Monday, October 31, 2005

format adjustment






Just made a slight format adjustment.

Made a second format adjustment because I screwed up the blog doing my first format adjustment.

Monday Mail Bag (and gossip)



Hi everybody.

Cheery's announcement was pretty sparse yesterday so I thought I would fill you in on why Grumbly Muffin is no longer with us. We had our third year anniversary party on Friday (the date of our anniversary). Cheery had arranged for it to be at Chao's Dynasty, which is really quite a good Chinese Place. She requested no Lobster be served (which was a nice tough) and she arranged for Gazelle to be provided. Have you ever had General Tso's Gazelle?

You probably don't want to.

Anyway, she also arranged for plenty of champagne. Bryant ended up slipping out early. He's not really a party person, and he doesn't drink (he's Mormon, I think). So after he left, Grumbly started getting chatty. Among other things, she started with "Bryant has run this website into the ground and is addicted to failure," before moving onto "Cheery is a useless crybaby," and "Space Lobster makes no sense" (I suppose in retrospect I should have been upset as well, but I was kind of marinated at that point, and didn't really understand what Grumbly was saying.), before getting to "The Monster smells funny and doesn't give a damn about the website."

Well that didn't go over very well with the Monster.

The Monster said that he did care about the website and roared. Incidentally the Chinese spices improved his breath slightly, which gives you some indication of how his breath usually is. Anyway The Monster fired Grumbly on the spot unless Grumbly wanted to challenge his dominance through combat. Grumbly laughed in the Monsters face and said that she quit and she stomped out.

Incidentally, Grumbly was dressed hideously. She had like a blue blouse and tight red slacks. I think it was supposed to be patriotic. But the blouse was almost a teal? And in the yellow restaurant lights she just looked, well, she didn't look good.

Anyway in the silence that followed, Cheery said that Grumbly had a point; the Monster was gone for months at a time. So The Monster fired Cheery, but took it back when she started crying. Shortly after that I passed out, so can't really tell you what else happened. I do know that Saturday afternoon Bryant, Cheery, and The Monster sat down and started talking. Cheery is being moved to promotions and website design. I don't know exactly what Cheery is going to do as far as promotions go, but hopefully something. Bryant will be the only regular commentator. Me and McIckleson (who failed to attend the party, being fictional and all) will continue to fulfill our duties. The Monster is going to write a weekly travel column (yeah, we'll see how that goes). And we are going to have a new member of the staff in a few days. Well two actually. But I'm not allowed to say what happened.

I can note that Puke got a job at a real estate agency right down the street from where we are. I can also tell you her real name is Ashley. So if you ever see her, call her Ashley. It really torques her off. And Jean-Louis Crowley has accepted an offer to tour in the Ukraine and the Baltic States. He's also working on a remake of the classic song "Transylvania 6500." So that might give you a clue.

Anyway on to the mail bag and comments contents.

The first comment comes from A Christian Prophet, who has
a website. He was responding to a post by Bryant on the Miers nomination.
It seems that Harriet Miers has already been defeated. See The Christian Prophet blog.
This was predicted well before Miers withdrew, so point for accuracy. On the other hand the Christian Prophet's blog is pink, so seems less reputable. I don't know much about Christianity but I do know they favor manly colors like Blue and Brown and Black. Pink? Not so much.

In the mail bag we have a letter from Mrs. Kathy Olds of South Africa.
As a widow, I am saddled with the responsibility of seeking a genuine and an honest person who will assist us in investing this money in a highly profit yeilding ventures without the knowledge of my country(Zimbabwe)government who are bent on taking everything my late husband had afterconfiscating all his farmlands and investments in Zimbabwe
Have I got an highly profit yielding investment for you. Evil. Yes investing in evil can pay off in the short term and in the long term. Take my plan to conquer the world and crush my enemies in my mighty pincers? Now on the face of it that sounds like a bad thing. But I would have a positive impact on the economy. All the unemployed could be busy making statues of me. Think of it. Thousands of hands, no idle, making wonderful lobster statues.

But, as previously discussed, I have no bank account.

Anyway that's it for another week - hope you all enjoy yourselves.

The Alito Files

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.

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.
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.

Sunday, October 30, 2005

New Format, new Quote






Hi all. We have a new quote and a new format and a new Quotes Page.

Also we want to inform you that Grumbly Muffin is no longer associated or affiliated with Make Me a Commentator!!!

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.

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.

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.




New Commentator

Who should join the Make Me a Commentator Staff?
Puke
Jean-Louis Crowley
Durango
The Post Modernist






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 The Monster



Q. So I understand you run this website?

Monster. Yes. Monster be in charge. That be Monster's way; he natural leader.

Q. So that must be a lot of hard work.

Monster. Monster no work. Monster make Cheery and others do work. Monster just in charge.

Q. But you have to make decisions.

Monster. Monster approve stuff. When Cheery get in touch with Monster. Cheery very busy person like talk a lot. Monster not carry his cellphone most of the time.

Q. So what do you do.

Monster. Monster like travel. Monster just return from Denmark. Monster have picture.



Q. Oh. Did you like it there?

Monster. Monster like it ok. Monster also visit Emerald Fangolia, which monster like better. Pretty waters. And monster visit New York.



Q. Oh yes, I gather you are voting for Durango or the Post Modernist with Random Goblin?

Monster. No. Cheery explain it not fair for me to vote. Monster not understand explanation, but Cheery keep talking so Monster say he agree. Monster agree a lot that way. Monster like Durango and Post Modernist and Random Goblin, but monster not allowed to vote.

Q. Oh. So where do you see Make me a Commentator!!! in the future?

Monster. Monster no know. Maybe monster make it a steak house. Monster like steak. Gazelle steak. Monster read where there restaurants selling ostrich burgers so maybe monster make Gazelle Steak House.

Q. That would be a real switch from what you do now.

Monster. Monster think Gazelle steak house good idea. Monster think others follow him cause he is in charge.

An Interview with Irwin J. McIckleson



Q. So you are Irwin J. McIckleson, Fictional 1910's Plutocrat?

McIckleson. That's correct.

Q. So you are fictional?

McIckleson. Yes.

Q. What does that mean?

McIckleson. I'm fabricated. I was made up by Bryant, I believe, and I have no reality outside of my appearances on this blog.

Q. Does it hurt being fictional?

McIckleson. You should know, you are just as fictional as I am.

Q. Yes, but I don't have a personality.

McIckleson. Fair enough. Fictional or not, I know who I am and what I am. So I have that to stand on.

Q. What are you?

McIckleson. I am a man of will. I have created an impressive business empire, and I control the lives of thousands. I did it because I chose to. Life is a simple matter of imposing your will on reality. It is always a struggle because others will try to force their wills as well. But if you are determined and forceful, you will emerge victorious.

Q. What do you think the future of this website is?

McIckleson. It will continue to thrive and grow.

Q. Really?

McIckleson. Yes. This website will struggle. Life is struggle. But it will overcome. There is a strength of will here that will hold things together. A certain will to succeed. I don't know whether everybody here will remain affiliated with the website. But the core people will continue to thrive.

Q. Despite the low numbers and the value of the Blog being zero and very few people participating in
the promotional events?

McIckleson. That's all meaningless.

Q. Really?

McIckleson. This blog is a statement; the value of the blog is in making the statement. Whether or not the statement is heard or not is irrelevant. If I do a 'Round the Horn' feature, I do it for myself. I give not a moments thought to anybody who might read my words. [pause] The important thing is to speak, not to be heard.

Q. But if you speak and nobody listens what does it accomplish?

McIckleson. There are two things that exist. You and everybody else. But the only thing you know for sure exists is yourself. Attempting to change the universe, may not change the universe. But it will certainly change you. And that is what matters.

Q. You are more philosophical than I imagined.

McIckleson. Thank you.

Q. And for the
question of the day, who do you like to join the Make Me a Commentator Staff?

McIckleson. I like Durango, at least half of him. He has a fine tenor voice, and his singing is very melodic. Of course his more . . . rough side will be interesting, but I guess it's a package deal. We will handle it.

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.

An Interview with Cheery Jetson






Q. So, Ms. Jetson, where do you think Make me a Commentator!!! is going?

Cheery Jetson. I think it's done great in the past and it's going to do great in the future. There's really nowhere to go but up. We have a great set of commentators and a great . . . format. I just am 100% optimistic about the future.

Q. Really? There have been some other on the staff who have expressed different views.

Cheery Jetson. Well there are some negative nellies on the staff I know; great writers who contribute a lot. But they tend to look at life in a glass half-empty kind of way. I'm not like that; I think it's better to be positive. Even when there are challenges.

Q. What sort of challenges do you see the website facing?

Cheery Jetson. I think it's a content challenge. I think we have an attractive look (most weeks anyway), and I think we are able to hold peoples attention for a little bit. We are able to get a first look; but that doesn't seem to translate into repeat viewership or into a more indepth look. I think that's why the reaction to the contest has been a little less than I would have hoped for.

Q. Is that frustrating to you?

Cheery Jetson. Not really. I mean I would have liked to have seen more participation; but the contest is barely half over. I'm sure other people will eventually vote, and in large numbers.

Q. So you are hopeful about the future of this site?

Cheery Jetson. Completely!

Q. Some of the others have alluded to you being sad about what is going on?

Cheery Jetson. Well I am not the easiest person to read. Possibly I was just a bit emotional thinking of how well we are doing. And there is a bit of stress setting up our anniversary party, which will be tomorrow afternoon. The Monster has ordered me to spare no expense, so it should be very enjoyable. [pause] I'm bringing Pictionary.

Q. Do you like the people you work with?

Cheery Jetson. Oh yes. They are all great. I mean Grumbly and I might disagree on politics, but in general I really feel lucky to work with such a neat group of people.

Q. So you have no complaints?

Cheery Jetson. None whatsoever.

Q. So who do you think should be the next commentator?

Cheery Jetson. I like them all, actually. That Puke is a live wire, but I'm sure we could adjust to her. And the others all seem very nice. I guess I've felt a bit of a connection to Ms. Maple Roberts, secretary to the Post-Modernist? But I like them all.

An Interview with Space Lobster



Here is the second of our six interviews with members of the staff.

Q. So what do you think your role is here at Make me a Commentator!!!?

Space Lobster. I answer the mail in the Monday Mail Bag. [long pause] That's pretty much it.

Q. What do you think of the website?

Space Lobster. I don't really read it that much, other than in while I'm responding to letters. Politics isn't really my thing. I'm more into crushing people with my mighty Pincers or ruling the world or galaxy.

Q. Do you think this website has much of a future?

Space Lobster. I really couldn't say. I know there's some question about that around the office. Cheery has certainly been emotional the last couple of days; and she would know. [pause] I've gone through this before so I'm a bit better prepared than some of the others.

Q. What do you mean?

Space Lobster. Well the Adventures of Captain Starfaller was nearly cancelled in the middle of the first season, and I was put on suspension in the middle of the second season and nearly fired. And of course we were eventually taken off the air at the end of the fourth season.

Q. So do you think this situation is similar?

Space Lobster. Well I don't know. I know that our hits are up. We are due to break 3,000 hits this month for the first time. On the other hand that's very low compared to a lot of other websites, and the number of people who stick around who visit the site regularly seems to be limited to a very few. [pause] I think there's also a lot of emphasis being placed on the artifical date of three years. Cheery and Bryant have placed too much emphasis on this anniversary.

Q. I gather they believe it worth celebrating.

Space Lobster. Cheery thinks it's worth celebrating. She's a very traditional sort of person; when an anniversary comes around you celebrate. I dont' know I think it's worth noting, but this is all too much. Rather we should be focused on doing each post as good as we can do it. Make it funny or make it insightful or whatever.

Q. And that's what you try to do?

Space Lobster. Well when I'm
not hung over. Or upset that I lost a part.

Q. Changing the subject, do you have any favorites among the
four potential candidates to appear at this site?

Space Lobster. I like Jean-Louis Crowley. I went and saw him in Amsterdam a couple of years ago - he was very good. Very silky singer. I don't know how good he would be at commentating but I'm curious.

Q. So if he wins you'll start reading the blog?

Space Lobster. Probably not. But you never know.

An Interview with Grumbly Muffin






For the interest of those interested, we will be presenting a series of interviews with the members of the staff here at Make Me a Commentator!!!

Q. I understand today's interviews have special relevance to you, Ms. Grumbly Muffin?

Grumbly. Yes they do actually. My first appearance on this website was to conduct an interview with Bryant about the website. I gather he felt the original mission statement wasn't as applicable as it had been and he wanted to have something that said what the purpose of website was.

Q. So what do you consider your role at Make Me a Commentator!!! I mean, you are the conservative on the staff; what does that mean?

Grumbly. Well that's just it; I provide a conservative counterpoint to the bizarre ramblings of our more liberal scribes. I provide an alternative. You see the thing about Liberalism is that it doesn't hold together intellectually. It can't.

Q. When you talk about bizarre ramblings, you mean Bryant's posts?

Grumbly. Well I don't like to say. But certainly Cheery doesn't do many political posts anymore and the others are pretty non-political, so . . .

Q. What do you see as the future of this website?

Grumbly. I'm not sure it has one. I think that ironically by allowing me and Grumbly [Cheery?] to post here, the former management may have doomed this site. If readers come here looking for liberal content and they read what I have to say, well, it's unpleasent. Liberals don't like being confronted with the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of their position. On the other hand, this is still predominently a liberal website; me being here isn't going to be enough to draw in any Conservative. Particularly since they aren't interested in promoting me.

Q. Why do you think that is?

Grumbly. I can speculate, but I don't know for sure. I have a very forthright manner; I call a spade a spade and I call liberalism the product of diseased minds. Naturally that offends some of my coworkers.

Q. But you think the writing is on the wall for the website.

Grumbly. Could be. You saw the post earlier this week about the value of this website. It didn't bother me that much, but it clearly shook up some of the others.

Q. Why wouldn't it bother you?

Grumbly. Liberal commentary, being morally and intellectually empty, has no value. And even if it had value, there's certainly plenty of it around. Frankly if every liberal website but say Atrios and Talking Points Memo and the Huffington Post and CorrenteWire and firedoglake dissappeared, how much would we really miss the rest?

Q. Well presumably you wouldn't miss even those websites.

Grumbly. [chuckles] Oh I like looking at liberal websites; it always amuses me.

Q. So you don't see much of a future for Make Me a Commentator!!!?

Grumbly. You know, you should never say never; but my gut tells me another month, maybe two, and the Monster will pull the plug. There's just no future in this site. That will be kind of rough for the new guy, who ever he ends up being.

Q. Speaking of which, who do you think should be the new commentator?

Grumbly. I like Puke, with some reservations. Her anger is pretty scattershot and she might end up a hardcore liberal (even more hardcore than Bryant). She was fun to watch though; she clearly took a bit of a dislike to Cheery. She put on some Black Flag, and started playing it really really loud. Cheery tried to get her to turn it down. It was interesting to watch. [chuckles] I don't think she has much of a chance though.

Wednesday, October 26, 2005

Crimes and Misdemenors



Hello. This is once again Maple Roberts, personal secretary to the person known as the Post-Modernist. Unfortunately he is still in Baja California. He was invited to go surfing with Picasso's Guernica (who was apparently behind the return of El Greco to semi-life). Mr. Niedenmaker believes it to be a trap, but he feels compelled to play the game through to the end. He has asked that in his absence that I review the article I was given, Ted Ralls "Why Bush Is Unimpeachable."

It's an interesting argument; Mr. Rall seems to believe that the rise of political parties was not forseen by the Founding Fathers. As he puts it, "Because there were no national political parties back in 1787, their otherwise ingenious system of checks and balances failed to account for the possibility that a Congress might choose to overlook a president's crimes." This is an interesting point; certainly the letter of the constitution is something both parties find easy to ignore when it suits them.

I suspect that President Bush may be an of an artistic temperment; he believes he can mold the world as it should be. In that scheme, anything that gets him going in the direction he wishes to go is worth it regardless of other effects of his actions.

At any rate those are my thoughts. Oh, and please vote in the contest below. Ms. Jetson seems almost in tears at the thought that many of you don't choose to participate. She's very pleasent in her own way, but she seems very needy as well.

Riding along the Yukon



It was cold. Damned cold.

Parker led me out in the woods to die. I knew it and he knew it, but he didn't say nothing. I drew my sidearm to put him down like the dirty dog he was, when I realized he was the only way i could survive out in these bitter woods. So I put away my gun and pulled out my bowie knife. It glistened the cold air as I turned to my old friend.

That's what I thought about when I read the John Stossel's article about a bridge to nowhere up in the Alaska territories. I recken the forcoes of civilization have got to put their tentacles everywhere. Lucky there are still cowpokes like John Stossel bringing their deeds to light. Seems a bunch of Republican banditos in Washington are stealing from the people and building monuments to themselves. There's only one language rotten folks like that understand.

Singing. Yes, even the onriest rattlesnake can be swayed by the power of a beautiful western ballad. Them Republicans might seem like tough critters, but they got kids and they got families and they got hearts; once they understand how their projects hurt us all, they'll surley put a stop to such foolishness. It's like I told my good buddy Parker when we was traipsin through the woods 'long the Yukon. A song always makes things better. He looked a might touched by the weather shivering and all, so I sang him "The Ballad of Polar Joe" and it perked him right up. And I think singing will work just as well on these Republicans.


Hey all - this is Cheery with a postscript - for information on who Durango is and what not, and to vote for him or one of our other contestents in the big contest, visit this post.

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.

Pushing






Hi all. Hope you are having a good day. : )

Tomorrow is our big anniversary day, but in the build up we do want to remind you of our contest, which will run till Monday. Hopefully seeing them respond to an article while help you make up your minds. Evidently a lot of you are having a hard time choosing between our four candidates (Puke, Jean-Louis Crowley, Durango, and The Post-Modernist), so we'd like to say that you can pick out more than one. If two strike your fancy, vote for two.

But please vote; kind of embarrasing to have a contest in which only two people participate. : {

Happiness is Good!



Bonjour Mes Amis.

As Puke eloquently if cruelly noted, we are each posting our own commentary on an article so as to give you a chance to decide which of us you want joining the staff of Make Me a Commentator (see
this post for details).

Anyway the one I've been given is by Will Durst called
Contract on America 2.1. It starts out very beautifully.
The calendar says the middle of Autumn, but for the Democrats it should be dead solid Springtime. As a group, I'm fairly flabbergasted they aren't spending all their spare time twirling and spinning and throwing spears of asparagus into a bonfire while wearing nothing but stringed acorn necklaces... or however it is that godless secularists make their sacrifices. For this should be a good time. One that calls for slow-motion skipping on the beach with bouquets of ribbons attached to helium balloons trailing in the breeze over their sun-kissed shoulders.
Isn't that a lovely image; people gathering to celebrate. Incidentally I would avoid throwing asparagus on a fire. Besides smelling bad, it would also call the attention of Abrilicon, the Dark Vegetable Lord who's hoary tentacles reach into every blade of grass.

But he goes on to complain that the Democrats aren't capitalizing on their enemies missteps. Rather they are stuck in the past; writing up a new Contract with America. Will Durst suggests several planks for this contract which reveal how much he despises them (2. The Stop Shooting Ourselves in the Foot Act . . . 7. The Stop Whining Already Act. . . . 10. The Never Run Another Effete Intellectual from Massachusetts for President Ever Again Act.). Durst, you need to be about building people up not tearing them down. Once you start tearing people down they aren't going to be as interested in what you have to say.

It's like when you are wooing une belle fille. You don't start with "Darling you really need to lose some weight." You start with her good qualities. Then when she is into you, you can take the next step. That's what you need to do here, in my opinion. There's so much anger and cynicism in the world; why not take a moment to smell the flowers?

I'm tired of Morons



Good morning, sub-literate Morons. Cheery has asked me to say that, in conjunction with the contest, me and the other finalists are going to be writing dumb-ass commentary in order to prove our worthiness to write for the readers of this website. So hurry up and vote or you'll get left behind. Cheery's words, not mine. She really needs some valium.

Anyway I'm just doing this cause in order to keep my unemployment I need to look for a job (which is total bullshit, by the way).

So they gave me
an article by this skank named Michelle Malkin. Michelle has written a book on why the Japanese internment was a good idea and she looks like the sort of person who looks down her nose a lot.

Michelle's pissed because we are about to see the 2,000 soldier die in Iraq. Not because she gives damn about soldiers dying, of course. Rather she's pissed because some in the anti-war movement are going to use that number to underline how costly this war has been. Michelle than lists off a lot of bullshit some anti-war protesters have done ("We support the troops when they shoot their officers." Crap like that). But of course she lies through her ass and implies that these few examples are the whole damn anti-war movement.

The truth is most of the anti-war movement is a bunch of cowards who are more worried about offending people than they are about protesting the war. A few freaks take more direct action, but most don't. Anyway the whole article is crap; sub-literate morons might enjoy it, though. So you should all go check it out, I guess.

Remember, don't
vote for me!

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.

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).

Contest

Hi Everybody!!!

Exciting news. We are starting a new contest and welcoming a new commentator into our little fold. We have decided to add a new feature - a catalogue of commentators. We reference commentator all the time you may be unaware of. Even worse, Bryant sometimes makes jokes based on previous posts, confusing many of his readers. How many of you have wondered why he sometimes calls Ben Shapiro "Boy Prognosticator?" Well this new feature will provide a brief review of what the commentator is all about, a few quotes, and a link to some favorite posts about that commentator.

Now obviously we will all have input into these columns, but to host them we want to get somebody new. We've narrowed it down to four possibilities, and we are going to ask our readers to help us make the final selection. But of course we don't expect our readers to work for free; so one person who votes in this poll will have their name drawn from a computer generated hat, and will win a free years subscription to the
website Salon. So without further ado here are our finalists.



Hey jerks.

I'd like to say at the outset that this website makes me sick. It reads like it was written by sub-literate morons; and having met them in person, let me say I'm being generous. I can only assume that most of the readers here are also sub-literate morons drawn by the pretty pictures and crap. Well let me tell you, life isn't that. Life is a pile of crap and it's nothing else. If you think you see something that isn't crap, well you probably need glasses. Anyway I don't really want this job so vote for one of these other jerks.




Bonjour Mes Amis.

I am Jean-Louis Crowley, traveling troubadour. I and my band, Les Haut-Bois (pronounced "Hot Boys") have performed across Europe and (briefly) in America, bringing our distinct blend of Folk, Rock, and Zithers anywhere where people will listen to us. We write songs that gently and tenderly hold your heart as if it were a flower, caressing it tenderly and then ripping it to shreds.


Also I have a deep dark family secret; but I won't be writing about that because it's too personal. I shouldn't have even brought it up, actuallement. But rest assured I will never mention it again.

Also despite a few bits of French slang, I'm from London.



Howdy partners.

Where I come from there's two types of cowpokes. There's the singing kind and the squinting kind. The singing kind sings songs and generally raises the spirits of all around. And squinting kind don't say much but shoots people dead. I reckon I'm one of them Singing Cowboys, but Doc Sawbones says I got me a head ailment.

Doc figures I'm both a singing cowboy and a squinting cowboy and I change randomly. So, unless you want to be six feet under, you'll mind your step with me. I don't give warnings and I don't miss and I like putting people down. I know I'm a bad man.

So anyway partners, let's all gather round and sing us some tunes.




Hello this is Maple Roberts, secretary to Mr. Alaistar Niedenmaker, also known as the Post Modernist. Unfortunately he has been called away and requested I make a short introduction on his behalf. He's busy fighting the Ghost of El Greco in a steel cage match somewhere in Baja California. What a bother!

Anyway Mr. Niedenmaker is a brilliant scientist, having had his brain amplified by an accident involving an electrical transformer and an unpublished sonnet by William Shakespeare. He is also a man of action, having been raised by Tree Frogs. So I'm sure he will be able to add a lot to your enjoyment of this website.

So those are our four possibilities. Please write the name or names of the ones you like best and either email them to us (politicalcombryant@gmail.com ) or leave them in the comments section. If you leave it in the comments section, be sure to leave an e-mail address so we can send you your prize if you win. Also we will be paying attention to those numbers that tell what computer you are using; only 2 votes per computer please.

Elitism






David Limbaugh, in his latest article, makes a spirited defense of his and others attacks on Harriet Miers. Apparently some have felt that the attacks on Harriet Miers have smacked of elitism.

Well first of all, what's wrong with elitism. Not a phony elitism based on snobbery and phoniness espoused by the left, of course. But an appropriate elitism, based on genuine achievement. Isn't that what we conservatives believe in? People who have succeeded deserve better; that's why I'm cool with Bill Gates living in splendor and Frank the Bum living in a cardboard box. At the end of the day they've both decided where they want to live through their actions. Harriet Miers is being rewarded for being a woman and for being close to President Bush, NOT for her legal accomplishments (which are, frankly, quite scant.

Anyway Limbaugh is pretty afraid of being called an elitist so he makes sure to remind us several times that he's not an elitist. He just thinks that the next Supreme Court Justice should be built upon solid ground.

The universe of potential justices who can be safely relied on to have given the subject enough thought to have unlearned the law school dogma is quite small. True, there may be untold numbers of potentially great originalist justices out there. But we have no way of knowing with the "stealth candidates," and there is simply no reason to take the risk when we don't have to.
Now I haven't fully made up my mind on Miers yet, but part of me thinks that surely one of the judges who do meet this high standard could also be counted on to see reason in the face of Islamo-Fascism.

Monday, October 24, 2005

Monday Mail Bag



Hi all. It's time for another look in our mail bag and comments bag (really there's just one bag).

Our first comment comes from ST Parker, responding to
a post by Cheery in which she argues that the Democrats shouldn't use legal methods to go after the Bush administration.
"If we don't like parties using the law to go after Clinton, we shouldn't use the law to go after Delay. "

Isn't that like saying we should either investigate everyone or investigate no one?
As a life long criminal genius and super villain, I am strongly in favor of investigating no one.

coturnix (of
Science and Politics) responded to McIckleson's blog around comments on the program to give kids pretend babies.
Well, I doubt that "acclimatize" is the best word - "scare-the-shit-out-of-them" may be more appropriate ;-)
I must admit, though, fear is a great motivator. Every time I surrendered to Captain Starfaller, and it was, unfortunately, a lot, it was because of fear.

Elayne Riggs (of
Pen-Elayne on the Web) writes in response to our Defenders Saturday feature.
You've GOT to stop doing this. My husband just went and fetched the comic in question. After, of course, identifying the penciller and inker on the basis of only looking at the two panels you repro'ed. Bryant, please, for the love of God, stop encouraging him!!
I am 100% in agreement with this. Why is Bryant wasting his time with old comic books when there are early children's TV shows like "Captain Starfaller and the Cosmic Crew" who don't have episode guides at all? Perhaps I could start my own.
Captain Starfaller and the Cosmic Crew Episode #1A02 "The Space Tyrant"

Plot Summary - Captain Starfaller and Jimmy visit an old friend, Astronomer Al who provides educational material on the Planet Mercury (It's Hot!). Suddenly Jimmy is whisked away the Lobsterian invasion force. Captain Starfaller springs into action, and after a daring flight through a meteor shower, he attacks the Space Lobster. Space Lobster proves to be a worthy adversary, but Captain Starfaller is able to drive him off with a Electronic Repulso-blast. Then Captain Starfaller and Jimmy sing a song about the planet Mercury (It's Hot!). The End.

Notable events. This is the first appearance of Space Lobster, long time Captain Starfaller villain. This is the first and only appearance of the Lobsterian Invasion Force (what a gyp!)

Continuity Errors. Space Lobster does not used his signature catch phrase in this episode ("I will Crush Captain Starfaller in my Mighty Pincers).
Hmmm. That wasn't so hard. I need to get some stills from the show.

Anyway this week sees a rare occurrence; a letter related to the blog (rather than to my bank account). Feast on this rarity in all it's glory.
E-Mail Title - Want great info on profiteering

E-Mail Text - The book-- "when The Pentagon Was For Sale"

Many Reagan people were found guilty of fraud.

clarence swinney
Thank you Mr. Swinney. I admit war profiteering is very evil, so I've been curious about it for a long time. But it all seems so complicated. Plus many big government types are uncomfortable having me in their office because they are afraid I will get mucus on their seats. But that's snails, not lobsters. At any rate I will certainly check out that book and see if it has any tips that can let me break into the evil and lucrative world of war profiteering.

Finally, what is a Monday Mailbag without somebody asking for my bank account information. And here one is from Issac Ani in Madrid, apparently.
I am contacting you to partner with me in respect of transfer of certain
funds, which is being held in a floating account in my organization,
Fountain Trust SA , in Madrid Spain.
Hmmmm. A floating account in a FountainTrust? Floating in a Fountain? Does that strike anybody else as just a little too convenient?

But the point is moot, as I do not have a bank account.

Anyway hope you have a nice week. Oh and Cheery wants me to mention that tomorrow we are announcing a big contest. So look forward to that.

Crony Capitalism

There's a story by Knight-Ridder about how the Army purchases equipment they need. Here's a selection.
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.

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.
So here's a question; how do you get to be a prime vendor?

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.

Sunday, October 23, 2005

New Format, new Quote






Hi all!!! :)

Another week, another format. This weeks quote comes from Mr. McIckleson who is very fond of Nietzche as you might have guessed by now. This is the last Nietzche quote however; unless he once again gets me to back down, as he has several times before.

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!”

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."

Round the Horn. An Irwin J. McIckleson Production



Hello all. This is fictional 1910's plutocrat Irwin J. McIckleson, and I'd like to say that I am not racist. Any man no matter what his creed or skin color or ethnicity who makes millions and millions of dollar I count as my brother. That's the thing about Plutocrats; so long as you have tons of money, all the other lesser qualities are quite unimportant.

Anyway on to the Liberal Coalition. Natalie Davis has
a discussion of Viggo Mortensen who is apparently unconnnected to the production of Italian Food. That's kind of a shame; with a name like Viggo he could do quite well as a restraunter, I should think. He is apparently some kind of movierola actor. Oh well, I suppose that society needs actors as well as restraunters.

correntewire reports that John Dean is of
the opinion that nobody will be in trouble over this whole Karl Rove revealing a spy for political purposes, because those involved in the revelation may have believed they were doing it for reasons of national security. It kind of reminds me of my great great uncle Silas W. McIckleson, 3rd New York artillery. During the war of 1812, he fired his cannons on his own troops (Uncle Silas was colorblind) because he believed it to be in the interest of national security. I understand that he was strung up for this particular error; but justice was a bit more rough and tumble in those days.

Dodecahedron
believes that this spy story and a law prohibiting torture may end badly for the President. But I think Dodecahedron may be thinking of the court of public opinion, and he may be right. The appearance of scandal is sometimes more damaging than the scandal itself.

Musings Musings also has
some thoughts on this Karl Rove blackguard's troubles with the law. Apparently some are suggesting that these charges are political in nature, Musings Musings believes that nobody should be above the law.

First Draft has
a post by Athenae about the safe way to criticize President Bush. Apparently there isn't one.

Liberty Street has
a rundown of some recent depressing stories. They are very troubling. She references two authors who write about the chaoticism of modern life; and suggests we may be living one of their works. The future is confusing, but I suppose every age has it's woes.

Science and Politics has
a story about a program to give youth life size baby automata in order to acclimatize them to the pressures of raising a child. It does seem like an unusual program; but future youth are apparently a bit more lusty than the youth in my time.

And that is it for another week; hope you all have enjoyable weekends.

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.

Who You Are






My name is Grumbly Muffin and I am a Conservative.

Despite being described as bigoted or hateful or homophobe or uncaring or greedy, I am still proud to identify myself as a Conservative.

That's not something Liberals are as proud to do. That's why they create such terms as Leftist or Progressive or "Moderate" to describe themselves. Cause Liberals aren't that popular, and Liberals don't like being unpopular. They don't have the courage of their convictions. And people can tell. I mean if your beliefs aren't worth standing up for and stating clearly, well people can figure that out.

It must be dawning on them that people are catching on to this little game; so David Sirota has written a
little article about how Liberals and Progressives aren't the same thing.
It seems to me that traditional "liberals" in our current parlance are those who focus on using taxpayer money to help better society. A "progressive" are those who focus on using government power to make large institutions play by a set of rules.
Did you get that? He goes on to say that Progressives also tend to favor government spending but Liberals do not want to take on Corporations (well except by taxing them to death, one presumes). This seems like a pretty fine point (kind of like the Difference between Conservatives and Libertarians; i.e. Libertarians want Conservative programs but don't want to get called names).

At any rate, whatever name Liberals choose to use, it's not going to hide their underlying emptiness.

Angry People






Hi Everybody! : )

How's your day going? Mine is going ok, except I'm a little miffed at
Jeanine Pirro, who's running against Hillary Clinton in New York.
During a speech to Chemung County Republicans on Tuesday night, Pirro continued her criticism of the Democratic-controlled state Assembly for its refusal to adopt legislation that would civilly confine violent sex offenders after their prison sentences end.

"That's a difference between Democrats and Republicans - we don't want them next door molesting children and murdering women," said the Westchester County prosecutor, according to Wednesday's Elmira Star-Gazette newspaper.
So I guess Democrats want murderers and child molesters next door? I can't for every Democrat, but that doesn't sound like something we'd want.

I'm not Hillary Clinton's biggest fan; it strikes me she's too confrontational. But with competition like this, well, she's starting to look a bit better.

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.
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.
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.

Why I Hate the "Sheeple"






Hi all!! : )

So why do I hate the Sheeple? Well first of all let me make it clear that I hate the word Sheeple, not what it refers to. Secondly, let me know that Walter E. Williams has triggered these thoughts with his latest article, "
A nation of sheeple." It's mostly about his opposition to the Bush plan of using the Military in emergencies on American soil. I'm frankly more worked up over the term Sheeple.

Sheeple is used to mean the mass of Americans or Humanity. In other words people just like you and me. It's used to indicate that most people are dull conformists as opposed to themselves (who are, I guess, special people, better than the rest of us). The thing is I've met thousands of people over the course of my life and not very many of them have really been dull conformists. I mean they might look like normal people, like conformists, but once you get to know them, there's usually some wired bits inside, that you discover if you get to know them.

At any rate, anybody who claims to want to help America and uses the term Sheeple, well, their commitment to the people who actually live here may not be all that strong.

Tuesday, October 18, 2005

Turnabout






Hi Everybody!! Hope you are having a great week! : )

I just finished an
interesting article about the current scandals in Washington and the Conservative Response to them. Of course we all remember the late 1990s when President Clinton was impeached. We all remember Conservatives being very upset about the rule of law and how it wasn't about the sex. But now they have different ideas.
An editorial in the latest issue of the conservative Weekly Standard is a sign of arguments to come. The editorial complains about the various accusations now being leveled against DeLay, Libby, Rove and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, and says that "a comprehensive strategy of criminalization had been implemented to inflict defeat on conservatives who seek to govern as conservatives."

I have great respect for my friends at The Weekly Standard so I think they'll understand my surprise and wonder over this new conservative concern for the criminalization of politics.
I kind of agree that it's silly for Conservatives to get upset about their own candidates getting investigated; but I do think we liberals should be consistent. If we don't like parties using the law to go after Clinton, we shouldn't use the law to go after Delay.

Save the Rich






I note with little surprise that Neal Boortz is in trouble for the ghastly crime of MAKING SENSE. Liberals, you see, are anti-thought and pro-emotion. So when someone like Neal Boortz sits down and thinks rationally about what our societal priorities should be in the face of a disaster, well, it infuriates Liberals.
You see, that's the kind of thing that's going to end up in news stories: "Neal Boortz said that in times of disaster we should save the rich people first." Well, hell, yes, we should save the rich people first. You know, they're the ones that are responsible for this prosperity. I mean, you go out there and you look at this vast sea of evacuees, OK? You want to get an economy going in some city? Well, who you gonna take back? The people who own businesses? Or the people that sit around waiting to get their minimum wage job, work 'til Friday, get a paycheck and then not show up again until the following Wednesday?
See that's the thing Liberals hate admitting; poor people pretty much DESERVE to be poor. If they deserved to be wealthy, well they would work hard and contribute to society. Instead they sit around and waste time, and they get what they deserve.

I also like how Mr. Boortz deflates the Liberal myth of the "working poor." Yeah a lot of poor people have jobs. But do they do them? Are they dependable? Do they serve the customer well? Do they actually show up a full 40 hours a week? Well you can answer that question yourself.

The truth is we are always going to have poor people. I'm going to really offend liberals now; I'm going to quote scripture. In Matthew 26:11, it reads, "For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always." That seems very clear to me; we are basically going to have poor people with us, or, to be more clear, we are going to have people who choose to be poor with us always.

I sometimes wonder if Liberals well-meaning efforts to eliminate poverty are in fact an offense to God. Jesus said we will always have poverty; can Liberals succeed in pitting their might against God?

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.
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!"

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.
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.