there are many who would disagree with this crazy plan.

Band Name

Is it just me or would "Inexplicable Monkeys" be a kick-ass name for a band?

Also, you should obviously take Grumbly Muffin's words below with a grain of salt; she is after all an operative of the Republican Party / Conservative Movement.

Can't We All Just Get Along?

I must be catching Cheerryitus.

I just finished reading Dennis Prager's latest article, which is part of an ongoing series called "Judeo Christian Values." He's up to Number XX so I guess he's enjoying writing them. In an earlier article in the series, he wrote "It is difficult to overstate the depth of the differences between the Judeo-Christian view of the world and that of its opponents, most particularly the Left." When I commented on that article I expressed a feeling that the depths of our divisions were not as deep as he made it out to be.

I still think that, and his latest article does nothing to dissuade me from that view. His latest article might be subtitled "Why I focus on the Left Wing and not so much on Islam." Basically he seems to believe that there really aren't any competing philosophies outside of Judeo-Christianity and Liberalism. Islam isn't growing except by force, eastern philosophies aren't guides for society, and Communism is dead. Not sure about any of those statements but that's his position.

In writing these columns, Dennis Prager has consistently distorted Leftism/Secularism and, ironically enough, Judeo Christianity. Some distortion is
inevitable when you are boiling down such large umbrellas into two movements and then placing them within in a Manichean struggle for dominance. And some distortion is clearly the result of Mr. Prager's personal blinders.

Are Christians and Leftists enemies? Mr. Prager certainly seems to think so (this is the dude who posited a Second Civil War).

I don't think so, because I have a third value I want to throw into the mix. Americans. Judeo Christian Americans and Leftist Americans (not sure where I fit in those two categories, being a moderate liberal who regularly attends church) both want to see a strong successful America. We disagree, sometimes vehemently, on how to get there. But we agree on the main goal. So why can't we take that foundation and build from there?

Perhaps because it's more profitable to stir up hatred, isn't it, Mr. Prager?

This May Be the Most Important Post You'll Read Today

Maybe. Hard to say really.

I'm linking to a post at the Huffington Report by Fred Stembottom. Mr. Stembottom describes a serious problem with the modern Democratic Party. Namely, the Democratic Party doesn't really have any real connection with the American Working Class.

Millions of white, male blue-collar workers go around in right-wing talk radio induced ignorance. Each and every one of them thinks that the problems they have with their employer is unique, puzzling and sure to get better after a change of management ...or something.

What I do: I simply point up how these "puzzling anomalies" are actually well-known and ancient un-fair labor practices. With NAMES!

Speed-ups. Wage stagnation policies. Two-tiered wage systems. Worker isolation. These are some of the names of the classic Unfair Labor Practices that my friends experience everyday. But they don't even know that there are such things as Unfair Labor Practices!

Watch 'em go off like rockets when you give them a NAME for what they suffer everyday -- just a name for Christ's sake. They go ballistic and are ready for anything.

This is a very important idea for Democratic Party organizers to understand and to get behind. Or it could be.

If people, you know, put it into practice.

A Return to Racism

In the past, before the Civil Rights Movement, brown people posed very little threat to America. Brown people, particularly blacks, but also Hispanics, native Americans, Asians and so on, had a very specific place in society, and they were not allowed out of that place. America was run for the benefit of the White Middle Class and White Upper Class.

Under such a situation, the Islamic Terrorists would be no threat to us. They would not be permitted access to our airplanes or to other facilities from which they could launch attacks against the American People.

Unfortunately we gave black and brown people civil rights, and then, in an act of even greater foolishness, we started a fad called Multiculturalism. Multiculturism is the ludicrous belief that other cultures are, on some level, the equivalent of White Middle Class America. Michael Barone comments on this disgusting phenomena in his latest article.

Multiculturalism is based on the lie that all cultures are morally equal. In practice, that soon degenerates to: All cultures are morally equal, except ours, which is worse. But all cultures are not equal in respecting representative government, guaranteed liberties and the rule of law. And those things arose not simultaneously and in all cultures, but in certain specific times and places -- mostly in Britain and America, but also in various parts of Europe.

In America, as in Britain, multiculturalism has become the fashion in large swathes of our society. So the Founding Fathers are presented only as slaveholders, World War II is limited to the internment of Japanese-Americans and the bombing of Hiroshima. Slavery is identified with America, though it has existed in every society and the antislavery movement arose first among English-speaking evangelical Christians.

But most Americans know there is something special about our cultural heritage.

The only weakness in Mr. Barones prose is that he fails to specify that he is talking about White America; but I'm pretty sure that anybody reading that would recognize that. So what we need is a return to a society that teaches White America as superior to all other cultures, as an important first step.

Of course I'm being sarcastic and cynical here; it's possible that Mr. Barone, like others attacking the dreaded Multiculturalism, hasn't got a racist bone in his body.

But I doubt it.

Vacation!

President Bush just started his five week vacation.

Do you get a five week vacation?

Yeah, me neither.

Oh, and it turns out that, according to Forbes Magazine, you need $300,000.00 a year to lead a comfortable lifestyle. Those jerks over at common dreams didn't link to the original article (possibly it's in the print edition of the magazine) so I can't point it there.

Does it seem like the people who run this country don't really know how most of us live?

I will Debate Extremists

Just read an article by Daniel Pipes on why he won't go on debate programs with what he calls "representatives of radical Islam or the far-left."

. . . today's broadcasts strive toward impartiality. For instance, a memo distributed to Canadian Broadcast Corporation staff cautions against using the words "terrorist" and "terrorism," because these "can leave journalists taking sides in a conflict." The conceit that members of the press have no stake in the outcome of war is terribly wrong; just imagine how television talk shows would be after these same terrorists took over. (They did not flourish under the Taliban, to put it mildly.)

. . . The ideal solution lies not in creating censors' bureaus to pass judgment on television content but for media executives to accept their responsibilities in time of war. On their own initiative, they should exclude the enemy's apologists and advocates. Lively debate does not require such people; patriots with sharply differing views can also make sparks fly.

Interesting argument. He's not asking for de jure censorship, but he's certainly behind de facto censorship.

And, of course, his whole argument hinges on the definition of extremist. Rush Limbaugh once defined a liberal extremist as a "proud Democrat." Is Mr. Pipes willing to go this far? When Pipes says "Patriot" does he mean conservative? This is a fair question; certainly plenty of Conservatives have a hard time imagining a liberal patriot. Unfortunately, Pipes article is pretty short and he chose not to clarify exactly who he is talking about.

Which, of course, may be how he wanted it.

Madness and Comic Books

I'm not, unfortunately, talking about the psychedelic madness that creates a Joker or a Green Goblin. I'm not even talking about the run of the mill madness that lets a Spiderman or a Batman think that dressing up and running along rooftops is a sensible course of action.

Instead I'm talking about the insane worldview that creates "Liberality." Here's a brief description of this new comic book.

In 2004, Muslim terrorists stopped viewing the weakened American government as a threat; instead they set their sites on their true enemies, vocal American conservatives. On one dark day, in 2006, many conservative voices went forever silent at the hands of terrorist assassins. Those which survived joined forces and formed a powerful covert conservative organization called "The Freedom of Information League", aka F.O.I.L.

The efforts of F.O.I.L. threaten both the liberal extremist power structure and the U.N.'s grip on America, the U.N. calls F.O.I.L. the most dangerous group in the world. It seems the once theorized Vast Right Wing Conspiracy has now become a reality.

The F.O.I.L. Organization is forced underground by the "Coulter Laws" of 2007; these hate speech legislations have made right-wing talk shows, and conservative-slanted media, illegal. Our weakened government has willingly handed the reigns of our once great country to the corrupt United Nations. The Department of Political-Correctness is required to assist U.N. monitors to properly edit all print and broadcast media. Live broadcasts are a thing of the past; all transmissions are monitored by the U.N. and any "offensive" material is dumped.

Rupert Murdoch's decision to defy the "Coulter Laws" hate speech legislations, has bankrupted News Corporation. George Soros has bought all of News Corps assets and changed its name to Liberty International Broadcasting. LIB's networks have flourished and circle the globe with a series of satellites beaming liberal & U.N. propaganda worldwide.

The New York City faction of F.O.I.L. is lead by Sean Hannity, G. Gordon Liddy and Oliver North, each uniquely endowed with special abilities devised by a bio mechanical engineer affectionately nicknamed "Oscar". F.O.I.L. is soon to be joined by a young man named Reagan McGee.

Reagan was born on September 11th, 2001. He is the son of a NYC firefighter whose life was spared by attending his son's birth. Reagan has grown to manhood in an ultra-liberal educational system: being told, not asked, what to think. With personal determination, which alienates him from his contemporaries, he has chosen the path less traveled . . . the path to the Right.

What sort of mentality thinks that that is a plausible future? Not a sane one.

I think it's interesting that the "Coulter" laws are going to be passed by 2007 - middle of President Bush's second term. Guess he's an even lamer duck than I thought. Of course it also begs the question of why such laws were created. I assume, given the general tone of the rest of the piece, that the laws were just passed out of sheer meanspiritedness. I would be more realistic if they were passed in the wake of one of Ann's readers shooting up the New York Times or some other "liberal" institution, but I assume that in these writer's minds, the Conservative movement is completely guiltless.

Anyway the United States is headed by Chelsea Clinton with Vice President Michael Moore who welcome Usama Bin Ladin to the United Nations to make a speech and blow the hell out of New York, which I gather our heroes need to stop. That's liberals for you; basically we are ought to betray America to our bestest buddies, the terrorists. If this is what Conservatives seem to believe about Liberals, I'm frankly surprised there isn't more violence directed towards us.

Anyway you can also look at some preview pages here, if you are so inclined.

The Eye of the Beholder

Wal-Mart is a company that fires whistle-blowers, fights unions, discriminates against women and black truck drivers, violates child labor laws, locks its workers in their stores overnight, pays poverty level wages, and so on and so forth. But, apparently, all that is a small price to pay for the chance for small town America to get cheap products, according to an editorial at the New York Times.

See if the owners of Wal-Mart weren't such ruthless bastards, they wouldn't be able to offer the same kind of cheap prices, and people in rural communities (mainly the ones who don't happen to work at Wal-Mart) wouldn't be able to get by as easily.

According to one recent academic study, when Wal-Mart enters a market, prices decrease by 8 percent in rural areas and 5 percent in urban areas. With two-thirds of Wal-Mart stores in rural areas, this means that Wal-Mart saves its consumers something like $16 billion a year. And because Wal-Mart's presence forces the store's competitors to charge lower prices as well, this $16 billion figure understates the company's real impact by at least half.

These kinds of savings to customers far exceed the costs that Wal-Mart supposedly imposes on society by securing subsidies, destroying jobs in competing stores, driving employees toward public welfare systems and creating urban sprawl.

Yep there it is. Wal-Mart has been successful so should be allowed to whatever the hell it wants! You'll forgive me if I don't entirely buy into this line of thinking.

Salon also has an article about Wal-Mart, dealing with the growing anti Wal-Mart movement. It's a good article, although it could have been more tightly edited.

Pay No Attention to the County we Invaded behind the Curtain

David Limbaugh's latest friendly offer of help to the beleaguered Democratic Party is to suggest that we stop paying so much attention to Iraq.

But again, the profound irony is that while they see Iraq as Bush's quagmire, it has become their own. Just as their self-made myths about Republicans stealing the election in 2000 drove them to a Norman Bates-esque frenzy, their delusional "Bush-lied" ravings have driven them to a blinding monomania.

If you doubt their collective neurosis, do a Nexis search and you'll discover their ingenuity at tying every issue -- John Bolton, Social Security, Wilson/Plame, Judge Roberts -- to Iraq. To them, almost everything the administration does is either to compensate for or divert attention from Iraq.

Crazy huh? Thinking that the Joe Wilson / Valerie Plame issue has something to do with Iraq. What are Democrats thinking?

I mean, Joe Wilson got the Bush Administration mad about him because he dared to suggest that their case on Iraq was just a little suspicious (admittedly, Wilson has a bit of baggage of his own).

At any rate, John Bolton was also a member of the Bush Administration foreign policy section while the Invasion of Iraq was planned and executed, so maybe he has a connection as well.

As for the other two, Limbaugh pretends that all sorts of Democrats are saying that President Bush is using Social Security or Judge Roberts to distract away from Iraq, but he only presents one example. And anyway everybody knows that the nomination of Judge Roberts is to distract away from the Wilson/Plame issue, not Iraq!

One final note, Limbaugh writes, apparently sincerely, that President Bush's recess appointment of Bolton is a sign of his strength, not a sign of weakness. Not sure what planet Limbaugh is observing the current political landscape from, but President Bush, with a Republican Congress, could not get Bolton confirmed in the normal matter, so had to use a backdoor maneuver to get him in office. I don't know how that reflects his strength.

The Secularization of America

Well, I'm back. I naturally want to thank the Monster for giving me a new lease on this website. I'd also like to acknowledge that Grumbly Muffin and Cheery Jetson have done some interesting work while I was gone.

I will comment that the previous format did not allow commentators to challenge each other; The Monster has already suggested that that was a silly policy, and he is encouraging us to swing into each other at will. So Grumbly Muffin may find her statements falling under a bit more scrutiny.

At any rate, just read Chuck Colson's latest article. On the surface I agree with a lot of what he says. He talks about how the rise of Ideology has made political debate more and more difficult. People do not have an independent standard of truth; they judge facts based on their ideology. Which is why one group sees a decorated war hero; the other sees a vainglorious coward.

That said, his answer to the problem seems to be for everybody to accept his standard as truth. Which is, at the very least, overly convenient. Specifically he is referring to the Christian Faith. I wonder if his understanding of the Christian faith is large enough to encompass the Christian who believes that it is the governments duty to take care of the poorest among us and the Christian who believes that it is unjust for the Government to take from the Wealthy to give to the Poor? But even at that, it does leave hundreds of thousands of non Christians with no seat at the American table.

Why not just have rigorous standards of truth, and live up to those? I mean I know it's a radical idea, but why not figure out what the truth is in situations and make people hold to that. That will still leave plenty of room for disagreements and arguments, I should think.