Wednesday, August 31, 2005
I am a bit down today, and a bit pissed off. I was driving around at lunch listening to Rush Limbaugh (as is my wont) and he was going off on how this tragedy in New Orleans is largely the Environmentalists and Leftists fault. If environmentalism Whackos (his term, not mine) hadn't prevented New Orleans from building better leevees, New Orleans would be safe (or something like that).
Of course, in part, he was responding to leftists, like posters at Democratic Underground, who spent all yesterday castigating President Bush for not immediately returning to Washington DC to head up relief efforts. Many Democratic Undergrounders also seem to be of the opinion that we need to abandon New Orleans, and that the ensuing catastrophe will mean the end of the American Economy and/or American Imperialism.
Meanwhile hundreds have died and the toll will probably go into the thousands as hunger and disease take their toll.
A tragedy on this scale, well, it's just another reason to bash our political enemies.
And, if I'm honest, exactly the same passions I'm bemoaning in others are in me as well. I want to use this tragedy as a club to hurt those I disagree with politically. If I am going to hate Rush Limbaugh and a few at Democratic Underground (which, under normal circumstances is a wonderful discussion board) I have to hate myself as well.
At any rate it's very depressing.
Adults tell stories; juveniles crash cars and fixate on their childhood heroes and hang-ups. Juveniles, in terms of maturity if not chronology, run the motion picture industry, telling the "stories" juveniles enjoy -- not about life but about hang-ups and rude noises and bad language.Well first off, Mr. Murchinson doesn't know much about Comic Books if he thinks they don't cover ambition, hatred, fear, and sacrifice (although, admittedly, comic books don't do as good a job with love (superhero comics I mean)).
And comic books! If 10 percent of the money spent on bringing comic book characters to cinematic life found its way into the telling of honest stories about the human condition -- love, fear, ambition, hatred, sacrifice, etc., etc., etc. -- half-empty theaters might fill once more.
The truth is that in every generation a lot of crappy movies get made. That's kind of the way it is. The other truth is that since the 70s (at least) movies appeal to a younger generation. There are plenty of smart films that older people can enjoy, but they aren't the target audience anymore.
I think Murchinson assumes that if a significant number of movies were made that catered to older generations, those generations would start going to the movies as regularly as the younger generation. I don't think that's necessarily true. The older you get the more you value your time; it takes more for a movie to get older people in the theater. And even then they are less likely to see a movie multiple times and more likely to say "well that looks good but I'll wait for it on DVD." So which generational group do you aim your movie for? Assuming you want to make a profit of course.
Also how do you tell a story about rude noises or bad language?
Good Morning everybody!!! : )
I've been reading Ben Shapiro ( :( ), and this seems to be the message of his latest article. America is the bestest and all the rest of the world should act like us. And anybody who questions our bestestness, well, just listen to how he describes Cindy Sheehan.
Sheehan's words are despicable. Dissent is valuable and necessary. Demeaning American values, slandering the President of the United States, openly sympathizing with the murderers of American soldiers -- none of it is valuable or necessary.You see what happens if you don't acknowledge American Superiority.
I love America, as I think we all do here at Make me a Commentator!!!, but this is a very childish way of loving America, in my mind. I love America so I critique it and try to make it better. That means that when our invasion of Iraq hurts a lot of people and doesn't seem to accomplish a lot, I criticize that decision. Poor Ben Shapiro can't see the difference between such critiques and attacks on America.
Tuesday, August 30, 2005
Just want to say that the thoughts and prayers of all of us here at Make me a Commentator!!! are with the poor people suffering along the Gulf Coast and in New Orleans. We will be providing places you could donate to later on - for right now we recommend the Red Cross. Please keep that in mind.
Since we live in an age when students are likely to hear more about Marie Curie than about Albert Einstein, it is worth beginning with a statement of historical fact: women have played a proportionally tiny part in the history of the arts and sciences.4 Even in the 20th century, women got only 2 percent of the Nobel Prizes in the sciences—a proportion constant for both halves of the century—and 10 percent of the prizes in literature. The Fields Medal, the most prestigious award in mathematics, has been given to 44 people since it originated in 1936. All have been men.See I'll bet you didn't know that most of the scientists and artists you studied in history were males. Is that due to women not being allowed to participate in such works before 1900 (and not all that much since then)? Nope. Apparently, according to Charles Murry (the author of this wonderful article (wonderful for us White Males of course, not for the rest of you)), women's brains are smaller. Mr. Murrey also talks about how we White Males compare to other races (basically Blacks), and, surprise surprise, we come out ahead there too.
The historical reality of male dominance of the greatest achievements in science and the arts is not open to argument.
So why is it so important to recognize the supremecy of the White Male?
Elites throughout the West are living a lie, basing the futures of their societies on the assumption that all groups of people are equal in all respects. Lie is a strong word, but justified. It is a lie because so many elite politicians who profess to believe it in public do not believe it in private. It is a lie because so many elite scholars choose to ignore what is already known and choose not to inquire into what they suspect. We enable ourselves to continue to live the lie by establishing a taboo against discussion of group differences.The big problem is that brave scholars like Charles Murrey are not given huge research grants and allowed to appear on talk shows constantly to explain the dominence of the white male. See if we didn't have political correctness all the women and non-whites would naturally rise to their appropriate place, and we white males would run everything as genetics intended!
So to sum up, all hail the White Male! That rhymes, and you know it rhymes!
Note: if some of you do not recognize B.S. when you see it, you should maybe start here. Enjoy!
Monday, August 29, 2005
Hey you crazy cats! It's me Space Lobster, here to crush you in my mighty pincers! Or Captain Starfaller.
I know you read this blog Captain Starfaller - it must just eat you up inside to know that I'm on my way back to the top and you are dong dinner theater in Hamburg! Ha ha ha! I'll have you know that, due to my increased popularity due to my involvement in this site, I am up for the roll of Polonius in a touring company of Hamlet!
Think about how great it will be when Hamlet shouts out those immortal words "Dead for a ducat, Dead" and his sword shatters on my mighty carapace. Then I will come out of the curtains and, you guessed it, crush Hamlet between my mighty pincers!
Anyway let's look at the comments and mail bag this week and see what we have.
Someone named Justin made a very wrong headed comment I'm afraid, in reference to last weeks Monday Mailbag.
Ummm... lobster at a sushi joint??? Didn't that make you a smidge uneasy?Well for one thing they serve lots of things besides Lobster at a Sushi Joint. Sushi doesn't mean Lobster even. It means Fish and Lemon Sauce and Rice and sometimes Seaweed (Japanese is a very economical language).
Secondly, for those of you wondering, I had the tempera vegetables! I was pretty drunk (as a person named Caleb helpfully pointed out), but I was still able to tell the difference been deep fried carrots and Uncle Fester!
I seem to have a lot of energy today!
On to comment number 2. As you all know Pat Robertson called for the death of the President of Venezuela, which just shows he's an amateur. When I was scuttling with the Gang of Four Evils, we planned to assassinate the High Lord Abraxis, supreme ruler of Venus (in episode 3F11 "The Jackal of Venus"). See how that grabs your attention? Just the name itself commands your attention. Now I'm sure this Venezuelan President is a good example of nobility and all, but assassinating him lacks flair.
Anyway Grumbly Muffin wrote on this and her comments provoked a response from Lisa.
Look, this guy is not crazy about us, but he is NOT a terrorist nor has he EVER made any threatening statements. He is really popular in his country and hovers at 70% approval ratings (twice what our glorious leader is at in the polls).Well, Ms. Lisa, it wouldn't be very villainous to kill a terrorist or a dictator, would it? If this guy is popular and is helping his people as your comment (and the one by Jody seems to indicate), well that in itself makes him a good target for evil super-villainy!
This guy is a socialist who is all about taking the money from the oil companies and the wealthy elites and spreading it around. Whether you agree with that kind of policy or not is beside the point. He is NOT a terrorist or a dictator. He is a democratically elected leader with the support of MOST of his country. And he has NEVER threatened anyone (he called bush the Spanish equivalent of an asshole, but so what).
Also the third in a series of e-mails from gentlemen with Oesophageal cancer (spelled many different ways, I note). Our first victim of this dread disease was from The UAE, and our second was from Iraq. The latest victim describes himself as "A Bahrain national." In a twist apparently he no longer trusts his family.
I once asked members of my family to close one of my accounts and distribute the money which I have there to charity organization in Bulgaria and Pakistan, they refused and kept the money to themselves. Hence, I do not trust them anymore, as they seem not to be contended with what I have leftfor them. The last of my money which no one knows of is the huge cash deposit of Eighteen Million dollars($18,000,000,00) that I have with a finance House abroad. I will want you to help me collect this deposit and despatch it to charity organizations.Two questions present themselves to my mind. One, you find you can no longer place trust in your family members, but you can place trust in people you send random e-mails too? Does your brain work properly? Or is it possible that Oesophageal is another word for Brain?
N/B:KINDLY NOTE THAT 20% of this funds must go to the tsunami victims and another 10% for your effort and time.
Also this is quibbling I know, but you claim you want the funds to go to charity except for 10% to me, and 20% to tsunami victims? Maybe your Oesophageal failed to note that giving money to tsunami victims is, in fact, a form of charity.
At any rate I need to get out of here, the audition is in a half hour. Have a nice week all and send in e-mails and comments so I can respond to them!
I assume Grumbly will wait out the week.
Anyway since I can't post much, here's a few links.
Echidne of the Snake has a nice story that refutes the whole "why don't peaceful Muslims ever protest against the terrorists?" So naturally this will be ignored by conservatoids.
Bark Bark Woof Woof has a story on how Cindy Sheehan Did get to meet with an American President. Kind of nice.
The Goblin's Lair has a selection on why we shouldn't be ashamed to be "liberals." Damned inspiring, if you ask me - go read it and see what you think.
Anyway hopefully we'll have some more later on, if things quiet down.
Sunday, August 28, 2005
Good morning all!!! : )
By order of the Monster we are going back to the old format. The new format looked nice, but it wouldn't let you linke to specific posts, and we decided that was a hassle. So we are using this format. We have gone ahead and made all the old pages look like this as well. That's why we are using this dark grey color - it should make it so most of the colored quotes will show up ok - it won't stay this color for more than a week though (I think it's kind of dingy : (, but I can see why we made it this way).
Also we have a new Quotes Page. Anyway hope you are all having a nice weekend.
Friday, August 26, 2005
Good morning all. This is Irwin J. McIckleson, fictional 1910's Plutocrat and your guide to the world of the Liberal Coalition.
Apparently some reverend has called for the assassination of the President of Venezuela. All I can say is that Father Domingo (my priest) needs to talk to this reverend. When I wanted to "take care of" a local union leader, he got all over my case. It was not pleasant at all.
blogAmY has a post about how Great Britain is considering guidelines for deporting hate preachers, and suggests such guidelines might be used with Reverend Robertson (who made the assassination comment above).
Happy Furry Puppy Story Time has a further selection of quotes by this Reverend Robertson. These quotes make him sound somewhat delusional (the one's I understand anyway.
AND THEN . . . has a story I find fascinating. Apparently the plans to build robots did eventually bear fruit - but said fruit was reduced to acting in movies of a questionable nature.
LeftyBrown's Corner has a section on his favorite ten things of the week, none of which I understand in the least. But he seems very passionate on the subject.
Collective Sigh has a section on how President Bush is running the corporation like a business. He gives some very good advice on what a president of a struggling corporation might do - either work day and night to fix the problems or gut it and abandon it. Both are good strategies, but of course the real answer is to do your research ahead of time, so that if a company has problems, you don't end up buying it in the first place.
Dihiyi Mir has a nice photo that shows that Mrs. Sheehan is still being thought of.
President Bush is out shoring up support in those areas that still support him, according to a story at Rooks Rant. That doesn't strike me as the most courageous plan of action.
T. Rex's Guide to Life has the information that profiling based on race is apparently ineffective. I have to say that is not something I would have thought, but the argument is pretty convincing.
Anyway that's it for another week - hope you are all enjoying your Friday. I know I will enjoy mine; apparently one of the employees took a hammer home with him. So I am having them all flogged as a lesson. And then home for roast goose and pudding. So a very enjoyable day for me; I hope you have the same.
I mean, Cindy Sheehan is just Bill Burkett. Her story is nothing more than forged documents. There's nothing about it that's real, including the mainstream media's glomming onto it. It's not real. It's nothing more than an attempt. It's the latest effort made by the coordinated left.- Rush Limbaugh, August 15.
Apparently, what's out there is that I said that Cindy Sheehan is no different than Bill Burkett, that Bill Burkett lied and Cindy Sheehan lied. They're actually out there, people saying that I am accusing Cindy Sheehan of making up the fact that she had a son and making up the fact that her son died in Iraq. And of course, I've never said this.- Rush Limbaugh, August 17.
You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war.- Pat Robertson, August 22.
Wait a minute, I didn't say 'assassination.' I said our special forces should, quote, "take him out," and "take him out" can be a number of things including kidnapping. There are a number of ways to take out a dictator from power besides killing him. I was misinterpreted by the AP, but that happens all the time.- Pat Robertson August 24.
I'd just like to say that all of the readers of this website are TOTAL MORONS.- Grumbly Muffin, August 24.
I've noticed a lot of people commenting that I said something "hurtful" to our readers or that I called our readers total morons. I don't know how these sorts of RUMORS get started, but I think it's telling that the left has to resort to blatent DISTORTION to win arguments.- Grumbly Muffin, August 25.
Now to be fair, Mumbly Gruffin's comments were a little different than Limbaugh and Robertson's. They waited two days before they started making stuff up; she only waited one day.
Thursday, August 25, 2005
Edited to add - this isn't working right - need to figure out what I did wrong.
I've noticed a lot of people commenting that I said something "hurtful" to our readers or that I called our readers total morons. I don't know how these sorts of RUMORS get started, but I think it's telling that the left has to resort to blatant DISTORTION to win arguments.
Wednesday, August 24, 2005
I have to say that I agree with Miss Jetson on this score. While you may feel that our readers our morons it is not practical to call them as such.
Plus I'd also like to call attention to the inelegant phrase TOTAL MORON. I fail to see how using all capital letters improves the statement at all.
And at any rate I find the phrase uneducated dolts to be far more effective.
Hi all : (
I'd just like to say that the hurtful comments of Grumbly Muffin down below aren't reflective of how we think of our readers. I don't know why such comments were made - I think it's really sad.
I've always appreciated our readers and the time you give to us, and I hope to provide more than abuse to those who take the time to read this blog.
Of course there are certain constitutional and moral limits to how far I can go in shutting them up; in reality I'm mostly limited to trying to present an alternative view and, more often, criticizing their own bonehead statements. Which brings us to today's article by Ben Shapiro.
Ben Shapiro is still lamenting that as a young conservative he may be criticized for hosting a talk show in Oklahoma City rather than enlisting to fight a war he supports (and apparently four or five other wars he also supports (when we get around to them)). In this article Ben Shapiro lets out a deep dark secret; people like Michael Moore and Susan Serandon would rather see people who think like them making decisions for this nation.
What a shocker. This is totally different from young Ben who, of course, favors people who think different from him. Oh wait, that's nonsense.
What clearly gets young Ben's goat, besides the personal angle to this argument, is that this has proven an effective technique. The right wing in this nation has spent all day and every day telling America that Liberals are unpatriotic, that we don't love our country, that we don't care about regular Americans, that we are elitist snobs and so on and so forth. SO when we get a comeback that punctures this particular line of attack, well, it's worth using.
Ben Shapiro also throws around the word "pacifist" pretty loosely in his article. Apparently in the Shapiro Family Dictionary, a pacifist is anybody who doesn't support any war. It's a bit like virginity, I guess; once you think a war is stupid and you oppose it, you become a pacifist forever more.
Anyway it's nice to see Ben, in an article criticizing the democratic for making (effective) ad hominem attacks, he can't stop himself from using an ad hominem attack.
Tuesday, August 23, 2005
That said, I'm intrigued by the logic of Roberts words.
. . . if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it.I just want to let you all know that I think you are trying to give me big bags of money. Yep. I am convinced that there are dozens of my readers trying to give me money.
Just thought you'd like to know.
You've probably all heard that Pat Robertson has called for the Assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. If you haven't, you can see a video of it at Media Matters for America (but mostly for that tiny slice of hard left America).
I do understand how it's a little unsavory for a man of the cloth to be calling for the assassination of Mr. Chavez. But the truth is that Chavez is an enemy of the United States. He HATES America and he HATES Americans.
Osama bin Ladin killed 3,000 people from a cave in Afghanistan. Venezuela is a lot closer and a lot more wealthy (thanks to an accident of geography). Now of course I'm not calling for his assassination - but I do think such a course of action is one of many that our foreign policy apparatus should consider. Protecting America has always included some unsavory actions.
Good morning all! : )
Just finished reading another "Muslim menace" article by Cal Thomas. Apparently Arabs are crocodiles, and like crocodiles they will not stop until the eat us no matter how many chickens (land) we give them. So that's nice.
Don't believe me? Read Mr. Thomas's words for yourself. But of course I know you all believe me.
They are all crocodiles. Tossing pieces of "chicken" in their direction will never satisfy them. They want it all. They say so, and their actions prove they are serious.Except that people are not crocodiles. And I don't know exactly what Mr. Thomas wants to do about the Arab world, but it can't be good. I mean if you think other people are crocodiles there's no reason to be nice to them, ever. You cage them up or you cut them down, don't you?
And we all know how the Republicans feel about protecting animal species.
Monday, August 22, 2005
Well I have a hangover.
Gartish the Warthog from Gamma 3 flew in last night. Some kind of conference today. Anyway we go out on the town. That guy can drink like he was three people. And of course I had to keep up with him. We ended up hitting like five bars and a sushi joint. And this morning Gartish was up at 7:30 whistling.
I hate Gartish.
That's what happens when you get to be an old lobster like me, you spend nights with people you hate because it's better than clacking your claws alone.
Anyway I don't really hate Gartish; I just have a hangover.
There's not much to respond to. Got another bunch of comments from Random Goblin that continue to be well thought out. Heres one, responding to some discrepancy that Rush Limbaugh uttered.
It's always fun when people try to deny things that are matter of record.He's right it is fun. But it works sometimes. Particularly in the short term. It's just a matter of conviction - you have to put in your voice the conviction that what you say is the truth and there is no possible way that reality could be anything other than what you say it.
I've never been able to master it myself, but I know people who can.
Also continuing our international tour of people asking me for money, here's some guy from Russia. His name is Alexei Zakharenko[Mr]. I don't know how to pronounce [Mr] at the end of a word like that. I'd know what to say if it was at the beginning, but at the end and in brackets? I just don't know. Anyway apparently he's embezzled a lot of money, and he wants my help investing it.
As a personal consultant to him, authority was handed over to me in transfer of money of an American oil merchant for his last oil deal with my boss Mikhail Khodorkovsky. Already the funds have left the shore of Russia to an European private bank where the final crediting is expected to be carried out. While I was on the process, My Boss got arrested for his involvement in politics . . .I have to say I strongly support the arresting of anybody involved in politics.
Also geographically, could you explain how money leaves the "shores" of Russia to end up in an "European Private Bank?" I'm no geographer, but surly such money could travel overland? Unless you are talking about Britain or Iceland I suppose.
Anyway I'm going to go lay down for a bit - Gartish's conference will be over soon and apparently we are going to a dinner theater, where they will be butchering both cows and "The King and I." I'm so excited.
He heads back home tomorrow, so next week I should be more my evervescent self.
A patriotic camp with a "God Bless Our President!" banner sprung up downtown Saturday, countering the anti-war demonstration started by a fallen soldier's mother two weeks ago near President Bush's ranch.See how liberally biased this is? It fails to mention that the Anti War Demon-stration is made up of people who hate America and hate soldiers. It fails to note that Cindy Sheehan has already met with President Bush and is a crazed liberal activist. About the only think this little snippet gets right is describing Fort Qualls as "patriotic." That's a little subtle though - stupid people may not realize that this automatically implies that the people at Camp Casey are the opposite of patriotic.
When will we rid ourselves of this insane liberal Media???
The Site Feed is here --> http://feeds.feedburner.com/MakeMeACommentator
Also we are going to redo the look of this website once more - I like this look, but it does not allow one to link to individual posts - instead each link goes to that week, which is not very satisfactory. So I am going to change it a bit.
Also we are going to open, in honor of this new switcharoo, the Make Me a Commentator Blog Heading Gallery, but that might take a few days.
Jeff Jacoby's latest column is about Trent Lott's forthcoming memoir. Lott, an old style conservative, is apparently still miffed at how the Republican Party removed him from power after some unfortunate comments at a memorial honoring Strom Thurmond. There are three versions of this story.
1. Mean spirited Democrats hounded Trent Lott until he was forced to leave his position as majority leader.
2. Honest good hearted Republicans, shocked by Lott's Comments, worked successfully to remove him from power.
3. Cynical Republicans, frustrated with Trent Lott and seeking power for themselves, worked to remove Lott from power.
You will be surprised to know that I think answer three is the most correct answer. Oh, sure there were a lot of mean spirited and hypocritical Democrats sharpening the long knives for Lott. And there were some Republicans who were justifiable shocked at his comments. But the real reason a great man like Trent Lott was removed from power was that SOMEBODY ELSE WANTED THAT POWER.
And, say, who has that power now? Oh that's right, it's BILL FRIST.
Jacoby's article is, of course, a defense of the status quo. Lott has been out of power for a couple of years now, and Frist has been in charge. He certainly doesn't want to reopen old wounds within the party.
But in this case, I think it's more a case of RIGHTING OLD WRONGS. The party can't give Lott his position of power back; but it can acknowledge their own cynical motives rather than continuing to ascribe racism to Lott for his innocent but unfortunate comments.
Sunday, August 21, 2005
Saturday, August 20, 2005
Good morning all. Hope you are having a nice weekend!
Today's post is about an article Kathleen Parker wrote about Cindy Sheehan. Most of Ms. Parkers article is about how Cindy Sheehan doesn't speak for all families who have lost loved one's in the war in Iraq. I didn't know she had claimed to speak for them all. At any rate, her moral authority to speak out against the war is going to disappear as other parents who lost kids and still support President Bush are going to come and challenge her.
Ms. Parker seems pretty nice, but I'm not sure.
Sheehan has put a face on loss and provided an icon for dissenters. Strolling through Camp Casey, named for her son, she gets hugs and has her picture taken with new friends, prompting her to say she knows how Mickey Mouse feels at Disneyland.I'm not sure exactly what Ms. Parker means by the madding crowd. Does she mean her fellow republicans, who certainly can be vicious? Or does she mean other liberals?
Her sudden fame has also brought pain. Celebrity is often a harsh light, and Sheehan also is learning what all public people learn: The madding crowd is often vicious.
Anyway something to think about - have a nice weekend.
Friday, August 19, 2005
Compare and contrast these two statements, both by Rush Limbaugh.
I mean, Cindy Sheehan is just Bill Burkett. Her story is nothing more than forged documents. There's nothing about it that's real, including the mainstream media's glomming onto it. It's not real.That statement is from his August 15th broadcast.
Apparently, what's out there is that I said that Cindy Sheehan is no different than Bill Burkett, that Bill Burkett lied and Cindy Sheehan lied. They're actually out there, people saying that I am accusing Cindy Sheehan of making up the fact that she had a son and making up the fact that her son died in Iraq. And of course, I've never said this.That is from his August 17th, broadcast.
So my question is, does Rush realize he's on the air? Does he realize that people are capable of remembering what he said just two days earlier? Or is he so far gone that reality, for him, is what he says it is?
Hello. This is Irwin J. McIckleson, fictional 1910's plutocrat. I would to comment that the fact that I am fictional does not mean that I don't feelings. Rather, the fact that I am a plutocrat means that I don't have feelings.
And now for another trip around the Liberal Coalition.
Natalie Davis' All Facts and Opinions has remembrances of what seems to be a wandering minstrel named Jerry Garcia. Apparently he had depths uncharted.
Bark Bark Woof Woof has the news that Cindy Sheehan, who was attempting to meet with President Bush, has had to return to California to care for a sick relative. The writer notes that Sheehan's enemies will try to use this against her, and I have to say his analysis of human nature is correct. Whenever there is an opportunity for someone to take base advantage of a situation, someone will eventually step in to take said advantage.
corrente has a bit more on Cindy Sheehan and the White House's reaction to her protest. Apparently they believe that fighting the enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan is better than fighting them here. That seems illogical; unless you know exactly where the enemies are. But this seems to be like a very deadly game of blindman's bluff.
Liberty Street also has some thoughts on President Bush and Cindy Sheehan. Apparently President Bush has taken steps to protect himself from criticism and from looking at those his policies have hurt. Everything I hear about President Bush makes me think he is a very weak man. I destroyed hundreds of lives in my time in my quest for plutocratic power. But I stood up to it. There's no benefit in turning away and pretending you haven't hurt people to get what you want, because you can't avoid such realizations forever. What a man does is look at the people he's hurt and says "To blazes with you! I wanted what I wanted and I got what I wanted and if I had to hurt ten times your number I'd do it all again!"
This President Bush character lacks clarity of mind.
Dodechahedron also writes about Sheehan who certainly seems very popular this week. Specifically he writes about a local landowner there who is waiting for Dove Season where in to practice his marksmanship. I must urge him to wait for Bachman's Warbler season. While these yellow birds are not as symbolically significant as the Dove, they are delicious. I mean you only get a mouthful or two of meet from each bird, but it's nice and tender with a certain piquentness. Goes wonderful in a hash with potatoes and spring onions. And there's millions of the birds. Why I can go out for half an hour and shoot down twenty or thirty Bachman's Warblers!
bloggg has some thoughts on a new televisio show about people who dance. Apparently it is some sort of competition on this show to be the best dancer. Anyway this writer handicaps the various dancers and seems to know what she is talking about.
Musing's musings has a very amusing thing you can do involving music and some sort of randomizing device. I hope Stephan Foster is still as popular as ever.
Science and Politics also has an amusing activity you might enjoy if you go to your local book emporium.
And that is it for another week. I hope you have enjoyed this look around, and have a productive weekend.
Thursday, August 18, 2005
The New York Times seems to never run out of ways to call President Bush dumb.
An editorial by Gideon Rose in today's paper covers the evolution of foreign policy from rational to idealistic and back again. Guess where Mr. Rose puts President Bush? Yep, he's one of those unrealistic idealists. What Mr. Rose fails to understand is that in these days idealism is the most realistic course of action.
He does seem to get it later on his article when he talks about how the Bush Administration will proceed.
BEING fully American rather than devotees of classic European realpolitik, the realists-today represented most prominently by Ms. Rice and her team at the State Department-offer not different goals but a calmer and more measured path toward the same ones. They still believe in American power and the global spread of liberal democratic capitalism. But they seek legitimate authority rather than mere material dominance, favor cost-benefit analyses rather than ideological litmus tests, and prize good results over good intentions.One thing we can be clear on; no matter what sort of government emerges in Iraq the Democrats and their allies in the mainstream media are going to declare it a failure.
So what can we expect next? A spell of calm without dramatic visionary campaigns or new wars, along with an effort to gradually wind down the current conflict while leaving Iraq reasonably stable but hardly a liberal democracy.
USA Today conducted a state-by-state analysis. Their analysis expects 11 "conservative states" to immediately pass laws prohibiting abortion. But those "conservative states" only had 122 abortion providers in 2000, less than 7 percent of the nation's 1,819 abortion providers. "Most of those 122 providers (65) are in Texas," writes USA Today. "If pro-choice forces can hold on to Texas (not unlikely, given the feisty Democratic minority's tendency to flee to Oklahoma to deny the Legislature a quorum when its members are miffed) we're down to 57 providers. If the Democrats controlling the Alabama and Arkansas legislatures decided to act like Democrats, not Dixiecrats, that total could fall to 36."
That leaves eight "conservative states" with only 36 abortion providers between them -- an already difficult proposition for any woman seeking an abortion in those states. In six of them -- Mississippi, Kentucky, the Dakotas, Missouri and Nebraska -- a woman cannot find an abortion provider in 97-98 percent of those states' counties. In other words, as it stands now, conservative states reduce abortion to almost non-existence, so a post-Roe world, at least in those states, changes little.
I will add one thing; I have heard that Ohio has considered an abortion law that would make it illegal to seek an abortion in Ohio, but would also make it a crime to seek an abortion elsewhere. I don't know how many of these states would consider such a law.
Wednesday, August 17, 2005
Good morning all!!! :-)
Apparently the war for Civil Rights is over, or at least that's what Mr. Walter E. Williams latest article suggests.
Civil rights organizations' expenditure of resources and continued focus on racial discrimination is just as intelligent as it would be for the March of Dimes to continue to expend resources fighting polio in the U.S.So that's good news. Except, now that I think about it, it seems like a lot of black people still think there is racial discrimination in America. And wouldn't they know?
Continuing on the theme of President Bush's perceived emotional distance from Cindy Sheehan we have a New York Times editorial by Reagan Biographer Edmund Morris.
. . . he [President Bush] is our elected president, with the business of a nation to run. Ms. Sheehan has gotten more time with him than most grieving mothers, and if she felt, during those unsatisfactory minutes, that there was a glass wall around him, it unfortunately comes with the job. A president has to protect himself from emotional predators, or he'd be sucked dry within a week of taking office.Of course many Liberals would see the reference to "Emotional Predators" as some kind of slur, but of course it isn't. The President is surrounded by people who want something from him; if the President is going to stay on target and fulfill his goals he has to use selective hearing. Listening to those who will help him achieve his goals and ignoring those who would stand in his way.
Cindy Sheehan has made it clear that she wants to stand in his way; and so he has no choice but to, in a sense, block her out so that he can focus on accomplishing his goals.
This may seem cold to fuzzyheaded liberals, but when your goal is protecting America, I think it's a good idea to do what it takes to accomplish that goal.
Apparently pointing out that many Republican leaders supported the Vietnam war and yet were unwilling to fight in it is an attack on their right to speak. Pointing out that young Republicans support the Iraq war, we are suffering from not having enough troops, and yet young Republicans are unwilling to enlist is similarly wrong. Not just wrong. UnAmerican.
The "chickenhawk" argument -- which states that if you haven't served in the military, you can't have an opinion on foreign policy -- explicitly rejects basic principles of representative democracy.No it doesn't, young Ben, any more than the hundreds of ad hominem attacks you and your kind have launched over the year mean that Democrats Liberals shouldn't be able to have an opinion on, well, anything.
His flight from reality comes in the last bit.
The "chickenhawk" argument proves only one point: The left is incapable of discussing foreign policy in a rational manner. They must resort to purely emotional, base personal attacks in order to forward their agenda. And so, unable or unwilling to counter the arguments of those like Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney and President Bush, they label them all "chickenhawks."OK, a few points.
. . . American soldiers fight for the right of all Americans, regardless of race, class or past service, to speak out on foreign policy issues. If they fight for the right of pacifist anti-military fifth columnists like Michael Moore to denigrate their honor, they certainly fight for the right of civilian hawks to speak up in favor of the highest level of moral and material support for their heroism.
1. Liberals have lots of substantive arguments against the insane policies of the Bush Administration. To pretend that our entire counter argument consists of screaming "chickenhawk" is nonsense.
2. Fifth columnist? Denigrating their honor? Criticizing this war is not the same thing as criticizing the military forced to fight in it, and if you spent even a few moments reviewing Michael Moores statements you'd find the truth. Consider this quote from Fahrenheit 9/11, voiced and presumably written by Michael.
I've always been amazed that the very people forced to live in the worst parts of town, go to the worst schools, and who have it the hardest are always the first to step up, to defend us. They serve so that we don't have to. They offer to give up their lives so that we can be free. It is remarkably their gift to us. And all they ask for in return is that we never send them into harm's way unless it is absolutely necessary. Will they ever trust us again?I don't know how you read that, but to me that doesn't sound like a slur against the troops.
3. And, incidentally, how is "fifth columnist" better than "chickenhawk?" I mean other than the fact that there is some truth to the phrase chickenhawk and none in the slur fifth columnist.
4. The Republicans in Congress and in the White House have consistently fought to lower veteran's benefits. The penny-pinching Donald Rumsfeld, eager to protect the Bush Tax Cuts, fought the Iraq war on the cheap. It's Democrat and Liberal Activists who have pointed out both of these facts.
Anyway I admit to being of two minds about the Chickenhawk epithet. On the one hand it isn't really a response to a conservative foreign policy argument. It would be better to point out the inconsistencies and nonsense in their arguments directly. On the other hand, chickenhawk goes to a very real attack Conservatives have made on Liberals. Conservatives like to pretend that they are the party that lives America and that Liberals are the party that doesn't love America. Chickenhawk cuts right through that, so why not use it?
Tuesday, August 16, 2005
A pickup truck tore through rows of white crosses last night near President Bush's ranch, where a woman has been protesting the Iraq war.Of course I am sure that there are many conservatives who would find this action reprehensible.
The crosses stretched along the road at the Crawford, Texas, camp, bore the names of fallen U-S soldiers. No one was hurt.
There have been a lot of crocodile tears shed over the possibility that the right wing might "slime" Cindy Sheehan (by pointing out things she has said or done and letting the American people make up their own mind about her). Nobody seems to mind the sliming of President Bush that goes on unabated.
Take Robert Bryce's article on President Bush and President Johnson. In it Bryce tries to paint President Bush as a sociopath who feels nothing for dead American soldiers because he won't take the time to let Sheehan ask him insulting questions (I assume the first of these questions would be "As a draft dodging cocaine addict how does it feel to have murdered my son, Mr. President?")
Take this passage.
Bush's religiosity is the key element here. He has a total belief in the rightness of his position. But there again comes a key difference with LBJ. Like the born-again Bush, Johnson was a man of faith. But he was a man of many faiths, often attending two churches -- one Roman Catholic and one Protestant -- on a given Sunday. Raised a Baptist, he became an elder at the Disciples of Christ Church near his home in Johnson City. Johnson's intellectual curiosity led him to see that one religion, one worldview, didn't hold all the answers. As Johnson's biographer, Ronnie Dugger, put it, LBJ was "an ecumenical movement all by himself."A very nice attack on those who actually believe in God rather than believe in what is convenient at the time. But I don't think people see President Bush's steadiness as a "fatal flaw." Sure some weak-kneed people would like to see us surrender to the Iraq Insurgency and al-Qaeda. And some of the British people would probably have preferred to see Churchill surrender to or accommodate Hitler. But most people see such capitulation for what it is; cowardiness. President Bush is not a coward and he is not weak-kneed.
Bush's blind faith in his own path -- religious and military -- leaves no room for ecumenism, or doubt. And that lack of doubt, that lack of anguish over the lives being lost in Iraq, is emerging as his fatal flaw.
So I would not hold out hope that he will meet with Sheehan and abandon his mission to protect America.
Monday, August 15, 2005
Monster be frustrated.
Cheery come to monster, say monster need to make quote for webpage. It Monsters Turn.
Monster say "Arrgghhhharrghhhhnmmmaggghee baggghhhhh thagggooo," which means "All Enemies Run Away!"
Cheery say that against rules. She say pick quote by someone else.
Monster say that Monster quotes better than all else quotes.
Cheery say that Space Lobster want make own quote too, but Cheery not let him.
Monster say that good because space lobster quote be stupid. But Monster quote not stupid.
Cheery say that rules have to be for all. So Monster fire Cheery. But then Cheery make crying noise and Monster feel bad, so Monster not fire Cheery after all.
And then Cheery show Monster website where all kinds of quotes are. So Monster go there and get good quote. But monster still think "Arrgghhhharrghhhhnmmmaggghee baggghhhhh thagggooo" good quote.
Oh and Cheery update Quotes page with Monster Selected quote on it.
Also Bryant say we should add Liberal "Progressive" Chrystie to blogroll. Monster look at website and monster think it pretty, and have good words, so monster say OK.
And away we go. By the way I am wearing a very stylish wine colored smoking jacket, specially cut to fit my unique physique. Just thought I would mention that I have taste.
I'm really a very stylish lobster.
Anyway on to this weeks mailbag. Our first comment comes in response to this post about Ben Shapiro. Incidentally we are having trouble linking to specific posts right now, Cheery tells me. The post is called "We've Got the Whole World in Our Hands," if that helps you find it. Anyway here is the comment, from Chrystie (who has a fabulous blog of her own).
Well said! Hope you don't mind if I link to your blog. Ben Shapiro dose "NOT" speak for me! Now the true majority of Americans. How dare he -- he's nuts, suicidal. Hey Shapiro, if you want to throw your weight around, head for your nearest Recuitment Office and sign-up! Do "your" tour of duty, and while your at it make sure you take all your of-age kids, grandchildren (if you have any), neices, nephews and you know, all your Republican/Neo-Con supporters with you.I must say we here at Make me a Commentator!!! are in favor of people linking to us. So thank you. And anybody else reading this blog who wants to link to us, that would be ok too.
Our troops could, well... "really use some help!" Ya know!
Ben Shapiro: Shut the hell-up.
Political Comment: 10 Thumbs-up!
As for the specific criticisms of Ben Shapiro, frankly he reminds me a lot of Commander Bullfrog of the Venusian Vengeance Seekers. He led his armies to conquer earth (in episode 1A28, Invasion from Venus); and was successful for a while. He put lily pads in the reflecting pool at the Washington Monument, which I always thought was a nice touch. Anyway eventually the people of earth rose up and drove him off, led by Captain Starfaller. They couldn't abide extra-terrestrial domination.
Meanwhile my various schemes focused on making money have led me to a lifestyle which allows me to wear wine colored smoking jackets. The moral, Mr. Shapiro, go for the cash, not the land. People can accept the loss of money; they won't like it, but they can deal with it. But people can't deal with losing their land.
Anyway, while I think that Mr. Shapiro has a lot of growing up to do if he's going to be a successful purveyor of evil, I'm not sure if he really fits this description offered anonymously.
What a fucktard. Ben Shapiro, not you.I've been assured that this is not a child's blog, but still that kind of logic would never have been used by me and my evil space buddies (except maybe by Princess Porcupine).
You should follow the example of Random Goblin, anonymous. There's a guy who has some very trenchant and clever things to say. Take this response, in a post about Rush Limbaugh's attack on freedom of speech, entitled "Wouldn't It be Wonderful."
I am, of course, in total agreement with Random Goblin; this Rush character needs to go. After all America is supposed to be a melting pot of ideas and ideals where evils from throughout the universe can come together, meld their visions, and get stopped by Captain Starfaller. Well hopefully not that last part, but it did seem to often work out that way.
No, he's right! It'd be great if we didn't have freedom of speech! Then we could shut HIM down!
Anyway I can't let a week go buy without discussing ongoing efforts by people from other parts of the world to get their hands on my bank account information. First of all let's go back a few weeks to the very first e-mail I responded to, from a mister Waheed Azeez. The bit I quoted read like this;
My name is Waheed Azeez a merchant in Dubai, in the U.A.E.I have been diagnosed with Esophageal cancer It has defiled all forms of medical treatment, and right now I have onlybout a few months to live, according to medical experts. I have not particularly lived my life so well, as I never really cared for anyone (not even myself) but my business. Though I am very rich, I was never generous,I was always hostile to people and only focused on my business as that was the only thing I cared for. But now I regret all this as I now know that there is more to life than just wanting to have or make all the money in the world.Well this week I got a letter from Hasham Ahmed which reads, in part, like this.
. . . I escaped death but sustained a very serious internal injury that leads me to have been diagnosed with esophageal cancer. It has defiled all forms of medical treatment, and right now I have only about a month to live, according to medical experts.
I have not particularly lived my life so well, as I never really cared for anyone (not even myself) but my business. Though I am very rich, I was never generous, I was always hostile to people because of my closeness to Saddam Hussein first son Uday Hussein and only focused on my business as that was the only thing I cared for. But now I regret all this as I now know that there is more to life than just wanting to have or make all the money in the world. Now that Allah has called me,I want Allah to be merciful to me and accept my soul, I have decided to give alms to charity organizations, as I want this to be one of the last good deeds I do on earth.
What a coincidence! Two men, one in the U.A.E. and another in Iraq having esophagael cancer and describing their life in almost precisely the same manner. What are the odds? It's amazing.
Actually, being a highly developed space lobster, I suspect these two are the same man and he doesn't have esophagael cancer at all. He's what we call a con-man, a sort of low grade evil-doer. They can be useful (I teamed up with The Illusionist from Illidon once, in episode 1A14 "To Con a Captain"), but they aren't really all that evil.
After all have they ever "crushed Captain Starfaller in their mighty pincers?"
And with that stirring ending, that's it for another week. Keep leaving those comments and sending in e-mails!
Good afternoon everybody. Hope you are all doing well!
I just finished reading Armstrong William's latest article, and I have to say, it will be interesting to see how his fellows in the Conservative Press will react to it.
When President George W Bush unleashed hell on Iraq he no doubt had in mind visions of global rebuilding. The administration thought that months after the invasion, the streets of Baghdad lined with Iraqi citizens waving American flags. They also thought that US inspectors would uncover weapons of mass destruction. This is why they ducked their head and plowed through the international scorn. They fully expected to supplant the horror of war with images so patriotic that they would make the strong global opposition to the war seem short sighted.I think that Mr. Armstrong's right in his analysis of the situation. Mr. Williams further argues that the United States needs to pull out of Iraq, and he admits that this little situation has probably hurt the way other nations look at the United States.
It was a grand idea. But somewhere along the way we were misled by the image of the middle east we wanted, instead of the middle east that exists. Iraqi citizens are not waving American flags. They are strapping bombs to themselves just for the opportunity to detonate a few American servicemen with them.
The deterioration of Iraq serves as an unmistakable reminder of the flawed manner in which we carried out this mission. A global democracy works only when countries trust one another.
I wonder how other conservative commentators, like, say, Ann Coulter, will respond?
This cheerful news comes to us via Michael Barone's latest article, in which he references a number of recent articles which suggest that Social Classes may be becoming more hardened. Mr. Barone, suprisingly, does not dispute the core premise of this article. Instead he, more or less, argues that there's nothing wrong with this. Which is, I have to admit, a refreshingly honest approach.
Meritocracy may mean less mobility, but that is bearable if, as Brooks says, "America is becoming more virtuous."It is comforting to know that Mr. Barone and Mr. Brooks, both wealthy columnists are willing to bear a certain lack of mobility. And, I could be wrong, but isn't there something a little bit patronizing saying it's ok to have lots of people struggling to get by if we can get them to be more virtuous?
Sunday, August 14, 2005
Hi everybody! : )
We've updated the Format but we are trying to get the Monster to pick a quote and he's having a hard time making up his mind.
So as soon as narrows it down, we will update the quotes page and the quote. Anyway enjoy the new format till then.
Saturday, August 13, 2005
That Monster Roar of Pride at another successful week here at Make me a commentator!!! Monster do week in review feature to tell you what people say.
Space Lobster answered e-mails and comments. Space Lobster very strange.
Irwin J. McIckleson did weekly round the horn where he look at other blogs and say what good about them!
Bryant wrote these articles;
A Return to Racism, about article on multiculturalism.
This may be the Most important Post you'll read all day, about Democratic Party should help working man.
Can't We All Just Get Along, about Dennis Prager and fighting over values.
Band Name, about Inexplicable Monkeys.
We've Got The Whole World In our Hands, about Ben Shapiro and imperialism.
Ode to Ann Coulter, about Marvin Olasky's liking Ann Coulter.
Cheery wrote these articles;
A Comment, which was response to Return to Racism by Bryant.
Please Don't Shoot Each Other, about person getting killed in Kentucky over war beliefs.
Long Hot Summer Days, in praise of woman Monster thinks is brave.
Grumbly wrote these articles;
Words Matter, about the changing terms for war on terror.
Cindy Sheehan - Political Operative, about how brave woman standing up to President Bush is a political operative.
Wouldn't it be Wonderful, about quote by Rush Limbaugh.
Monster say this be good! And Monster Say Next week be Even Better!!!
Friday, August 12, 2005
Good morning all. It's time for another edition of Round the Horn, where I act as your computo-guide to the denizens of the Liberal Coalition. I am Irwin J. McIckleson, fictional 1910's plutocrat.
First up is an extended and impassioned post by Pseudo Adrienne at Echidne of the Snakes. I don't fully understand it, but if I am reading it correctly this Roberts person who is being considered for a seat on the Supreme Court willingly defended some roustabouts who blew up a medical facility that performed abortions? This puts me in mind of those lawyers down south who make their money defending lynch mobs (in the few instances where such cases actually make it to the courts). I appreciate the principle that everybody is entitled to a lawyer (except the chinaman of course), but I don't think such lawyers need to be rewarded with high positions.
firedoglake presents an example of a responsible lawyer in Fitzgerald, who is going after this Rove scoundrel. It's interesting that this lawyer is apparently in some danger of being fired for pursuing criminals while another lawyer and judge is to be rewarded for defending them. In my day we liked our judges to go after the criminals, but perhaps the modern world has changed.
Pen-Elayne on the Web has some thoughts on the proper way to react to a death. I usually send a ham in condolence myself. Or, if I didn't like the deceased, I send nothing, but make a special late night visit to the grave site.
rubber hose makes some interesting points about how the war in Iraq is being covered. Apparently the paper of record believes a chinaman's restaurant to be of greater import than the forced replacement of the mayor of Bagdhad.
Scrutiny Hooligans has the story that some of the people involved in project Minutemen which purports to protect the boarders of the United States are what is known as Nazis which is the ideology held by the leader of Germany and his party from 1933 to 1945. Apparently the philosophy stuck around and is still in the United States. I have to say it seems like a particularly senseless philosophy. At any rate some of these minute men are apparently in favor of this Nazi philosophy.
Speedkill has a long discussion (several in fact) on a book by a Christian Apologist. He appears to be a rationalist, and so takes issue with some of the arguments made by the Christian Apologist.
THE NEWS BLOG has what I take to be an allegorical story about recent changes in the world of television news. Apparently there are a lot of royal attitudes in the news rooms which I find sickening. While I've dined with royalty regularly and enjoyed it frequently, the royal attitude has no place in America. Here those who have power, like myself, acquire it by crushing the workers under their heels themselves. They do not get their power because their great great grandfathers crushed some peasants.
The Invisible Library has news that prisoners in our Caribbean prison are enjoying that Harry Potter book I found reference to last week. Apparently it has the power to sooth the wounded heart.
And that's all for this week. I apologize if I am a bit off - suffering from a summer cold and it's been two weeks since I was able to fire anybody. At any rate, I will return next week with more links from the world of baffling future blogs.
Good morning all! : - )
Hope you are all having a nice Friday morning. I was just perusing Rush Limbaugh's site when I came across this quote.
Wouldn't it be great if anybody who speaks out against this country to kick them out of the country? Anybody that threatens this country, kick 'em out. We'd get rid of Michael Moore and half the Democratic Party if we would just import that law. That would be fabulous, the Supreme Court ought to look into this. Absolutely brilliant idea.Well I do agree that some people could choose their words a little more carefully Rush. That said I'm not sure people who express un-American ideas like, say, kicking out all the people who disagree with their political views, should be kicked out. Certainly the principles of Freedom of speech which have guided our country for the last 200+ years can continue to guide us?
Just a thought.
Thursday, August 11, 2005
Hello everybody! : )
Out in the hot Texas sun is Cindy Sheehan, trying to ask President Bush a few questions about why we are in Iraq and why her son had to give her life for this war, which seems, more and more, to have been a mistake.
Sheehan is part of a small group of parents who have lost children in Iraq and hate the war. There is a much larger group of parents who believe that Bush is doing everything he can and that he couldn't have anticipated an insurgency whose bombs and members would grow more sophisticated and deadly by the day. For them, their children's deaths were not in vain and most have disdain for all who hold the other view.I have to admit to feelings of concern over this story. While I think Ms. Sheehan is very brave and I admire her, I worry that President Bush may use some of those mothers who still support the war to attack Ms. Sheehan. I also am not sure if the American people are going to support her trying to ruin his vacation.
Members of Sheehan's tiny Gold Star Families for Peace believe that the president was wrong and is now clueless about what to do. They have stepped into the abyss of regret and senselessness that comes with knowing a child died for a mistake.
That said, if this is what she needs to do, if these are the questions that she needs to ask, than we need to support her. And certainly we can help puncture some of the ridiculous attacks that the right wing is throwing at her.
But show business pulls us in the opposite direction: Fighting words sell. Ann Coulter, for example, says people don't respond to subtle reasoning and need to be bopped on the head.But there's more to Ms. Coulter than just slamming into liberals. Apparently she also believes in the saving power of Jesus Christ.
She's probably right: Rapid-fire attacks keep people awake.
But the columnist has another side that a former student of mine, Amy McCullough, caught in describing a Coulter appearance at the University of Texas: "When a young, conservative woman asked how she could stand the awful things people said about her because of her stand on abortion, she hesitated, messed with her hair, and said: 'Well, it's the same way I don't care about anything else: Christ died for my sins, and nothing else matters.'"
You know I pretty much agree with Ann that Christ's sacrifice is pretty darn important. On the other hand I would also place some importance in following his commands. Christs sacrifice doesn't excuse us from following his words; rather following his words allows us to better understand and accept his sacrifice.
So consider these words from the Bible.
Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice:I would not put it on myself to judge the state of Ann Coulter's soul. If she has felt to commune with God; that is good. I would merely point out a contrast between the harsh and hateful words of Ann Coulter and the admonitions one finds in the Bible.
And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you. - Ephesians 4:31-32
Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. - Matthew 5:21-22
If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man's religion is vain. - James 1:26
Mr. Olasky also seems aware of this conflict, incidentally.
How would the apostles act in today's culture? How, for that matter, would 18th century members of the religious right like Samuel Adams and Patrick Henry? Coulter can join that distinguished host as she finds more ways to rout liberal stereotypes without fulfilling others.I have my personal doubts that she would(for one thing I still think, protestations aside, that it's all about the benjamins for Ms. Coulter), but certainly it would be nice if Ms. Coulter took a higher road.
Wednesday, August 10, 2005
Since the death of the Soviet Union, we are unquestionably the world's only superpower, the world's remaining empire. Acquiring an empire requires a different mindset than maintaining and expanding one. Empires either decline or they grow. If America is to survive and flourish, Americans must realize that empire isn't a choice: It's a duty.This is from Ben Shapiro's latest. Shapiro goes on to call for the US to invade Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt, and Pakistan (as well as "others"). I know that's not very believable. Surely even young Ben couldn't be that bloodthirsty and jingoistic (not to mention unrealistic). But I don't know how else you read this paragraph.
That is why impatient isolationism serves us ill in Iraq. Did Iraq pose an immediate threat to our nation? Perhaps not. But toppling Saddam Hussein and democratizing Iraq prevent his future ascendance and end his material support for future threats globally. The same principle holds true for Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt, Pakistan and others: Pre-emption is the chief weapon of a global empire.
So, there you have it. Of course young Ben is only speaking for himself. Doubtless there are many who would disagree with this crazy plan.