Going to start gathering as much information on Alito as I can over the next few days. My initial impression of him is that he is a right wing extremist; but I want to look at all the information first.
Salon's War Room has two stories on cases he was involved in.
* In 2001 there were four first degree murder cases, including James William Riley, in Kent County, Deleware. The Prosecution ensured that not one juror in these four trials was black. Riley challenged this on appeal. The majority on the appeals court felt that he was in the right (saying ". . . is it really necessary to have a sophisticated analysis by a statistician to conclude that there is little chance of randomly selecting four consecutive all white juries?"); Alito dissenting.
* In 1991, Alito argued that the state (Pennsylvania) could prevent a woman from having an abortion without notifying her husband.
That's a start.
Monday, October 31, 2005
The Ideologues vs. The Brainiacs
There are two reasons to dislike the Harriet Miers nomination.
1. Harriet Miers did not have sufficient legal background to sit in the highest court of the land.
2. Harriet Miers is a stealth candidate and there is no reason not to nominate a lifelong well-known conservative who will annoy the left wing.
The first is the brainiac reason not to like Miers; the second is the ideological reason to reject her.
Novak is a brainiac (the phrase does not actually refer to the mental ability of Mr. Novak on which we have no comment). His latest article, "Bush's Judicial Test," expresses dismay that President Bush seems to relay on relative non-entities for his support.
Of course on the other side you have the idealogues like, say, Ann Coulter. Responding to the Mier's withdrawal, Ms. Coulter said the following on CNN.
This provides President Bush with a tricky needle to thread. If he satisfies the Ann Coutlers in his party, well, it might anger the mainstream Republicans and the American people. One thing the Miers nomination has done is that it is put ideology back on the table. Since the Coutler Republicans objected to Miers on ideological grounds, and the Bush White House defended her on the same grounds (Religion playing a role as well), the next candidate will have his ideological leanings discussed as well.
Should be interesting.
Of course since writing that above; I went to an hour long security meeting and in the mean time President Bush has announced his next candidate, Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. According to the New York Times, this will provoke a battle with the Democrats, and Gary Bauer, a prominent Religious Conservative, has already ok'd the nomination. And he's another white male, so it's nice that President Bush didn't give into political correctness (from the Coulter Republican point of view). I guess the idealogues have won for now.
1. Harriet Miers did not have sufficient legal background to sit in the highest court of the land.
2. Harriet Miers is a stealth candidate and there is no reason not to nominate a lifelong well-known conservative who will annoy the left wing.
The first is the brainiac reason not to like Miers; the second is the ideological reason to reject her.
Novak is a brainiac (the phrase does not actually refer to the mental ability of Mr. Novak on which we have no comment). His latest article, "Bush's Judicial Test," expresses dismay that President Bush seems to relay on relative non-entities for his support.
Bush's blunder on Miers reflects his genuine disdain for Washington and the national government, still intense after nearly five years in office. That is basically why he reaches back to longtime friends and associates (cronies, say his critics) whom he trusts.A synonym for Braniac might be Washingtonian, actually. They don't share Bush's negative feelings towards the government; rather they want someone who is a known quality, someone who knows how the game is played.
Of course on the other side you have the idealogues like, say, Ann Coulter. Responding to the Mier's withdrawal, Ms. Coulter said the following on CNN.
Well, I think I've said it, he's -- the right-wing base has just shown its power. And as I say, and it's unfortunate circumstances. But what got Bush in trouble was listening to Democrats in the first place.For the idealogue this Supreme Court Nomination is a chance to both educate the American people about what Conservativism is all about and to stick it to the Democrats. That may be the most important factor in their determining if President Bush's next candidate is acceptable; how mad does he or she make us Liberals?
This provides President Bush with a tricky needle to thread. If he satisfies the Ann Coutlers in his party, well, it might anger the mainstream Republicans and the American people. One thing the Miers nomination has done is that it is put ideology back on the table. Since the Coutler Republicans objected to Miers on ideological grounds, and the Bush White House defended her on the same grounds (Religion playing a role as well), the next candidate will have his ideological leanings discussed as well.
Should be interesting.
Of course since writing that above; I went to an hour long security meeting and in the mean time President Bush has announced his next candidate, Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. According to the New York Times, this will provoke a battle with the Democrats, and Gary Bauer, a prominent Religious Conservative, has already ok'd the nomination. And he's another white male, so it's nice that President Bush didn't give into political correctness (from the Coulter Republican point of view). I guess the idealogues have won for now.
Friday, October 28, 2005
And Now For Something Really Important
For those of you who play World of Warcraft like I do obsessively, well, this might be of interest.
Actually some of the artwork is pretty good even if you don't play it.
Actually some of the artwork is pretty good even if you don't play it.
Stuff I Haven't Commented On
1. Harriet Miers withdrew from consideration for a seat on the Supreme Court.
2. Scooter Libby, from Dick Cheney's office, was indicted on counts of Perjury and False Statements.
It's been a good week for the Bush Administration.
On the face of it, these both look like disasters. And they are. But the disaster happened a while ago. In the Miers situation, the disaster happened when she was nominated; in the Libby case, the disaster happened when Fitzgerald opened his investigation.
Once those things happened, the Bush administration was going to face some stuff. But this week both crisises have turned out to be bad, but not as bad as they could have been (for the Bushies). Rove wasn't indicted and may not be. Nobody was charged with actually outing Valerie Plame (or Valerie Wilson as she is named in the documents). Harriet Miers withdrew because the White House refused to turn over documents, and not because of a massive split between the White House and the Conservative Base (or at least that's the official story).
It's possible both of these stories could reverse themselves. Fitzgerald could hand down further indictments. Bush's next pick for the Supreme Court could be just as problematic (well from my perspective it almost certainly will be). But for today, things are going better than they might have for the Bush Administration.
2. Scooter Libby, from Dick Cheney's office, was indicted on counts of Perjury and False Statements.
It's been a good week for the Bush Administration.
On the face of it, these both look like disasters. And they are. But the disaster happened a while ago. In the Miers situation, the disaster happened when she was nominated; in the Libby case, the disaster happened when Fitzgerald opened his investigation.
Once those things happened, the Bush administration was going to face some stuff. But this week both crisises have turned out to be bad, but not as bad as they could have been (for the Bushies). Rove wasn't indicted and may not be. Nobody was charged with actually outing Valerie Plame (or Valerie Wilson as she is named in the documents). Harriet Miers withdrew because the White House refused to turn over documents, and not because of a massive split between the White House and the Conservative Base (or at least that's the official story).
It's possible both of these stories could reverse themselves. Fitzgerald could hand down further indictments. Bush's next pick for the Supreme Court could be just as problematic (well from my perspective it almost certainly will be). But for today, things are going better than they might have for the Bush Administration.
The Contest - Simplified Version
As some of you know we are deciding on a new member of the Make Me a Commentator!!! staff to host a new feature (probably on Wednesdays) that will review the various columnists and commentators that you might be interested in. The four finalists are
Puke. Angry angry punk rock girl.
Jean-Louis Crowley. British singer with French Affectations and a dark family secret.
Durango. Half Singing Cowboy, Half Squinting Cowboy.
The Post Modernist. A hero for absurdity or against absurdity, depending.
You can vote for more than one person, incidentally so feel free to do so.
Now if you want to be entered into the contest, you still need to put your vote in the comments section of this blog. The winner of the contest (chosen randomly) will get a free subscription to Salon magazine. It's a great website, with good political commentary and constant interesting articles. At any rate if we can't contact you, you can't win. So enjoy. Oh and since this poll was created using a free site, well there's ads involved.
Puke. Angry angry punk rock girl.
Jean-Louis Crowley. British singer with French Affectations and a dark family secret.
Durango. Half Singing Cowboy, Half Squinting Cowboy.
The Post Modernist. A hero for absurdity or against absurdity, depending.
You can vote for more than one person, incidentally so feel free to do so.
Now if you want to be entered into the contest, you still need to put your vote in the comments section of this blog. The winner of the contest (chosen randomly) will get a free subscription to Salon magazine. It's a great website, with good political commentary and constant interesting articles. At any rate if we can't contact you, you can't win. So enjoy. Oh and since this poll was created using a free site, well there's ads involved.
Thursday, October 27, 2005
An Interview with Bryant
10-28-02
Well this is it.
My first post to my blog, which I (my name is Bryant, in case you are interested in that sort of thing) have cleverly entitled Make me a Commentator. Why should you the adoring public support me as a commentator? There are many reasons, many involving the size of my checking account and my desire for expensive electronics, but I must admit those are largely personal reasons. The best reason I can offer you, the reader, is somewhat simpler.
Why not?
Have you read the comments of some of my fellow commentators? And let me be clear, neither the left nor the right has a monopoly on narrow ideological boneheaded commentators. I use the term boneheaded in the
You may wonder what qualifications I have to commentate on the news of the day. I don't have any, really. I read commentators often, and I have a MA in American History, but besides that my only real qualification is that I have the overwhelming arrogance to believe that my view points might matter to the random reader.
You may also wonder what my personal politics are. I generally lean towards the left on economic issues more towards the center on social issues. I believe in America. That's enough to get started, and I'll fill in the details as we go along.
Anyway that's enough of an introduction. Hope you enjoy this.
Q. So that's the text of your first post, some three years ago.
Bryant. Three years ago tomorrow. Yeah it's kind of embarrassing.
Q. Has the blog lived up to your expectations?
Bryant. Not really. But it wouldn't you see? I had certain illusions when I started this blog, as everybody does when they start something.
Q. What sort of illusions?
Bryant. Oh like that I would reach people. Or get well known. I don't know. That it would lead to something better.
Q. And you don't think it has?
Bryant. Mostly it's gone round in circles. I've done interesting things here, and things I'm proud of. But, well after three years, you have to ask what's next. And the answer can't really be more of the same.
Q. Well one could argue that you've made plenty of changes recently. Adding new commentators for example.
Bryant. Well that wasn't my call entirely; but it has turned out well in part. Certainly I like what McIckleson and Space Lobster have added. And Cheery has taken a lot of the day to day sort of nuts and bolts stuff away from me.
Q. I notice you left someone out.
Bryant. Well . . . I think Grumbly's right, when she says she hurts this blog. I mean she adds a little balance I guess, but I don't think my readers come here for balance. They come for a liberal point of view. I can only imagine what someone who comes here from Democratic Underground and reads one of her posts thinks, but I don't imagine they are in a hurry to come back. But her staying isn't my call.
Q. So what do you think about the future of this blog?
Bryant. Well I'm not as pessimistic as Grumbly Muffin, but certainly anything is possible. Part of me things we should completely shut down the blog and open a totally new one; but another part of me thinks that smacks of desperation.
Q. How do you favor to win the contest?
Bryant. I like them all really. I worry that Puke would create the same problems as Grumbly, but other than that they all seem pretty interesting.
Q. Any final thoughts?
Bryant. Tomorrow is always another day. I guess that's a good motto for anybody.
Well this is it.
My first post to my blog, which I (my name is Bryant, in case you are interested in that sort of thing) have cleverly entitled Make me a Commentator. Why should you the adoring public support me as a commentator? There are many reasons, many involving the size of my checking account and my desire for expensive electronics, but I must admit those are largely personal reasons. The best reason I can offer you, the reader, is somewhat simpler.
Why not?
Have you read the comments of some of my fellow commentators? And let me be clear, neither the left nor the right has a monopoly on narrow ideological boneheaded commentators. I use the term boneheaded in the
You may wonder what qualifications I have to commentate on the news of the day. I don't have any, really. I read commentators often, and I have a MA in American History, but besides that my only real qualification is that I have the overwhelming arrogance to believe that my view points might matter to the random reader.
You may also wonder what my personal politics are. I generally lean towards the left on economic issues more towards the center on social issues. I believe in America. That's enough to get started, and I'll fill in the details as we go along.
Anyway that's enough of an introduction. Hope you enjoy this.
Q. So that's the text of your first post, some three years ago.
Bryant. Three years ago tomorrow. Yeah it's kind of embarrassing.
Q. Has the blog lived up to your expectations?
Bryant. Not really. But it wouldn't you see? I had certain illusions when I started this blog, as everybody does when they start something.
Q. What sort of illusions?
Bryant. Oh like that I would reach people. Or get well known. I don't know. That it would lead to something better.
Q. And you don't think it has?
Bryant. Mostly it's gone round in circles. I've done interesting things here, and things I'm proud of. But, well after three years, you have to ask what's next. And the answer can't really be more of the same.
Q. Well one could argue that you've made plenty of changes recently. Adding new commentators for example.
Bryant. Well that wasn't my call entirely; but it has turned out well in part. Certainly I like what McIckleson and Space Lobster have added. And Cheery has taken a lot of the day to day sort of nuts and bolts stuff away from me.
Q. I notice you left someone out.
Bryant. Well . . . I think Grumbly's right, when she says she hurts this blog. I mean she adds a little balance I guess, but I don't think my readers come here for balance. They come for a liberal point of view. I can only imagine what someone who comes here from Democratic Underground and reads one of her posts thinks, but I don't imagine they are in a hurry to come back. But her staying isn't my call.
Q. So what do you think about the future of this blog?
Bryant. Well I'm not as pessimistic as Grumbly Muffin, but certainly anything is possible. Part of me things we should completely shut down the blog and open a totally new one; but another part of me thinks that smacks of desperation.
Q. How do you favor to win the contest?
Bryant. I like them all really. I worry that Puke would create the same problems as Grumbly, but other than that they all seem pretty interesting.
Q. Any final thoughts?
Bryant. Tomorrow is always another day. I guess that's a good motto for anybody.
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
Conservatives and Free Speech
Got an interesting story from Rook's Rant. The short version is a copy editor at a Conservative Newspaper (the Pioneer Press of the Twin Cities) was suspended for three days for attending an Anti War Rally, and will be fired if he participates in another rally. That's nice, right?
"The wicked flee when no man pursueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion." - Proverbs 28:1.
You may not see an obvious connection between that scripture and the story above; allow me to elucidate. It's a truism that a liar can't trust anybody else; being a liar he assumes everybody else is lying. Conservatives bang on about how their freedom of speech is being taken away through Political Correctness and Speech Codes and societal pressure and the Lib'rul media. Why are they so concerned about this? Because they damn well know that if they had the kind of power they imagine liberals as having, they would sure as hell shut us up.
The thing is we don't add anything to the discussion. I, being not 100% sure about my political views, enjoy debating with people who disagree with me. A Conservative, being 100% convinced that he is in the right, sees only one value in debating me; I might be converted to his side. But certainly he's not going to get anything out of it (except the satisfaction of having convinced someone to go along with him).
Something to consider.
"The wicked flee when no man pursueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion." - Proverbs 28:1.
You may not see an obvious connection between that scripture and the story above; allow me to elucidate. It's a truism that a liar can't trust anybody else; being a liar he assumes everybody else is lying. Conservatives bang on about how their freedom of speech is being taken away through Political Correctness and Speech Codes and societal pressure and the Lib'rul media. Why are they so concerned about this? Because they damn well know that if they had the kind of power they imagine liberals as having, they would sure as hell shut us up.
The thing is we don't add anything to the discussion. I, being not 100% sure about my political views, enjoy debating with people who disagree with me. A Conservative, being 100% convinced that he is in the right, sees only one value in debating me; I might be converted to his side. But certainly he's not going to get anything out of it (except the satisfaction of having convinced someone to go along with him).
Something to consider.
Tuesday, October 25, 2005
Good Day of Celebration
Well this has certainly been a banner day at Make Me A Commentator!!! First of all out of 88 glances at our webpage 1 person has decided to participate in our contest. That's nearly 1.14%! Out of the 55 people who visited the blog (meaning the stayed a little longer I gather), 1 person decided to participate in the contest for a whopping 1.81%.
For those who wonder how this contest works, read the four potential commentators in this post. Pick the one you'd most like to see more of (right now I'm leaning towards Puke), and either leave your vote in a comment or in an e-mail. One person will get a free subscription to Salon Magazine (by free I mean I'll pay for it). Simple.
I also got information on what my blog is worth. Here it is.
So that's good news. I mean we could be in the red think about how bad that would be. If each post doesn't produce anything, at least it doesn't cost me anything.
For those who wonder how this contest works, read the four potential commentators in this post. Pick the one you'd most like to see more of (right now I'm leaning towards Puke), and either leave your vote in a comment or in an e-mail. One person will get a free subscription to Salon Magazine (by free I mean I'll pay for it). Simple.
I also got information on what my blog is worth. Here it is.
My blog is worth $0.00.
How much is your blog worth?
So that's good news. I mean we could be in the red think about how bad that would be. If each post doesn't produce anything, at least it doesn't cost me anything.
Celebrations Galore
Just a quick note to say that this contest has been timed to coincide with the 3 year anniversary of this website which we are celebrating in style apparently. The Monster is even paying a visit back to the office (He's been in Outer Fangolia (or possibly New Jersey, it's hard to tell)the last couple of weeks). And he and Cheery (who is really gung ho about the idea) have decided we should have a bit of a celebration. Hopefully we will squeeze in some commentating as well, but right now I have to run down to Party time to pick up a shipment of pointy hats (don't ask).
Monday, October 24, 2005
Crony Capitalism
There's a story by Knight-Ridder about how the Army purchases equipment they need. Here's a selection.
Here's another, why doesn't the military harness the power of capitalism and competition to achieve the best results?
Here's a third, who does this Prime Vendor system benefit?
Something to consider, my bad pennies.
The Pentagon paid $20 apiece for plastic ice cube trays that once cost it 85 cents. It paid a supplier more than $81 apiece for coffeemakers that it bought for years for just $29 from the manufacturer.So here's a question; how do you get to be a prime vendor?
That's because instead of getting competitive bids or buying directly from manufacturers like it used to, the Pentagon is using middlemen who set their own prices. It's the equivalent of shopping for weekly groceries at a convenience store.
And it's costing taxpayers 20 percent more than the old system, a Knight Ridder investigation found.
The higher prices are the result of a Defense Department purchasing program called prime vendor, which favors a handful of firms.
Here's another, why doesn't the military harness the power of capitalism and competition to achieve the best results?
Here's a third, who does this Prime Vendor system benefit?
Something to consider, my bad pennies.
Nothing to See Here
This whole Valerie Plame/Scooter Libby/Karl Rove stuff you've been hearing about? Nothing of consequence, according to conservative commentator Michael Barone.
For one thing the Media is making too much of it because they hate President Bush. For another, in Mr. Barone's opinion, an indictment of Libby or Rove would be unwarranted. Apparently she wasn't really a covert agent. Mr. Barone is sure of this and is apparently pitting his surety against that of the CIA who did believe she was a covert agent.
It's pretty dull reading really; just the standard denials. I don't think even Mr. Barone expects them to be taken seriously at this late date. Still, part of being a team player is writing these kind of articles.
For one thing the Media is making too much of it because they hate President Bush. For another, in Mr. Barone's opinion, an indictment of Libby or Rove would be unwarranted. Apparently she wasn't really a covert agent. Mr. Barone is sure of this and is apparently pitting his surety against that of the CIA who did believe she was a covert agent.
It's pretty dull reading really; just the standard denials. I don't think even Mr. Barone expects them to be taken seriously at this late date. Still, part of being a team player is writing these kind of articles.
Saturday, October 22, 2005
Quote from yesterday
Yesterday I mentioned some commentary I heard from Rush Limbaugh while driving around at lunch.Well he posted the transcript of that bit at the website, and here it is.
We do not try to criminalize Democrats. That's the difference. . . . We don't demand that the legal side of things get in gear. We just don't do that -- and, by the way, don't throw Clinton up to me, because that was led by Louie Freeh and the FBI. That had nothing to do with a bunch of Republicans that they got involved in it, but this thing has gone on for two years, and if it's true that the underlying crime or the accusation/allegation turns out to have had nothing to it, there was nothing to this leaking.So we hope that clears it all up. Democrats - Bad. Republicans - Good.
Defenders Saturday
Sub-Mariner 34
This is one of those Authority like comics where the heroes have enormous power and are using it to fix the problems of the world without much regard to what the people of the world or their governments want. Well before the Authority debuted, as it happens. Of course an Authority with the Hulk has a bit more of a scattered focus.
As the comic book opens we have a great little Hulk monologue. ‘Hulk swam far – swam hard – to get here! But now – Hulk doesn’t know where he is! Huh? Barbed Wire!? Somebody tries to keep hulk off this Island! Well, barbed wire can’t hurt Hulk – but Hulk still doesn’t like it!!” Fortunately these words of wisdom are not lost as a group of generic Latin American soldiers are watching “La Mole” as they call the Hulk (according to a footnote it means Mass). They try to drive him off but only succeed in building his desire to stay. They report to their leader (who, as events will show, is very unlucky and very stupid), who tells them they should have left the Hulk alone as he would have soon left. D’oh.
We switch to the Sub-Mariner who is watching all this on his view screens. He and his chief scientist (Vashti) discuss how the Hulk could help them face some menace, but conclude he is too dangerous. This is the menace of a vague science experiment that would “wreck havoc with the very weather itself.” The humans won’t listen to Namor’s warnings because he has thrashed them so many times. D’oh.
But then their monitor (set to find potential guest stars to raise the flagging popularity of this book) detects the Silver Surfer in the area. The Sub-Mariner goes to recruit him, first saying good-bye, but not “Till we meet again.” As Namors first meeting goes, this is a pretty peaceful one. They only fight for some 7 panels before the Surfer decides to help Namor. And it’s a good thing, as the Silver Surfer quickly explains. “There are Powers at my beck and call which even YOU can scarcely comprehend! And, only the LEAST of these is complete control over my mystic SURFBOARD.” I had a mystic surfboard once. But then my dad decided to clean out the garage and, well, time makes fools of us all.
The Silver Surfer evidently believes that he can convince the Hulk to join up to stop the evil weather machine. So we move over to the Hulk who is happy h has found a bunch of ruins. Of course, it’s not for nothing that the Hulk is known as a tactical genius. Consider these words. “Good! Hulk can see up here - - See for MILES! Now, if Humans don’t leave Hulk alone, Hulk willl see them coming - - and SMASH them!” Good plan, but rough on any vacationers in the area.
As the Surfer and Sub-Mariner swoop in on the island, General Stupid and Unlucky makes a tactical error. Upon seeing two more gringos (as he describes the Silver Surfer and Namor) invading his island he mobilizes his armed forces and commands them to attack them. He monologues that he has to be careful about using his army because his thankless peons revile his name and deface his portraits. You laugh, but that’s a huge expense putting up those big pictures of yourself. Having them constantly defaced isn’t just annoying; it’s expensive.
Anyway the Sub-Mariner and the Surfer find the Hulk (who attacks immediately), and in a switch-a-roo from the previous scene, the Surfer now thinks that the Hulk is too dangerous to approach, while Namor figures out a way to talk to the Hulk. “The monster WILL join us - - when he has listened to our PLEA! But FIRST as I learned long ago, I must gain his ATTENTION!!” So Sub-Mariner punches him in the face. This doesn’t seem to work, as the Hulk is still pretty determined to thrash him, but then, General Unlucky and Stupid helps out. His men attack the Hulk, the Silver Surfer and the Sub-Mariner. This gives Namor the opportunity to use this forceful argument. “NOW do you see, Hulk? It is not WE who are your true foemen - - but the spiteful HUMANS!”
The three turn the tide on the unnamed latin troops who quickly cry (well one of them anyway) “FLEE! NOTHING will stop these three GRINGO DEVILS!” But despite warning, they are still quickly destroyed. This leaves General Stupid and Unlucky insane, and the three heros leave the island to get on with the real story, which I’ll bet you had forgotten (hint - crazy weather machine). But that’s next issue.
The Simple Honesty of the Hulk – “Hulk doesn’t know what a GRINGO is, but Hulk doesn’t like being called a DEVIL.”
The Space Faring Grammar of the Silver Surfer. “Now we must go - - for a PLANET is yet to save!”
The Trials of the Sub-Mariner. “I could WARN them of their danger - - but when Namor speaks, their ears are DEAF, their hearts HARD!”
This is one of those Authority like comics where the heroes have enormous power and are using it to fix the problems of the world without much regard to what the people of the world or their governments want. Well before the Authority debuted, as it happens. Of course an Authority with the Hulk has a bit more of a scattered focus.
As the comic book opens we have a great little Hulk monologue. ‘Hulk swam far – swam hard – to get here! But now – Hulk doesn’t know where he is! Huh? Barbed Wire!? Somebody tries to keep hulk off this Island! Well, barbed wire can’t hurt Hulk – but Hulk still doesn’t like it!!” Fortunately these words of wisdom are not lost as a group of generic Latin American soldiers are watching “La Mole” as they call the Hulk (according to a footnote it means Mass). They try to drive him off but only succeed in building his desire to stay. They report to their leader (who, as events will show, is very unlucky and very stupid), who tells them they should have left the Hulk alone as he would have soon left. D’oh.
We switch to the Sub-Mariner who is watching all this on his view screens. He and his chief scientist (Vashti) discuss how the Hulk could help them face some menace, but conclude he is too dangerous. This is the menace of a vague science experiment that would “wreck havoc with the very weather itself.” The humans won’t listen to Namor’s warnings because he has thrashed them so many times. D’oh.
But then their monitor (set to find potential guest stars to raise the flagging popularity of this book) detects the Silver Surfer in the area. The Sub-Mariner goes to recruit him, first saying good-bye, but not “Till we meet again.” As Namors first meeting goes, this is a pretty peaceful one. They only fight for some 7 panels before the Surfer decides to help Namor. And it’s a good thing, as the Silver Surfer quickly explains. “There are Powers at my beck and call which even YOU can scarcely comprehend! And, only the LEAST of these is complete control over my mystic SURFBOARD.” I had a mystic surfboard once. But then my dad decided to clean out the garage and, well, time makes fools of us all.
The Silver Surfer evidently believes that he can convince the Hulk to join up to stop the evil weather machine. So we move over to the Hulk who is happy h has found a bunch of ruins. Of course, it’s not for nothing that the Hulk is known as a tactical genius. Consider these words. “Good! Hulk can see up here - - See for MILES! Now, if Humans don’t leave Hulk alone, Hulk willl see them coming - - and SMASH them!” Good plan, but rough on any vacationers in the area.
As the Surfer and Sub-Mariner swoop in on the island, General Stupid and Unlucky makes a tactical error. Upon seeing two more gringos (as he describes the Silver Surfer and Namor) invading his island he mobilizes his armed forces and commands them to attack them. He monologues that he has to be careful about using his army because his thankless peons revile his name and deface his portraits. You laugh, but that’s a huge expense putting up those big pictures of yourself. Having them constantly defaced isn’t just annoying; it’s expensive.
Anyway the Sub-Mariner and the Surfer find the Hulk (who attacks immediately), and in a switch-a-roo from the previous scene, the Surfer now thinks that the Hulk is too dangerous to approach, while Namor figures out a way to talk to the Hulk. “The monster WILL join us - - when he has listened to our PLEA! But FIRST as I learned long ago, I must gain his ATTENTION!!” So Sub-Mariner punches him in the face. This doesn’t seem to work, as the Hulk is still pretty determined to thrash him, but then, General Unlucky and Stupid helps out. His men attack the Hulk, the Silver Surfer and the Sub-Mariner. This gives Namor the opportunity to use this forceful argument. “NOW do you see, Hulk? It is not WE who are your true foemen - - but the spiteful HUMANS!”
The three turn the tide on the unnamed latin troops who quickly cry (well one of them anyway) “FLEE! NOTHING will stop these three GRINGO DEVILS!” But despite warning, they are still quickly destroyed. This leaves General Stupid and Unlucky insane, and the three heros leave the island to get on with the real story, which I’ll bet you had forgotten (hint - crazy weather machine). But that’s next issue.
The Simple Honesty of the Hulk – “Hulk doesn’t know what a GRINGO is, but Hulk doesn’t like being called a DEVIL.”
The Space Faring Grammar of the Silver Surfer. “Now we must go - - for a PLANET is yet to save!”
The Trials of the Sub-Mariner. “I could WARN them of their danger - - but when Namor speaks, their ears are DEAF, their hearts HARD!”
Friday, October 21, 2005
That Rush Limbaugh; what a joker!
Listening to Rush Limbaugh while driving around at lunch; it turns out Conservatives don't use the law as a means of punishing their political enemies. I know what you are all thinking, but apparently it was Louis Freeh who went after Clinton, not Republicans. I mean Ken Starr was a crazed partisan Republican who went after Clinton, and numerous players in the various law suits (particularly the Paula Jones suit) were also partisan Republicans, but I guess it's now all Louis Freeh's fault.
Interesting.
He also complained that if Fitzgerald, after investigating the White House for 2 years, doesn't indict anybody it will have been time wasted and clearly a partisan witch hunt. Of course the Whitewater investigation started earlier than that and ended up incriminating Clinton for having affair some two years after the investigation had started (assuming I have my chronology right). But, once again, that was all Louis Freeh's fault, not Ken Starrs.
Sometimes I wonder if Rush just sits there saying "I can't believe I get away with this crap."
Interesting.
He also complained that if Fitzgerald, after investigating the White House for 2 years, doesn't indict anybody it will have been time wasted and clearly a partisan witch hunt. Of course the Whitewater investigation started earlier than that and ended up incriminating Clinton for having affair some two years after the investigation had started (assuming I have my chronology right). But, once again, that was all Louis Freeh's fault, not Ken Starrs.
Sometimes I wonder if Rush just sits there saying "I can't believe I get away with this crap."
Thursday, October 20, 2005
World War II Airman Found Frozen in Glacier
According to ABC news, two hikers discovered the frozen body of a World War II Airman.Yeah that is a little like the back story of a favorite Marvel Universe Character.
The name is on the tip of my tongue.
Oh well you guys are smart; you'll probably remember who I'm talking about.
What is the Definition of a Fanatic?
Poor President Bush. Not only has he had to weather charges or corruption and cronyism in his White House as well as the anger over the Harriet Miers nomination, now it turns out he's not really a Conservative. Conservativism, if it were actually put in place, would work 100%. President Bush's Presidency has not been a success. I'd call it a pretty complete failure; but even President Bush's supporters would acknowledge it's hardly been smooth sailing. So President Bush must not really be a conservative.
Or to put it another way, consider these words from Sidney Blumenthal.
That said, it would be nice if this climate provoked a little humility on the part of the Conservative Movement; rather than being convinced that they are 100% correct and anybody who disagrees with them is a filthy traitor. But I'm not holding my breath.
Oh and the definition of a fanatic? According to George Satayana, "Fanaticism consists in redoubling your effort when you have forgotten your aim."
Or to put it another way, consider these words from Sidney Blumenthal.
Despite Bush's faithful implementation of conservative ideas, disloyal ideologues blame him personally to deflect attention from the failure of their ideas as they position themselves for whatever or whoever is next. Like Trotskyists for whom communism always remained an unfulfilled ideal, conservatives now claim that conservatism has not been tried, and that Bush is a "betrayer" and "impostor." In his attempt to avoid the nemesis of his father, he is reliving it.Or to put it yet another way, it's unlikely that they have learned their lesson.
That said, it would be nice if this climate provoked a little humility on the part of the Conservative Movement; rather than being convinced that they are 100% correct and anybody who disagrees with them is a filthy traitor. But I'm not holding my breath.
Oh and the definition of a fanatic? According to George Satayana, "Fanaticism consists in redoubling your effort when you have forgotten your aim."
Wednesday, October 19, 2005
The Price of Disloyalty
Mona Charen's latest article is entitled "Too many Yes-Men," and it's about White House reaction to the Conservative reaction to the Miers nomination.
We liberals are pretty much used to it by now, but I can understand how Conservatives, after attacking the Presidents enemies (meaning those who disagree with him) brutally, are hurt that the President would use the same tactics against them on the rare occasion that they disagree. But it's really quite easy to understand once you realize that this Presidents number one priority is loyalty. And criticizing the President is not Loyal (to this administration the term Loyal Opposition is a contradiction in term).
At any rate, I suggest you follow the course Rush Limbaugh has outlined and focus on how much you hate liberals. That will cheer you up.
Instead of listening to what conservatives are actually saying about the Miers nomination, the White House strategy is to attack the critics. We are suddenly the enemy: elitists, sexists, disloyal, and don't really represent anyone anyway.Yeah that's pretty rough, Ms. Charen, author of "Useful Idiots - How Liberals Got It Wrong in the Cold War and Still Blame America," to be accused of disloyalty merely for disagreeing with the President.
We liberals are pretty much used to it by now, but I can understand how Conservatives, after attacking the Presidents enemies (meaning those who disagree with him) brutally, are hurt that the President would use the same tactics against them on the rare occasion that they disagree. But it's really quite easy to understand once you realize that this Presidents number one priority is loyalty. And criticizing the President is not Loyal (to this administration the term Loyal Opposition is a contradiction in term).
At any rate, I suggest you follow the course Rush Limbaugh has outlined and focus on how much you hate liberals. That will cheer you up.
Tuesday, October 18, 2005
The World Wouldn't Listen
Or The Polls Don't Matter (unless, of course they are up, in which case, The People have Spoken). President Bush's poll numbers are down. So naturally, Conservatives, like Bill Murchinson, are explaining how meaningless polls are. I mean the fact that millions of Americans are apparently fed up with Bush is more a reflection of a few weeks of negative press than a reflection of any ongoing trends.
The natural tendency is to be suspicious of any news that doesn't fit your world view; and it goes both ways, so I'm not going to be too down on Mr. Murchinson. Besides he goes on to say something I kind of like. After going over the bad luck and how it could change in the coming months he says this.
The natural tendency is to be suspicious of any news that doesn't fit your world view; and it goes both ways, so I'm not going to be too down on Mr. Murchinson. Besides he goes on to say something I kind of like. After going over the bad luck and how it could change in the coming months he says this.
None of which is to tell Bush doubters, "You're out of your mind!" Our present democratic fracas serves the ends of democracy by keeping adrenalin levels elevated -- and reminding politicians never to take our approval for granted.It seems like a small thing; but in this age of Ann Coulter calling liberals traitors and Rush Limbaugh calling us vermin, it's nice to see somebody acknowledging that disagreeing with the President is something that's supposed to happen in a democracy. So bravo Mr. Murchinson.
Monday, October 17, 2005
The Army Now
Joseph L. Galloway, a senior military columnist for the Knight-Ridder Newspapers, has an opinion on how the Army is doing.
In that early fall two years ago, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was still running victory laps and the words of his boss, President George W. Bush, were still ringing: "Bring `em on!"He goes on. I find him pretty convincing, myself, but of course there are those who are more hung up on the fact that Clinton didn't provide enough bullets so people could go to the range each weak.
Sadly, those two were, and still are, in charge.
Now they've broken the Army, and after this administration is history, it will take 12 or 15 or 20 years to repair the damage it's inflicted on an institution that our country desperately needs in a century as dangerous as this one.
Armstrong Williams - Good Soldier
President Bush may have to withdraw the Harriet Miers nomination; I don't think this is very likely, but it is possible. If he does withdraw the Miers nomination, he does not want it to be for the obvious reason, i.e. that Conservatives complained about her. He would want it to be about Liberals and Democrats complaining about her. It's unclear how he would achieve that end, since it's pretty obvious that the Republicans / Conservatoids are the ones doing the bulk of the shouting. But that would be the goal.
So here is the latest column by Armstrong Williams, in which he tries to bridge this divide. What's interesting is that in positioning the enemies of Harriet Miers as liberals he spends a good portion of his article responding to an argument forwarded by Ann Coulter. I don't know if this is some sort of calculated attempt to move Ann from the right to the left, but please, no. We don't want her.
Here's the paragraph in question.
Of course that's not what this article is about, and after the brief but honest mention of Coulter, Armstrong moves on to castigating us awful liberals.
Armstrong closes his article with a nice humorous anti-American passage.
So here is the latest column by Armstrong Williams, in which he tries to bridge this divide. What's interesting is that in positioning the enemies of Harriet Miers as liberals he spends a good portion of his article responding to an argument forwarded by Ann Coulter. I don't know if this is some sort of calculated attempt to move Ann from the right to the left, but please, no. We don't want her.
Here's the paragraph in question.
The problem is that, while Ann Coulter did latch onto her education, most other people have latched onto two other facts. She has not been a constitutional lawyer, and she is not the most qualified person (despite President Bush's claims). Add that to the Conservative contention that she may not be a strict origionalist, and you have yourself a ball game.Chief among their criticism: she graduated from Southern Methodist University Law School, as opposed to Harvard or Yale. Therefore, she's in no position to shape the legal landscape, let alone occupy space in the marbled halls of the nation's highest court.
At least, that's the way several liberals -- along with conservative columnists George Will and Ann Coulter--are telling the story. As Coulter noted in her syndicated column, "The average LSAT score at SMU Law School is 155. The average LSAT score at Harvard is 170." The obvious implication: the intellectual gap between Harvard students and Miers is "humungous."
Of course that's not what this article is about, and after the brief but honest mention of Coulter, Armstrong moves on to castigating us awful liberals.
Lurking beneath all the Miers-bashing is partisan infighting over how to select judges. The Democrats refuse to acknowledge that Bush won the election and so jump at the chance to smear any of the federal Judge or Supreme Court Justices he nominates.Yep it's all our fault. That's why she was suggested by Harry Reid (Democrat) who also endorsed her immediately following the nomination.
Armstrong closes his article with a nice humorous anti-American passage.
In the meantime, I can't help but hope that Miers is carrying around with her a short list of people whose first amendment rights she intends to revoke. At the top of the list: people who sit in front of you at the movies and give away the ending just as the opening credits roll. But just slightly below them, the martini supping elitists who demand that Harvard and Yale students are open spigots of profundity; the rest of us are not. I don't think anyone will mind not hearing from them for a while.Hee hee hee. Of course the reference to people who talk in the movies is kind of funny in a fuddy duddy sort of way. But taking away Ann Coulter's constitutional rights is no laughing matter. Now I don't like Ann Coulter any more than you do, Mr. Williams, but the fact is that she is an American Citizen and should be allowed to say any hateful crazy thing she wants.
Saturday, October 15, 2005
Defenders Saturday
The Hulk #126
By the way talk about giving away the story right on the cover – the cover blurb is “The Hulk is Doomed! He’ll never defeat . . . the Night-Crawler.” Incidentally that little dash in the middle clues you in to the fact that this is not the X-Man’s Nightcrawler (who frankly would last about 30 seconds in a fight with the Hulk, unless he ran away). The title begins with Bruce Banner laying on the ground after having battled the Absorbing Man (Thor villian with the power to, you guessed it, control gravity) – a group of evil cultists grabs him and carries him to an old house.
One of the group, a young blonde woman named Barbara (who ends up being surprisingly important later on) has some doubts, but she is quickly reminded of her “oath.” Bruce Banner awakes in a cultish temple, with a big wheel in front of him and a priest who offers this philosophy. “Sometimes it is necessary to play with fire, unbeliever, so that a universe might be consumed.” That seems kind of obvious. Anyway, Barbara uses a pot of vapors to overcome Banner. Then there is a brief scene of the Army worrying about the Hulk because they can’t find him. “Have you noticed how nobody has smashed us in a while?”
We return to the cult leader, who, by the way, has a goofy hat (thus continuing the theme of goofy headgear) who casts a spell hurling Bruce Banner through Space and Time, causing him to comment, “Good Lord! This - - Can’t be - - ! I Feel like I’m hurtling thru space - - thru time itself.”
Then we see Dr. Strange standing in the dimension he was trapped in at the end of his Sub-Mariner crossover, clearly disgusted that he hasn’t been the center of attention, until now. Also he’s being tortured, in some sort of mystic hoop, by the undying ones who continue to look like fish/frogs although they now have bull horns too.
Meanwhile Bruce Banner doesn’t know where he is but weird stuff is happening. And then the Night-Crawler appears. He has a weird crown head, metal body, and a mace. Banner tries to resist his growing fear because he doesn’t want to become the Hulk again. Meanwhile in the real world, Barbara, the doubting cultist, notes that trying to make Banner into the Hulk is kind of mean. So her cult leader thrusts her through the portal. You know what they say, spare the portal-thrusting, spoil the cult.
Anyway after the Night-Crawler attacks the hapless Barbara, Banner becomes the Hulk – and plows into the Night-Crawler. The Hulk, showing typical well-adjusted honesty, says “Hulk is only like himself! And there is none like him!!” Hulk offers to take off and not fight, but Night-Crawler refuses this generous offer and uses his Scepter of Shadow to plunge the Hulk into darkness. The Hulk fights the darkness for a while, falling off of the floating rock (by the way, all the other dimensions in the Marvel Universe seem to consist mostly of floating rocks). Anyway Hulk hits the rock so hard that it creates light.
Then the Night-Crawler threatens to use his scepter to blast the hulk, but Barbara somehow destroys the scepter by throwing a rock at it. They don’t make scepters like they used to. Anyway the Night-Crawler, understandably upset, threatens to pound Barbara, but the Hulk leaps from his rock to punch the Night-Crawler, and after a sonic attack, Hulk claps his hand and destroys the universe (it wasn’t a very big universe). So Night-Crawler, remembering the plot must somehow involve the Undying Ones, whisks them off to the home of the Undying Ones.
Upon arrival, the Night-Crawler attacks the Undying ones and Dr. Strange, in a traditional fashion, takes credit for stuff he had no control over. Barbara, showing characteristic sense, takes Dr. Strange’s place on the torture wheel, as some sort of penance for her past sins. Hulk comments, “There’s so much - - Hulk doesn’t understand - - !” Dr. Strange, ever the soul of generosity and kindness, replies “Nor do you need to know, Monster that once was man!” Dr. Strange then teleports them back to earth where they part ways.
The Generosity of the Hulk (speaking to the Imprisoned Dr. Strange)– “You want out, weird one? Hulk can free you.”
The Humility of Dr. Strange (last page of the comic) – “Still there comes a time to put aside the trappings of a former life - - and walk among men - - as a man!”
By the way talk about giving away the story right on the cover – the cover blurb is “The Hulk is Doomed! He’ll never defeat . . . the Night-Crawler.” Incidentally that little dash in the middle clues you in to the fact that this is not the X-Man’s Nightcrawler (who frankly would last about 30 seconds in a fight with the Hulk, unless he ran away). The title begins with Bruce Banner laying on the ground after having battled the Absorbing Man (Thor villian with the power to, you guessed it, control gravity) – a group of evil cultists grabs him and carries him to an old house.
One of the group, a young blonde woman named Barbara (who ends up being surprisingly important later on) has some doubts, but she is quickly reminded of her “oath.” Bruce Banner awakes in a cultish temple, with a big wheel in front of him and a priest who offers this philosophy. “Sometimes it is necessary to play with fire, unbeliever, so that a universe might be consumed.” That seems kind of obvious. Anyway, Barbara uses a pot of vapors to overcome Banner. Then there is a brief scene of the Army worrying about the Hulk because they can’t find him. “Have you noticed how nobody has smashed us in a while?”
We return to the cult leader, who, by the way, has a goofy hat (thus continuing the theme of goofy headgear) who casts a spell hurling Bruce Banner through Space and Time, causing him to comment, “Good Lord! This - - Can’t be - - ! I Feel like I’m hurtling thru space - - thru time itself.”
Then we see Dr. Strange standing in the dimension he was trapped in at the end of his Sub-Mariner crossover, clearly disgusted that he hasn’t been the center of attention, until now. Also he’s being tortured, in some sort of mystic hoop, by the undying ones who continue to look like fish/frogs although they now have bull horns too.
Meanwhile Bruce Banner doesn’t know where he is but weird stuff is happening. And then the Night-Crawler appears. He has a weird crown head, metal body, and a mace. Banner tries to resist his growing fear because he doesn’t want to become the Hulk again. Meanwhile in the real world, Barbara, the doubting cultist, notes that trying to make Banner into the Hulk is kind of mean. So her cult leader thrusts her through the portal. You know what they say, spare the portal-thrusting, spoil the cult.
Anyway after the Night-Crawler attacks the hapless Barbara, Banner becomes the Hulk – and plows into the Night-Crawler. The Hulk, showing typical well-adjusted honesty, says “Hulk is only like himself! And there is none like him!!” Hulk offers to take off and not fight, but Night-Crawler refuses this generous offer and uses his Scepter of Shadow to plunge the Hulk into darkness. The Hulk fights the darkness for a while, falling off of the floating rock (by the way, all the other dimensions in the Marvel Universe seem to consist mostly of floating rocks). Anyway Hulk hits the rock so hard that it creates light.Then the Night-Crawler threatens to use his scepter to blast the hulk, but Barbara somehow destroys the scepter by throwing a rock at it. They don’t make scepters like they used to. Anyway the Night-Crawler, understandably upset, threatens to pound Barbara, but the Hulk leaps from his rock to punch the Night-Crawler, and after a sonic attack, Hulk claps his hand and destroys the universe (it wasn’t a very big universe). So Night-Crawler, remembering the plot must somehow involve the Undying Ones, whisks them off to the home of the Undying Ones.
Upon arrival, the Night-Crawler attacks the Undying ones and Dr. Strange, in a traditional fashion, takes credit for stuff he had no control over. Barbara, showing characteristic sense, takes Dr. Strange’s place on the torture wheel, as some sort of penance for her past sins. Hulk comments, “There’s so much - - Hulk doesn’t understand - - !” Dr. Strange, ever the soul of generosity and kindness, replies “Nor do you need to know, Monster that once was man!” Dr. Strange then teleports them back to earth where they part ways.
The Generosity of the Hulk (speaking to the Imprisoned Dr. Strange)– “You want out, weird one? Hulk can free you.”
The Humility of Dr. Strange (last page of the comic) – “Still there comes a time to put aside the trappings of a former life - - and walk among men - - as a man!”
Friday, October 14, 2005
The Liberal-Haters
We all know that Bush-Hating or Bush-Bashing is wrong right? The Conservatives love to harp on how we liberals hate Bush, and it's bad. It shows that we don't have love in our hearts and it shows that we don't have a positive agenda of our own. Bush hatred is just plan wrong, darn it!
Well, yesterday Rush Limbaugh stepped up to the Golden EIB microphone to answer the suggestion that the Conservative Base isn't as eager to support the Republican Party that nominated Harriet Miers. And let's look at the reasons Limbaugh gives for why the Republicans will stick together.
I'm curious, by the way, as to what Republicans remember about Abu Ghraib. Do they remember the awful abuse, much of it inflicted on innocents? Or do they remember that Liberals are rat bastards for having complained about such abuse? Yeah probably the latter.
Well, yesterday Rush Limbaugh stepped up to the Golden EIB microphone to answer the suggestion that the Conservative Base isn't as eager to support the Republican Party that nominated Harriet Miers. And let's look at the reasons Limbaugh gives for why the Republicans will stick together.
The liberals have no concept of how they are perceived. The media, Democrats, have no concept of how they're perceived, but I'll tell you what we haven't forgotten. We haven't forgotten forged documents to try to bring down a president. We haven't forgotten "Bush is a Nazi." We haven't forgotten Abu Ghraib. We haven't forgotten Club G'itmo. We haven't forgotten the efforts to demonize and criminalize Republicans and conservatives simply because they are conservative and Republican. We haven't forgotten all of the character assassination, the filibustering of qualified men and women to sit on the federal appellate bench. We haven't forgotten any of this -- and we're not going to forget it because an attack on all of those people is an attack on us. We have not forgotten that they think we are racist, sexist, bigot, homophobes. We are nowhere near having settled the score with these people . . .Hmmmm. To me that reads a bit like the big reason to stay together as a party is hatred for democrats/Liberals. But I think when you are hating Liberals there's no problem. It's only hating President Bush that is morally questionable.
I'm curious, by the way, as to what Republicans remember about Abu Ghraib. Do they remember the awful abuse, much of it inflicted on innocents? Or do they remember that Liberals are rat bastards for having complained about such abuse? Yeah probably the latter.
Thursday, October 13, 2005
On Salon
I'd just like to say that Grumbly Muffin's comments below are not representative of the staff of Make me a Commentator!!! as a whole. I really enjoy reading their political coverage and War Room. Cheery likes those to, and also enjoys their movie reviews. Space Lobster can't shut up about how much he likes "Since You Asked." So we do really enjoy Salon in general, Grumbly Muffin aside.
As for Mr. Almond's article, it wasn't really my cup of tea, but certainly not worthy of the scorn Grumbly dumped on it.
In fact, we are going to be giving away a subscription to Salon as part of a contest (as part of our third anniversary spectacular) in a couple of weeks, assuming we can get our ducks in a row.
As for Mr. Almond's article, it wasn't really my cup of tea, but certainly not worthy of the scorn Grumbly dumped on it.
In fact, we are going to be giving away a subscription to Salon as part of a contest (as part of our third anniversary spectacular) in a couple of weeks, assuming we can get our ducks in a row.
Faith and Works and the Bench
Cal Thomas's latest article covers much of the same ground as Linda Chavez's did yesterday, but comes from a different angle. He's interested in what having a deeply religious person on the court means, and the answer he comes up with is troubling.
He quotes Miers longtime friend, Judge Hecht, who suggested that Miers religion wouldn't dictate her legal opinions, because judges are required to decide cases on the basis of law, not their own opinions. Mr. Thomas finds that troubling.
The implication is that Miers opinions on the divine should supersede her decisions on what the constitution says (Thomas excuses this by pointing out that different people have different opinions on what the constitution means). One wonders if Mr. Thomas would be equally comfortable if Ms. Miers were a devout Buddhist and planned on letting her philosophy guide her judicial decisions? One doesn't wonder for long, because the answer is self evident. Christianity gets the pass; all other religions and philosophies do not.
That doesn't seem like a good basis for a free society. I like the old way better, where we were a nation of laws and judges decided based on the constitution, the law and precedents. Seems more fair.
He quotes Miers longtime friend, Judge Hecht, who suggested that Miers religion wouldn't dictate her legal opinions, because judges are required to decide cases on the basis of law, not their own opinions. Mr. Thomas finds that troubling.
From that answer comes this question: If Harriet Miers can easily set aside her faith on the job, what is the point of nominating someone with such faith? Why not nominate someone of no faith and the question would never come up? Is faith good only for the confirmation process, but not the job?The article continues in this vein (and could stand some trimming, truthfully). The main point seems to be that if you want a person of faith on the court, well, that person should base her decisions on her faith.
The implication is that Miers opinions on the divine should supersede her decisions on what the constitution says (Thomas excuses this by pointing out that different people have different opinions on what the constitution means). One wonders if Mr. Thomas would be equally comfortable if Ms. Miers were a devout Buddhist and planned on letting her philosophy guide her judicial decisions? One doesn't wonder for long, because the answer is self evident. Christianity gets the pass; all other religions and philosophies do not.
That doesn't seem like a good basis for a free society. I like the old way better, where we were a nation of laws and judges decided based on the constitution, the law and precedents. Seems more fair.
Wednesday, October 12, 2005
The Problem
Let it not be said that I am not willing to, once in a blue moon, praise a conservative. Linda Chavez's latest article is quite well written and makes several good points. She covers why the White House's defense of Harriet Miers as a evangelical Christian and sure to vote the right way on issues is kind of a miscue, coming so soon after the Roberts confirmation (where Robert's Catholicism was not supposed to be part of the debate and he didn't provide his views on anything).
And Ms. Chavez argues, correctly I'd say, that what is of far more importance is how she comes to her decisions. That's why her review of Miers career is a bit troubling to me, and possibly equally troubling to her (and other conservatives).
The problem from the conservative side springs from this; she's been skilled at climbing administrative ladders. But there's really no higher for her to climb. So there's no reason to keep kissing butts. She's free now to expose her real feelings about the issues as she likes. This would be true of any nominee, to a certain extent. But someone who had come up as a judge with a firm judicial philosophy would be far less likely to change that philosophy. Someone who's philosophy largely consists of doing what the boss says, well, they are going to need a new philosophy for a new job. So it's problematic.
And Ms. Chavez argues, correctly I'd say, that what is of far more importance is how she comes to her decisions. That's why her review of Miers career is a bit troubling to me, and possibly equally troubling to her (and other conservatives).
Harriet Miers is doubtless an able lawyer, but her career gives us no indication that she has the requisite knowledge and skill to be an effective justice. We know she has been ambitious and successful and can assume she is very bright. But she has largely chosen administrative and managerial roles in her legal career. She was the managing partner of a large Dallas law firm -- the first woman to achieve that distinction, as the White House keeps reminding us. We should assume that she is good at bureaucratic in-fighting or she would never have climbed so high in her firm or in the local and state bar associations, where she became president -- again the first woman to do so.OK here's the problem from the liberal side of the fence. Harriet Miers is skilled at "bureaucratic in-fighting" which largely consists of knowing whose butt to kiss and how hard to kiss it. And for the last several years Ms. Miers has worked for President Bush. So presumably she's in the habit of telling him what he wants to hear. This might come in handy if a case on, say, the outing of Valerie Plame or the Rights of Prisoners not to be Tortured.
The problem from the conservative side springs from this; she's been skilled at climbing administrative ladders. But there's really no higher for her to climb. So there's no reason to keep kissing butts. She's free now to expose her real feelings about the issues as she likes. This would be true of any nominee, to a certain extent. But someone who had come up as a judge with a firm judicial philosophy would be far less likely to change that philosophy. Someone who's philosophy largely consists of doing what the boss says, well, they are going to need a new philosophy for a new job. So it's problematic.
Mea Maxima Culpa
Brent Bozell is mad at CBS and Dan Rather. Well that goes without saying. Bozell founded the conservative "critique" of media, the Media Research Center.
You all remember last year Dan Rather participated in a report which flagged up the AWOL story. The story was later demolished by the presence of forged documents. Dan Rather and many others (including myself) still believe that the substance of the report was largely accurate. President Bush was lax in his performance of his guard duties. This is intolerable to conservatives.
To conservatives the presence of the forged documents prove that President Bush served with no laxness (as President Bush has claimed). And Dan Rather should have committed seppeku live on television out of shame for his mistake. And CBS should have replaced their entire news staff with hardcore Republicans. So the fact that Dan Rather is being honored for his career in journalism on the event of his retirement is a slap in the face.
To me, it seems like Bozell is getting worked up after nothing. Rather's gone. He's been replaced by someone of a much more conservative bent. On the other hand, Bozell's goal isn't good journalism, it's conservative propaganda. So keeping up the pressure, well, I guess there's no harm in that.
You all remember last year Dan Rather participated in a report which flagged up the AWOL story. The story was later demolished by the presence of forged documents. Dan Rather and many others (including myself) still believe that the substance of the report was largely accurate. President Bush was lax in his performance of his guard duties. This is intolerable to conservatives.
To conservatives the presence of the forged documents prove that President Bush served with no laxness (as President Bush has claimed). And Dan Rather should have committed seppeku live on television out of shame for his mistake. And CBS should have replaced their entire news staff with hardcore Republicans. So the fact that Dan Rather is being honored for his career in journalism on the event of his retirement is a slap in the face.
To me, it seems like Bozell is getting worked up after nothing. Rather's gone. He's been replaced by someone of a much more conservative bent. On the other hand, Bozell's goal isn't good journalism, it's conservative propaganda. So keeping up the pressure, well, I guess there's no harm in that.
Tuesday, October 11, 2005
What really hurts
Lying hurts.
Dennis Prager's latest column is entitled "How the Left Harmed America This Week." It contains this passage.
According to Mr. Prager the left likes cussing, while most Americans don't like cussing. Someone should tell that to Vice President Cheney.
Anyway the other ways we liberals are hurting America is that a judge released more pictures from Abu Ghraib (the judge was a liberal, apparently), and we said some mean things about Bill Bennett (mostly by simply repeating what he had said). That's it in a nutshell; liberals hurt America when they tell the truth about what is going on.
Or at least according to Dennis Prager. My own opinion runs somewhat differently.
Lying Hurts.
Dennis Prager's latest column is entitled "How the Left Harmed America This Week." It contains this passage.
The first example involved the ACLU, which has threatened Southwest Airlines with a lawsuit. Southwest ordered a passenger off a flight after she refused to cover her T-shirt on which was printed an expletive -- "Fu--ers" -- referring to President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.And this from CNN Money.
Lorrie Heasley, of Woodland, Wash., was asked to leave her flight from Los Angeles to Portland, Ore., Tuesday for wearing a T-shirt with pictures of President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and a phrase similar to the popular film title "Meet the Fockers."Fockers is not the same word as Fu--ers, Mr. Prager. Why did you lie to the American people? To make your wounded sentiments seem more plausible?
According to Mr. Prager the left likes cussing, while most Americans don't like cussing. Someone should tell that to Vice President Cheney.
Anyway the other ways we liberals are hurting America is that a judge released more pictures from Abu Ghraib (the judge was a liberal, apparently), and we said some mean things about Bill Bennett (mostly by simply repeating what he had said). That's it in a nutshell; liberals hurt America when they tell the truth about what is going on.
Or at least according to Dennis Prager. My own opinion runs somewhat differently.
Lying Hurts.
Monday, October 10, 2005
The X-Men
Those of you who enjoy the X-Men may enjoy this flash movie about the many deaths of the X-Men.
I've gone a little commercial
I created an Amazon Wish List and posted it over there.
Also the site e-mail address. Please note early in your e-mail who you intend your message to go to.
Also the site e-mail address. Please note early in your e-mail who you intend your message to go to.
Torture!
I'm typing that in the same way a characters speaks in the seminal movie "Teen-Agers from Outer Space."
Anyway Random Goblin has a post about the people we pay to torture and their appearance on the Glen Beck show. Go check it out!
Anyway Random Goblin has a post about the people we pay to torture and their appearance on the Glen Beck show. Go check it out!
Saturday, October 08, 2005
Defenders Saturday
Sub-Mariner #22
For those of you wondering, I don’t know what a “regular” issue of the Sub-Mariner looks like. I was going to make a joke about how often the Sub-Mariner has been cancelled – but it just seemed mean. I will remind those of you who like mutants that, according to Marvel comics, the Sub-Mariner is the first mutant to appear in the Marvel Universe. This little tidbit failed to inspire people to buy the comic book.
Anyway this is the second of a three-issue cross over (of sorts) involving the menace of the undying ones. In a theme of odd headgear, the first panel shows Namor, underwater, wearing a glass helmet. As he goes into surgery he has a flashback to how he stopped being able to breath under water, but four panels in Dr. Strange, not happy with any flashback that doesn’t involve him, interrupts to fill us in on what happened in his own issue of this crossover. Apparently the Undying Ones came to earth a really really long time ago, and they have this weird idol.
After the flashback, Namor (a.k.a The Sub-Marina, a.k.a. Fishy Joe) has the bizarre urge to find this weird idol. He travels to Boston, flies out of the ocean and says, “The City called Boston! Somehow I know I have a mission here . . . one which I must perform at any cost!” Namor is a type A personality – he is very goal oriented. He is drawn to a house of Kenneth Ward. He meets a cute girl who claims to be Kenneth Ward’s niece (named Joella). They seem to be hitting it off when Dr. Strange gives the Sub-Mariner a mystic message. “The Den, Sub-Mariner. You must search the den!” I must note that this story takes place before cell phones were common.
After rushing into the next room, he fights a cat-monster and defeats it in four panels. As the Sub-Mariner humbly puts it, “It is because I am not of the surface-dwelling race, girl! I am one whom they call the Sub-Mariner.” That last line does sort of leave it open to the suggestion that there are other Sub-Mariners out there. He leads Joella out into the yard, where she immediately faints. The Sub-Mariner topples a statue and pulls out the evil idol. It looks kind of like a frog and kind of like a fish without the attractive qualities of either.
Suddenly Dr. Strange (goofy mask and all) shows up and attacks Joella. Joella becomes a cat-monster and gets defeated. Hard to know what the point of that was. Dr. Strange then exposits for another page on what just happened. It turns out only the Sub-Mariner could fight a cat. And another cat gets the statue, turns into a giant monster, and drags Dr. Strange and the Sub-Mariner into another dimension. Sub-Mariner fights the monster while Dr. Strange fights a magic house cat. And loses. But then he uses his magic to put water all over the Sub-Mariner, who starts winning. Then Dr. Strange grabs the idol and says, “The Sub-Mariner needs more than mere strength now! He needs the power of Dr. Strange’s sorcery.”
They start to drive the cat-monster back – and then Dr. Strange sends Namor back through the portal, in order to set up Dr. Strange’s crossover with the Hulk. I mean, because one of them has to stay behind to guard the portal. Namor strides off, grateful for Dr. Strange for dragging him to Boston, getting him involved with the undying ones, and then sacrificing himself to save Namor.
The Kindness of the Sub-Mariner “Stand Aside Female! I have no time to answer!”
The Grammar of Dr. Strange (thinking to himself, during his battle with a cat creature) – “But, even while I’m battling this growing Beast-That-Thinks-Like-A-Man, I must help him [Namor]”
For those of you wondering, I don’t know what a “regular” issue of the Sub-Mariner looks like. I was going to make a joke about how often the Sub-Mariner has been cancelled – but it just seemed mean. I will remind those of you who like mutants that, according to Marvel comics, the Sub-Mariner is the first mutant to appear in the Marvel Universe. This little tidbit failed to inspire people to buy the comic book.
Anyway this is the second of a three-issue cross over (of sorts) involving the menace of the undying ones. In a theme of odd headgear, the first panel shows Namor, underwater, wearing a glass helmet. As he goes into surgery he has a flashback to how he stopped being able to breath under water, but four panels in Dr. Strange, not happy with any flashback that doesn’t involve him, interrupts to fill us in on what happened in his own issue of this crossover. Apparently the Undying Ones came to earth a really really long time ago, and they have this weird idol.
After the flashback, Namor (a.k.a The Sub-Marina, a.k.a. Fishy Joe) has the bizarre urge to find this weird idol. He travels to Boston, flies out of the ocean and says, “The City called Boston! Somehow I know I have a mission here . . . one which I must perform at any cost!” Namor is a type A personality – he is very goal oriented. He is drawn to a house of Kenneth Ward. He meets a cute girl who claims to be Kenneth Ward’s niece (named Joella). They seem to be hitting it off when Dr. Strange gives the Sub-Mariner a mystic message. “The Den, Sub-Mariner. You must search the den!” I must note that this story takes place before cell phones were common.
After rushing into the next room, he fights a cat-monster and defeats it in four panels. As the Sub-Mariner humbly puts it, “It is because I am not of the surface-dwelling race, girl! I am one whom they call the Sub-Mariner.” That last line does sort of leave it open to the suggestion that there are other Sub-Mariners out there. He leads Joella out into the yard, where she immediately faints. The Sub-Mariner topples a statue and pulls out the evil idol. It looks kind of like a frog and kind of like a fish without the attractive qualities of either.
Suddenly Dr. Strange (goofy mask and all) shows up and attacks Joella. Joella becomes a cat-monster and gets defeated. Hard to know what the point of that was. Dr. Strange then exposits for another page on what just happened. It turns out only the Sub-Mariner could fight a cat. And another cat gets the statue, turns into a giant monster, and drags Dr. Strange and the Sub-Mariner into another dimension. Sub-Mariner fights the monster while Dr. Strange fights a magic house cat. And loses. But then he uses his magic to put water all over the Sub-Mariner, who starts winning. Then Dr. Strange grabs the idol and says, “The Sub-Mariner needs more than mere strength now! He needs the power of Dr. Strange’s sorcery.”
They start to drive the cat-monster back – and then Dr. Strange sends Namor back through the portal, in order to set up Dr. Strange’s crossover with the Hulk. I mean, because one of them has to stay behind to guard the portal. Namor strides off, grateful for Dr. Strange for dragging him to Boston, getting him involved with the undying ones, and then sacrificing himself to save Namor.
The Kindness of the Sub-Mariner “Stand Aside Female! I have no time to answer!”
The Grammar of Dr. Strange (thinking to himself, during his battle with a cat creature) – “But, even while I’m battling this growing Beast-That-Thinks-Like-A-Man, I must help him [Namor]”
Thursday, October 06, 2005
I Wish I May, I Wish I Might
PopMatters has an utterly caustic review of the new show Three Wishes, which, along the way, makes some very good points.
About an hour after the first episode was over, I went from being mildly irritated by its manipulations to being flatly pissed off. What does it say about our culture when a middle class family has to choose to between having a home and piecing their daughter's skull back together? After all, before Grant and company breezed through, Abby's parents had foregone their daughter's surgery, because they didn't have the money. How many stories like Abby's won't attract a corporate sponsor and crooning pop star? Sure, we can cry in front of our television sets, but if it's a moral imperative for Grant to give a child a chance as a normal life, doesn't that same imperative apply to us collectively? If these individual cases fill us with a sense that justice must be done, why shouldn't that same luxury be afforded to all poor people without health insurance?Good question.
Ann Coulter Weighs In
I know you've all been wondering what the inimitable Ms. Coulter thinks about Ms. Miers. Well, according to her latest article, she's mad. First of all Ms. Miers didn't go to an Ivy League School. This means she isn't sharp enough to be on the supreme court. And she doesn't hate liberals enough.
Yep, Ann's mad that Miers doesn't hate liberals enough.
But I suppose that could have unintended consequences.
Yep, Ann's mad that Miers doesn't hate liberals enough.
. . . some jobs are so dirty, you can only send in someone who has the finely honed hatred of liberals acquired at elite universities to do them. The devil is an abstraction for normal, decent Americans living in the red states. By contrast, at the top universities, you come face to face with the devil every day, and you learn all his little tropes and tricks.I think conservatives need to write their congressmen and ask them to ask Ms. Miers how much she hates Liberals. They need to grill her on this key issue. If she's not got the strength of character to really hate liberals, how can she be on the bench. Yep, that's what I think we should see in the hearings; question after question on how much she hates liberals.
But I suppose that could have unintended consequences.
Wednesday, October 05, 2005
What is a Liberal?
For those of you wondering Rush Limbaugh had a caller on the other day (again from Media Matters) who provided yet another insight into the wily liberal.
Oh, and this caller was rewarded by Rush Limbaugh with a free subscription to Rush 24/7. And Vice-President Dick Cheney appeared on the Rush Limbaugh Show on Monday.
I can smell liberals from 10 miles away. I know these people. They are messed up mentally, emotionally because of the fact they have to justify immorality. It's a form of rebellion against God, and so because they're rebelling against God -- that's why they have to justify things like evolution. Because if man came from slime, then they can say they're not accountable to God. So they have to get rid of God. And when you get rid of God -- you elevate abortion, homosexuality, pornography, racism.For those of you wondering, Liberals have a certain oder about them which comes from regular bathing; makes it easier to recognize.
Oh, and this caller was rewarded by Rush Limbaugh with a free subscription to Rush 24/7. And Vice-President Dick Cheney appeared on the Rush Limbaugh Show on Monday.
Why Miers?
I hate to agree with Grumbly Muffin, but I think she might be right on why President Bush nominated Harriet Miers.
Consider these words from Rush Limbaugh (as captured by Media Matters).
I think this is a bad thing.
Consider these words from Rush Limbaugh (as captured by Media Matters).
Another American judge, U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein, has sided with our enemies of Al Qaeda. Pictures of detainee abuse at the Abu Ghraib prison must be released, despite government claims they could damage America's image. Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein said terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan have proven that they do not need pretexts for their barbarism. The American Civil Liberties Union sought the release of 87 photographs and four videotapes as part of an October 2003 lawsuit.Is there any doubt that Ms. Miers would act very different than Judge Hellerstein? Of course if you trust the Bush Administration to always do the right thing, this might be a good thing. On the other hand if you think that the judiciary has a duty to enforce American Laws, even on the Executive Branch, you might think this is a bad thing.
Anything you can to harm and destroy the country, anything you can to be critical of this country, would be permissible on the wacko American Left.
I think this is a bad thing.
Tuesday, October 04, 2005
President Bush Nominates Toddler to Supreme Court
President Bush, in a stunning move, withdrew the nomination of Harriet Miers, and nominated 3 year old Sally-Jo Roberson. This surprise move stunned many Democrats who note Ms. Roberson's lack of judicial background. Said Senater Reid, "The Nominee not only has a scant record. She has no record. How are we going to evaluate the fitness of this individual."
Conservative commentator Cal Thomas noted, "What really frusterates Democrats about this nominee is the lack of a record. It's a brilliant piece of political ju-jitsu. Not only will it be difficult for Liberals to find material to use against Sally-Jo, asking her the kinds of invasive and baseless questions they have in the past will be seen as mean-spirited."
In a small Press Conference, Ms. Roberson was asked about her political and judicial beliefs. She characterized President Bush as "a nice man who boughted some lemonade when he came to visit daddy." When asked about Democratic opposition to her nomination, she said "Sticks and stones might brake my bones but names will never hurt me." She also suggested that if she were on the bench she might make the Democrats take a "time-out."
The Political Activist group Move-On.Org issued a statement suggestion that the nominees lack of written decisions underlined the importance of asking her tough questions when she appeared before the Senate Judiciary committee.
The Conservative Heritage Foundation announced that they were replacing the word Foundation with Funk-Nation in an attempt to court the youth of America. They also expressed concern that President Bush had failed to nominate a "solid conservative who has a proven track record of fidelity to the American Constitution."
In other news, this entire story is made up and didn't really happen. Except the bit about Funk-Nation. That hasn't happened yet, but I swear it's going to.
Conservative commentator Cal Thomas noted, "What really frusterates Democrats about this nominee is the lack of a record. It's a brilliant piece of political ju-jitsu. Not only will it be difficult for Liberals to find material to use against Sally-Jo, asking her the kinds of invasive and baseless questions they have in the past will be seen as mean-spirited."
In a small Press Conference, Ms. Roberson was asked about her political and judicial beliefs. She characterized President Bush as "a nice man who boughted some lemonade when he came to visit daddy." When asked about Democratic opposition to her nomination, she said "Sticks and stones might brake my bones but names will never hurt me." She also suggested that if she were on the bench she might make the Democrats take a "time-out."
The Political Activist group Move-On.Org issued a statement suggestion that the nominees lack of written decisions underlined the importance of asking her tough questions when she appeared before the Senate Judiciary committee.
The Conservative Heritage Foundation announced that they were replacing the word Foundation with Funk-Nation in an attempt to court the youth of America. They also expressed concern that President Bush had failed to nominate a "solid conservative who has a proven track record of fidelity to the American Constitution."
In other news, this entire story is made up and didn't really happen. Except the bit about Funk-Nation. That hasn't happened yet, but I swear it's going to.
Red Dawn
Craig Titley, screenplay writer for such films as Scooby Doo and Cheaper by the Dozen, has written an article comparing the film slump if 1985 to 2005. His thesis is simple In 1985 and in 2005 Conservative Presidents had been elected to second terms over the howls of a Liberals and Democrats. In 1985 and 2005, the film industry found itself in a slump. In 1985 the film industry made a lot of conservative and pro-American films, and this got them out of the slump. Hollywood should take a hint, and do the same thing again.
It's nice to see him referring to movies such as Death Wish 3 and the Chuck Norris vehicle Commando in his argument.
That said, I think the differences between 1985 and 2005 are worth mentioning as well. Reagan clearly won in a landside; 2004 was a very tight election (despite what Republicans like to say). President Bush has trapped us in an ongoing and increasingly unpopular conflict in Iraq; Reagan widely avoided such wars. So puposefully promoting conservative values to win back their audience may not work as well as Mr. Titley thinks.
That doesn't mean Hollywood won't try it. There was a recent article at the New York Times on Hollywood producing more movies that target conservative audiences. Specifically, the article references "The exorcism of Emily Post" and "Just Like Heaven" as proof of a new Conservativism.
Of course, another way of reading those movies is to suggest that they are hallmarks of a new religiosity in Hollywood. I mean neither of these movies is specifically a political movie.
One of the more offensive things about this argument is the idea that being Pro-America goes hand in hand with being Conservative. Consider George Clooney's bio pic about Edward R. Murrow, "Good Night, and Good Luck." Is it a conservative movie? Well, it has at its center a liberal newscaster who took on Joe McCarthey (and, in fact, the conflict between McCarthey and Murrow seems to be the center of the film). So what's that, like fifteen strikes against it?
But is it a pro-America film? I haven't seen it (it hasn't made it's way here yet), but my guess is yes. It celebrates the American spirit of decency and in the face of bullies and oppression. And isn't that worth celebrating?
It's nice to see him referring to movies such as Death Wish 3 and the Chuck Norris vehicle Commando in his argument.
That said, I think the differences between 1985 and 2005 are worth mentioning as well. Reagan clearly won in a landside; 2004 was a very tight election (despite what Republicans like to say). President Bush has trapped us in an ongoing and increasingly unpopular conflict in Iraq; Reagan widely avoided such wars. So puposefully promoting conservative values to win back their audience may not work as well as Mr. Titley thinks.
That doesn't mean Hollywood won't try it. There was a recent article at the New York Times on Hollywood producing more movies that target conservative audiences. Specifically, the article references "The exorcism of Emily Post" and "Just Like Heaven" as proof of a new Conservativism.
Of course, another way of reading those movies is to suggest that they are hallmarks of a new religiosity in Hollywood. I mean neither of these movies is specifically a political movie.
One of the more offensive things about this argument is the idea that being Pro-America goes hand in hand with being Conservative. Consider George Clooney's bio pic about Edward R. Murrow, "Good Night, and Good Luck." Is it a conservative movie? Well, it has at its center a liberal newscaster who took on Joe McCarthey (and, in fact, the conflict between McCarthey and Murrow seems to be the center of the film). So what's that, like fifteen strikes against it?
But is it a pro-America film? I haven't seen it (it hasn't made it's way here yet), but my guess is yes. It celebrates the American spirit of decency and in the face of bullies and oppression. And isn't that worth celebrating?
Monday, October 03, 2005
A Timeless Argument
Jeff Jacoby explains the argument in favor of teaching Intelligent Design in his latest post. But I'm not sure I understand his argument. Consider the following sentences.
1). If Intelligent Design isn't a scientific theory, why does it need to be taught in Science class?
2). How can you say that Intelligent Design implies a higher intelligence and yet does not make a religious claim?
The rest of the article is devoted to the more mainstream argument that Intelligent Design arguments should be presented in the classroom in the interest of balance. Still he shoots himself in the foot by admitting the religious nature of the argument, kind of negates the rest of it.
In truth, intelligent design isn't a scientific theory but a restatement of a timeless argument: that the regularity and laws of the natural world imply a higher intelligence -- God, most people would say -- responsible for its design. Intelligent design doesn't argue that evidence of design ends all questions or disproves Darwin. It doesn't make a religious claim.A couple of questions.
1). If Intelligent Design isn't a scientific theory, why does it need to be taught in Science class?
2). How can you say that Intelligent Design implies a higher intelligence and yet does not make a religious claim?
The rest of the article is devoted to the more mainstream argument that Intelligent Design arguments should be presented in the classroom in the interest of balance. Still he shoots himself in the foot by admitting the religious nature of the argument, kind of negates the rest of it.
Saturday, October 01, 2005
Defenders Saturday
What makes the Defenders great? Not much.
The Defenders were outcast heroes – but the X-Men had gotten there first and would end up doing it better (the Defenders came around before the Claremont run on the X-Men). They were a non-team, but it was unclear what that was supposed to mean, since they still got together each month for a new adventure (admittedly Sub-Mariner or the Hulk might sit an issue out). Eventually they started getting members who wanted to be a part of a real team (like Valkyrie) and eventually they were a real team.
This is the progression of a lot of teams, by the way. The standard teams are the outcast team (the X-Men) or the heroic family (the Avengers (sort of) and the Fantastic Four). Other variations have popped up over the years. There were regional teams, like the West Coast Avengers or Alpha Flight or Excalibur. But once you stripped off any novelty of the region (which happened quickly) you were left with an outcast team or an heroic family. There were interesting variations in the early nineties with both X-Factor (a Government Team) and X-Force (paramilitary team), but the novelty was quickly quashed in an attempt to make such teams as much like the X-Men as possible.
It happened to the Defenders too – they went from being the Non-Team to being an outcast team (with three former x-men to boot). That was the era I actually read for a bit. But they brought the title to a close, in part so the three X-Men (Iceman, Beast, and Angel) could join X-Factor (which at that time was simply the reuniting of the original five X-men).
Anyway I recently purchased the Essential Defenders Volume 1 (I suspect the only Volume in the series (but maybe I’m wrong), and I am going to be providing a review of the various issues for reasons too complicated to go into here.
Dr. Strange #183
Synopsis: Here’s a standard synopsis for any Dr. Strange comic. Something bad is going to happen for reasons that are never satisfactorily explained. Dr. Strange stops this something bad using methods that are never satisfactorily explained. But, because I care, here’s a more complete synopsis.
Dr. Strange gets a telegram that triggers a synopsis of recent issues. Apparently in order to hide himself, he changes his name to Dr. Saunders, and erases all trace of Dr. Strange. He also starts wearing a mask. It looks goofy. After three pages of reminiscing, Dr. Strange/Saunders blurts out “But Wait. In my concern there is something I forgot. I never read . . . the telegram!!” He reads it and suffers not one but two premonitions of doom. But, in his maniacal pride, he says, “. . . but, I could not ignore my former friend’s plea, when tonight came ‘round.” I think that last phrase is a reference to jazz music, but with Dr. Strange you can never tell.
At any rate, the flight to visit his old friend allows time for another internal monologue, in which we find out that this old friend, Kenneth Ward, helped sponsor his medical career. When he gets there, the servants act suspiciously and his old friend seems drugged or, get this, under a magic spell. Dr. Strange is taken to his room, where he observes, “though my sorcerer’s senses tell me I am no unobserved, I am equally sure someone will look in on me later!” I’m not sure that statement warranted an exclamation point, but when you are Dr. Strange everything you say warrants an exclamation point.
Anyway Dr. Strange creates some mystic mamajama to make a copy of himself, and goes out and talks to Kenneth Ward. After he breaks the spell that is keeping Kenneth Ward drugged, Kenneth says “Something compels me . . . to tell the whole story . . . from the beginning.” So he does just that. Apparently Ward traveled in the Himalayas and found some weird statues. He finds one particular small statue that is related to the “Undying ones.” Just then the servants pop in and, surprise, surprise, they are servants of the “undying ones.” They fight. Dr. Strange declares they are evenly matched. But then the dying Kenneth Ward opens the curtains, letting the sun in, which disintegrats the baddies, who like vampires, can’t abide sunshine. Unfortunately Ward immediately dies, and Dr. Strange is left to ponder the threat of the Undying ones.
Dr. Strange Humility Quote – (upon realizing he never actually read the telegram mentioned above, Dr. Strange makes a mystic gesture and says) “ But, that is a situation easily remedied! Nor must Mohammed go to the Missive . . !”
The Defenders were outcast heroes – but the X-Men had gotten there first and would end up doing it better (the Defenders came around before the Claremont run on the X-Men). They were a non-team, but it was unclear what that was supposed to mean, since they still got together each month for a new adventure (admittedly Sub-Mariner or the Hulk might sit an issue out). Eventually they started getting members who wanted to be a part of a real team (like Valkyrie) and eventually they were a real team.
This is the progression of a lot of teams, by the way. The standard teams are the outcast team (the X-Men) or the heroic family (the Avengers (sort of) and the Fantastic Four). Other variations have popped up over the years. There were regional teams, like the West Coast Avengers or Alpha Flight or Excalibur. But once you stripped off any novelty of the region (which happened quickly) you were left with an outcast team or an heroic family. There were interesting variations in the early nineties with both X-Factor (a Government Team) and X-Force (paramilitary team), but the novelty was quickly quashed in an attempt to make such teams as much like the X-Men as possible.
It happened to the Defenders too – they went from being the Non-Team to being an outcast team (with three former x-men to boot). That was the era I actually read for a bit. But they brought the title to a close, in part so the three X-Men (Iceman, Beast, and Angel) could join X-Factor (which at that time was simply the reuniting of the original five X-men).
Anyway I recently purchased the Essential Defenders Volume 1 (I suspect the only Volume in the series (but maybe I’m wrong), and I am going to be providing a review of the various issues for reasons too complicated to go into here.
Dr. Strange #183
Synopsis: Here’s a standard synopsis for any Dr. Strange comic. Something bad is going to happen for reasons that are never satisfactorily explained. Dr. Strange stops this something bad using methods that are never satisfactorily explained. But, because I care, here’s a more complete synopsis.
Dr. Strange gets a telegram that triggers a synopsis of recent issues. Apparently in order to hide himself, he changes his name to Dr. Saunders, and erases all trace of Dr. Strange. He also starts wearing a mask. It looks goofy. After three pages of reminiscing, Dr. Strange/Saunders blurts out “But Wait. In my concern there is something I forgot. I never read . . . the telegram!!” He reads it and suffers not one but two premonitions of doom. But, in his maniacal pride, he says, “. . . but, I could not ignore my former friend’s plea, when tonight came ‘round.” I think that last phrase is a reference to jazz music, but with Dr. Strange you can never tell.
At any rate, the flight to visit his old friend allows time for another internal monologue, in which we find out that this old friend, Kenneth Ward, helped sponsor his medical career. When he gets there, the servants act suspiciously and his old friend seems drugged or, get this, under a magic spell. Dr. Strange is taken to his room, where he observes, “though my sorcerer’s senses tell me I am no unobserved, I am equally sure someone will look in on me later!” I’m not sure that statement warranted an exclamation point, but when you are Dr. Strange everything you say warrants an exclamation point.
Anyway Dr. Strange creates some mystic mamajama to make a copy of himself, and goes out and talks to Kenneth Ward. After he breaks the spell that is keeping Kenneth Ward drugged, Kenneth says “Something compels me . . . to tell the whole story . . . from the beginning.” So he does just that. Apparently Ward traveled in the Himalayas and found some weird statues. He finds one particular small statue that is related to the “Undying ones.” Just then the servants pop in and, surprise, surprise, they are servants of the “undying ones.” They fight. Dr. Strange declares they are evenly matched. But then the dying Kenneth Ward opens the curtains, letting the sun in, which disintegrats the baddies, who like vampires, can’t abide sunshine. Unfortunately Ward immediately dies, and Dr. Strange is left to ponder the threat of the Undying ones.
Dr. Strange Humility Quote – (upon realizing he never actually read the telegram mentioned above, Dr. Strange makes a mystic gesture and says) “ But, that is a situation easily remedied! Nor must Mohammed go to the Missive . . !”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)