Did You Know?

The perfect kiss is dry as sand and doesn't take your breath
The perfect kiss is with the boy that you've just stabbed to death

According to the Beautiful South, at any rate. Who may have been joking.

I am the Greetest

You Passed 8th Grade Math

Congratulations, you got 10/10 correct!

Could You Pass 8th Grade Math?

Now I am leaving Earth for no raisin!

Who is to Blame?

Dennis Prager's latest article is all about how Liberals and Conservatives look at wrong doing. According to Prager, Conservatives blame the wrong-doer; Liberals blame the victim or the situation.

This is not true.

Prager makes reference the fact that many liberals have criticized Israel's policies in regard to Palestine or France's assimilation policies or the choice of European papers to print offensive cartoons. This is the same as blaming the victim, in Pragers mind.

What Prager neglects to mention, because it doesn't fit his thesis, that almost all of these articles in questions contain some variation on the phrase "Of course, none of this excuses those who commit violent acts."

But to make sure there is no confusion, allow me to say I think terrorism is bad. And I think rioting is bad.

But I think willfully refusing to analyze why such crimes might occur is just as bad. Sticking to a simplistic "terrorists are evil and that's all you need to know" theory is a recipe for suicide, and this is the path that Prager urges.

This is why Conservatives can't be trusted on National Security.

Keep Moving

This is an inspirational video. It is exceedingly inspirational.

Every Character has Someone Who Likes Him or Her or It

I should have just titled this "Everybody's Got Something To Hide (Except for Me and My Monkey)" and been done with it.

Anyway reading Comic Book Resources rundown of the New York Comic Con this last weekend. Lots of interesting stuff, but what strikes me is that most panels seem to take a gratuitous shot at a character nobody gives a crap about. Maybe it's Speedball. Maybe it's Golden Age DC characters.

The problem is that every comic book character has fans, even the ones that I think are really lame. Rocket Raccoon has fans. Shining Knight has fans. Werewolf by Night has fans (and I'm one of them). And most of those fans think that "If the comic was done right, it would sell."

I just can't think it would be very pleasant for a fan of character X to hear creators, the ones that Marvel and DC trot out to represent themselves, to hear those creators making lame jokes about how lame their favorite character is (and very few of these jokes rise above "Character X is soooo lame.")

Anyway just something that crossed my mind. If you are interested in what is coming up for the Marvel and DC Universes, though, it's still worth reading.

Even More Conservative Commentary on the Port Deal

Diana West isn't so keen on the port deal.

Well, one overwhelming reason is that it was spawn of the Middle East, not Great Britain, that hijacked four American passenger planes on Sept. 11, 2001. And it was United Arab Emirates, not Great Britain, that served as a financial and operational base for the Sept. 11 hijackers (two of whom came from UAE), and a hub for Pakistan's rogue nuclear export business. As Great Britain is Islamized, the distinction narrows; for now, it's reason enough to hold a UAE company to that "different standard." But such evidence -- and there's more -- is obvious; hardly the stuff of great debates. The fact that the president even begs the question is what requires deeper consideration.

Bush threatens to veto any legislation drafted against the port sale. Why? The only explanation I can think of -- and it spells disaster -- is that George W. Bush has decided that international feelings trump national concerns; that upsetting the UAE is worse than upsetting Americans: "I am trying to conduct a foreign policy now by saying to the people of the world, `We'll treat you fairly,'" he said. Fairly? That's how you treat people after the war, not while the outcome remains undecided.

Of course one chilling thing about the current War on Terror is that it's not really expected to end. So I gather we won't be dealing with the Muslim World for quite a while.

Robert Novak, on the other hand, is in favor of the Port Deal. And of pointing out the political opportunism of the Democrats in congress.

. . . deeper problems are reflected by overwhelming public opposition to a company owned by the government of a close Arab ally operating U.S. ports. Polls suggest the darker side of the American mind: isolationist, protectionist, nativist and xenophobic. Bush's ceaseless efforts to rouse his countrymen to support the war against terrorism may have unleashed the dogs of anti-Arab prejudice.

The firestorm over whether Dubai Ports World should be permitted to replace a British company in control of U.S. ports is unexpected largesse for Democrats, desperate to regain control of Congress this year. Left-wing Democrats led by Schumer and Sen. Hillary Clinton seek the opportunity to trump Bush and the Republicans on their strong suit of national security.

Armstrong Williams goes a step further, to comment on the growth of American racism against Arab Americans.

This new strain of anti-Arab racism is exemplified by the hubbub that greeted the United Arab Emirates plan to take over shipping operations at six U.S. ports. The operations had previously been rented out to a British navigation company. No one had a problem with that. Nor does anyone have a problem with ports being rented to other countries, which they are. Legislators are only exhorting the President to block Arabs from taking over operations at the ports. To his credit, the president has said those who oppose putting the United Arab Emirates in charge of operations need to "step up and explain why a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard."

Williams does not see fit to comment on how his fellow Conservative Commentators (people like Ann Coulter or Cal Thomas) have fed this racism to the best of their abilities. Larry Kudlow takes a similar tack in his article, laying the problem completely at the feet of Democrats and calling the hullabaloo a symptom of Islamophobia.

Kathleen Parker responds to this line of defense in her article opposing the sale of the ports.

That distant thunder you hear is the sound of thousands of harrumphing pundits and politicians clearing their throats.

"Ah, what we really meant to say was that we love all G-d's people, but we'd really rather not have Middle Easterners managing our ports. If it's not too much trouble."

But trouble it is to admit what's really got Americans in high dudgeon over the pending sale of shipping operations at six major U.S. ports to the United Arab Emirates (UAE). It's not just the sale itself, but the Bush administration's apparent lack of respect toward American citizens concerning a business deal that at least seems untimely and counterintuitive.

David Limbaugh straddles the fence on this one, which is odd since his brother has been so supportive of the deal.

On the other hand, there are legitimate reasons to be skeptical of this deal and to urge that we err on the side of caution in these dangerous times. It is not just xenophobes and bigots who recognize that all of the Sept. 11 hijackers were Muslims, two of which came from the UAE, that Palestinian Muslims danced in the street upon the news of the murders, that terrorist activities in Iraq and elsewhere around the world are overwhelmingly committed by Muslims, and that we see so little condemnation from "moderate" Muslims of suicide bombings and other atrocities repeatedly perpetrated by Islamic terrorists.

. . . I'm not yet completely convinced we should oppose this transfer for security reasons, but I'm confident it raises sufficient red flags that we ought to take more time to scrutinize before finally deciding.

So let's tally them up (so far)

In favor of the Port Deal - Stuart Rothenberg, Tony Snow, Oliver North, Robert Novak, Armstrong Williams, Larry Kudlow,
Opposed to the Port Deal - Ann Coulter, Kathleen Parker, Cal Thomas, Charles Krauthammer, Robert Spencer, Diana West,
On the Fence - David Limbaugh
Disinterested - Tim Chapman

So that's 6 in favor and 6 opposed with 2 abstaining. Looks like they haven't got this one figured out quite yet. It is interesting that the braniacs who stress about economic issues seem to be in favor of this deal while those rubes who are more concerned with social issues are opposed.

Defenders Saturday (A Day Late)

Once again, this is the second of three parts of Marvel Comics Presents the Defenders, because this story is so strange. Actually this middle part makes a bit more sense than the first part, but the third part will ramp up the wackiness factor again.

When last we met, Xemnu (from the Magic Planet) had a crappy TV show and was saying he was going to take the children of earth with him. Well one of those kids is none other than Jim Wilson (young black kid who is friends with the Hulk). General Thunderball Ross who’s kind of like Grandpa when he’s not obsessed with the Hulk switches the program off and says it’s crap. Jim agrees and realizes that he needs to talk to someone arrogant. So he goes out and heads down to Greenwich Village to talk to an annoying cabbie.

But then Dr. Strange shows up. It turns out that Dr. Strange has a TV set (presumably he mostly watches cooking shows on it). Jim notes that the TV is set to Xemnus show and explains that he, for a moment, wanted to go with Xemnu back to the Magic Planet. And frankly, who wouldn’t. Anyway Dr. Strange looks pensive, but we are spared a long explanation of his thoughts by the miracle of a cut.

Let’s check back in with our astronaut buddies. They are still jerks. Then the Hulk shows up with Jim Wilson and says “Hulk wants to come on your SHOW - - make the world see he’s NOT as bad as they THINK.” The two astronauts realize that having the hulk on the show could be incredibly dangerous, but then realize that the Hulk rarely does much more than property damage and so say “Sure” Jim Wilson and the Hulk exit (by means of a flying carpet), and, in a nearby ally, the Hulk transforms into Dr. Strange. Jim Wilson says that they will return to the studio in four weeks.

As the weeks pass the show continues to get high ratings, and kids buy little fluffy Xemnu figurines or dolls. Finally the big day arrives, and the show the Hulk is going to be on is timed to coincide with a manned space launch. Yeah, NASA had ratings problems even then.

Apparently, being the Hulk is very tiring for Dr. Strange. But that’s ok because the real Hulk in his puny Banner form walks by a TV and sees himself on TV. This is upsetting to Banner and even more so to the Hulk Hulk gets a little bit upset and destroys the tv shop he was walking past, saying “SO! Even when Hulk does NOTHING some human makes himself LOOK like Hulk. Tries to make other Humans MAD at him.” Hulk leaps into the air to avenge this injustice.

Did You Know?

According to sources, one in four morticians is a necrophiliac.

David Limbaugh

I've pointed this out before, but it hit me again (and I'm about to have to go to a meeting so won't post for a while). Here is the first line of the guy's biography at Townhall."David Limbaugh, brother of radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh, is an expert in law and politics who writes engaging columns from a fresh, conservative point of view."

Yeah that's really kind of sad. His claim to fame, after having written several (terrible) books and published a column for several years is still "Well, I'm Rush's brother."

I almost feel sorry for the guy, but then I remember who he is.

More Conservative Commentary on the Port Deal

Tony Snow (who has some connection with Fox News, I am given to understand) writes an article about how ludicrous it is for us to question the port deal and the United Arab Emirates intentions.

Many critics of the deal also seemed to know nothing of the security cooperation between the United States and the UAE. To reject the deal would be to slap a government that has provided on-the-ground intelligence from the opening salvo of the war on terror. Gen. Tommy Franks notes that the UAE's much-criticized "recognition" of the Taliban actually enabled the country to do first-rate spying. The UAE provided maps and information for the opening invasion of Afghanistan.

The UAE since has put troops on the ground in Afghanistan and Iraq, in active and humanitarian missions. It trains Iraqi forces on its soil. It lets the United States conduct flights through its airspace. It has housed servicemen -- and women -- from the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force. It maintains the largest U.S. naval facility outside the United States, and Dubai Ports World performs contract service at the port.

Oliver North takes the same tack in his article, and also throws in the suggestion that those who oppose the deal are racists.

Perhaps most importantly, the UAE is much more than just "an Arab country that has supported terrorism in the past," as some of the more racially-tinged rhetoric has it. Unfortunately, the accusation -- repeated almost hourly now on talk-radio call-in shows -- has a grain of truth to it. Two of the Sept. 11 hijackers were from the UAE. And al Qaeda money was laundered through Dubai banks. But since then, the UAE has become one of America's closest allies in the Global War on Terror, apprehending terrorists, shutting down their financial networks and providing tangible support for U.S. military operations in both Afghanistan and Iraq. It was this close cooperation that led the multi-agency Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) -- to green-light the transaction.

Charles Krauthammer has a piece that takes a bit more pessimistic note, although he also denounces the Democrats for opposing racial profiling while opposing this deal.

The greater and more immediate danger is that as soon as the Dubai company takes over operations, it will necessarily become privy to information about security provisions at crucial U.S. ports. That would mean a transfer of information about our security operations -- and perhaps even worse, about the holes in our security operations -- to a company in an Arab state in which there might be employees who, for reasons of corruption or ideology, would pass this invaluable knowledge on to al Qaeda-types.

Over at Front Page Magazine they reprinted Ann Coulters article and have another one by Robert Spencer on why this deal is such a bad idea. You can kind of predict this response from Front Page Magazine given the rampant Islamaphobia over there.

After all, no one even in Washington is yet even asking the right questions of self-proclaimed moderates about where they really stand on jihad and Sharia issues. Officials in Washington and Europe have shown no awareness of the fact that it isn’t enough to have no ties to terror groups; a Muslim who nonetheless believes in the jihad ideology of Islamic supremacism and the subjugation of infidels is still susceptible to jihadist recruitment. Is it possible to determine whether such recruitment is likely or not in the case of any particular individual? No -- and that’s why turning over any ports to Dubai Ports World is ill-advised: the potential for jihadist infiltration is just too great.

And that's the big ones - interesting that David Limbaugh hasn't weighed in on this one yet. His brother sure has (very pro Bush plan to turn ports over to UAE), but to listen to his callers, I'm not sure he is convincing them.

Something doesn't add up

Archy has a post comparing two comments by Bill O'Reilly that have to be read to be believed.

Assuming you have a hard time believing Bill O'Reilly is an inconsistent hypocrite. Frankly I got no problem believing them, myself.

For those fans of Firefly and Serenity

I am a fan of the website Television Without Pity, as some of you know. To be more specific, I am a fan of some of the writers there. For those who don't know they specialize in providing snarky recaps of television episodes).

Basically there are two types of good recaps, the funny ones about shows I don't care much about (see The Apprentice and Boston Public) or there are smart recaps about shows I do care about (see Battlestar Galactaca). Smart Recaps make you think a bit more about what you are watching, bringing elements of the show into sharper focus.

Jacob (who also does recaps on Battlestar Galactaca) has done a recap for Serenity the movie, and it is definitely in the Smart category. He pulls in a lot of stuff that one senses pretty intuitively and makes it plain. If you are a fan of the movie, I strongly encourage you to check this recap out. I had a hard time enjoying their recaps of the series (largely, I think, because I knew the ending which was that the show hadn't survived. Which made their snarky comments a bit like kicking a dead horse, however funny they were without knowing the end).

Anyway it's very well worth reading and it will tug on the old heart strings if you enjoyed the movie.

Conservative Commentary on The Port Deal

Ann Coulter is against it, for about the reasons you would expect.

There are at least 3,000 reasons why a company controlled by a Middle Eastern Muslim emirate should be held to a different standard than a British company. Many of these reasons are now buried under a gaping hole that isn't metaphorical in lower Manhattan.

. . . Isn't it enough that we're already patronizing the savages over the cartoons? Do we have to let them operate our ports, too?

Kathleen Parker also finds this deal baffling, but is just as interested in what the deal reveals about President Bush's psychological make-up.

The final throes of Bush's journey toward self-destruction may have found expression with the apparent sale of operational rights to six of our nation's largest ports to a company owned by the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Approved by the Bush administration against all reason, the $6.8 billion sale includes the ports of New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.

Despite bipartisan condemnation, the Bush administration has defended the sale to Dubai Ports World as not only safe, but prudent. The UAE, which incidentally served as a financial and operational base for the Sept. 11 hijackers, is an important ally in the fight against terror, we're told.

Cal Thomas, given his strong anti-Muslim feelings, takes the tack you would expect.

There have been some dumb decisions since the United States was attacked on Sept. 11, 2001, including the "welcoming" of radical Muslim groups, mosques and schools that seek by their preaching and teaching to influence U.S. foreign policy and undermine the nation. But the decision to sell port operations in New York, Newark-Port Elizabeth, Baltimore, Miami, Philadelphia and New Orleans to a company owned by the UAE may be the dumbest of all.

Tim Chapman seems mostly interested in the politics of the situation.

Of course, the irony of this situation is that the bipartisan opposition to the president comes on an issue that he polls strongest on. The latest ABC News/Washington Post poll shows President Bush receiving strong approval ratings for his handling of the war on terror. Clearly, Democrats have sensed an opportunity with this news story to move to the right of the President on an issue that has traditionally been his ace in the pocket. Republicans in Congress must agree, because they are ceding no ground on the issue to the Democrats.

Finally Stuart Rothenberg, who is not a name I'm very familiar with, trots out to defend the administration's position.

While Democrats and Republicans vent their anger over the Bush Administratios decision to allow a United Arab Emirates-based company from taking "control" of America's east coast ports (from a British company), I have a question: Exactly what responsibility and authority does this UAE company have? Specifically, how is U.S. security weakened?

I don't know, and I bet 99.5% of the people discussing the "threat" don't know. As a matter of fact, I'll bet most of us have no idea what managing a port entails.

But that hasn't stopped people from ranting about the Administration's decision to approve the British-UAE deal.

Actually when I say that is the administration's position, I get the impression it won't be for much longer. Anyway it's interesting to me how many big conservative columnists haven't seen fit to write on this. Presumably they have their fingers in the air for the moment, and will speak when the time is right.

Liberals are Gutless Socialists

I'm really tired of life today - but let's do this anyway. Herman Caine is upset because liberals are gutless socialists. We are socialist because we favor programs like income tax and Social Security. We are gutless because we get those programs through democratic procedures rather than through violent coup.

Yet unlike the tyrannical dictators who ruled communist nations in the 20th Century, congressional liberals lack the guts to tell the public their true intentions. Those intentions are motivated by the Marxist philosophy of “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.” Instead of conducting a deadly revolution, liberals are waging their war on capitalism through public policy, assaults on our free-market system and socialistic rhetoric.

Get that? But then in beginning his assault on Modern Democrats he starts in 1913. Income Tax. Then he hits Social Security (and other New Deal ideas), witholding of income tax and up to the modern day.

If only we liberals had had a violent coup, put Herbert Hoover's head on a pike, and taken over. We woudln't have to hear all this conservative crap today . . . actually I'm sort of coming around to Cain's way of thinking.

But nonetheless let's look at conservativism's gutsiness. How many in your party are open about their desire to take this country back to 1913? Even President Bush's intentions in regard to Social Secruity were covered over with a gauze of "fixing Social Security" rather than the more honest description (fundemantally changing Social Security). Why is that?

Turnabout

I've commented to myself in following the Cheney story and this new UAE / Ports story how if the shoe were on the other food, 90% of the participants would just change seats and be mouthing the same arguments. Upon further reflection, I'm not sure.

I think Republicans would be nastier.

If a Democrat had shot a hunting companion, it wouldn't just be what Vice President Cheney is going through. Rather Conservative commentators would throw on the additional suggestion that liberals are effeminate. We'd be hearing about how liberals are girly-men and feminine and weak. Over and over again. So naturally they don't know to handle a gun.

If a Democratic Administration put UAE in charge of our ports, it would be just greed and poor judgement they'd be talking about. It would be treason.

So yeah, there is a difference between Democrats and Republicans.

Port Security

For those of you who do not know, the Bush Administration has brokered a deal to turn 6 ports over to a company owned and operated by the United Arab Emirates. I originally wrote this story off as pretty political (the Republicans base, fed a steady diet of Ann Coulter and Cal Thomas, aren't going to like him letting the Arabs in, so lets hammer this), but it turns out my initial estimation was wrong. There are valid reasons to be concerned about turning our ports over to this company and over how this deal was worked out.

For a good rundown of the issues involved, I'd advice checking out firedoglake's typically brilliant rundown on the issue.

Vice Presidential Judgment

One possible scenario that has been floating around my mind since the shooting is that the white house takes this opportunity to drop Cheney and bring in someone new. I figured that there was not much of a chance that the White House itself would buy into this theory, but the logic of such a move would animate some within the larger movement. As it stands now, Bush has no heir. This means in 2008 both the Republicans and the Democrats will have fights over the nomination.

So some within the party must be thinking that getting rid of Cheney gracefully might be well worth considering. And with that in mind lets look at Paul Greenberg's latest article.

Leaders who are trusted tend to be those who trust the rest of us to be fair. Which is why the best way to manage the news may be not to try so hard to manage it - just tell it the way it happened. And don't wait till you've got all your quail in a row for Fox News.

Candor can be a virtue in a politician. In a society in which trust has eroded, it can be an especially valuable character trait. There was a time, circa the 2000 presidential election, when character was regularly mentioned as an important element of leadership, at least by the Republican candidates. That time seems to have passed, which is another troubling little detail.

I will say that while "Character" was an issue in the 2000 elections, candor has never been this administrations strong suit. Still that doesn't sound like a ringing endorsement. Kind of the opposite really.

I have to say, it's nice to see a conservative acknowledging the nature of Fox News.

Anyway this is just one article, and I don't really expect the White House to cut Cheney loose. Still it's worth keeping in mind.

Annoyance

I can't log on to World of Warcraft - it's very annoying, and also annoying that I am annoyed. There's something childish in being pissed that I can't play a computer game. A video game that I am paying for of course, so I do have a legitimate reason to get annoyed.

Still . . . it is annoying.

80's Remixed

Having listened to Future Retro a few more times and being willing to declare it good (more or less) I would like to recommend some tracks for Future Retro two.

First of all steer clear of "Tainted Love" by Soft Cell and "She Blinded Me With Science" by Thomas Dolby. Yeah they are iconic songs - but hard to remix because the beat is so memorable. If you are looking for songs by these bands to remix try "Bedsitter" "Torch" or "Down in the Subway" by Soft Cell and "One of Our Submarines" or "The Flat Earth" by Thomas Dolby. Actually I'd really like to see a good remix of "The Flat Earth"

Other possibilities.

Pet Shop Boys - Suburbia
Simple Minds - Theme For Great Cities
Orchestral maneuvers in the Dark - Genetic Engineering
The Clash - Lost in the Supermarket
The Police - Wrapped Around Your Fingers
Thompson Twins - Sister of Mercy (Or Lies)
The Art of Noise - Close (To the Edit)
The Psychedelic Furs - Here Come Cowboys
U2 - Gloria (or I Will Follow)

These are bands who appeared on the first one - but obviously bands who's songs lend themselves to remixes.
New Order - Everything Gone Green (Remixed by the Chemical Brothers (and this is the only one I'm going to suggest a remixer for, but think this would be hot).
Depeche Mode - Get the Balance Right!
Erasure - Oh L'amour
The Cure - Why Can't I Be You?

Do you have any suggestions for 80's tracks you'd like to see reworked in the modern style?

Gay Marriage

For those interested, Random Goblin has posted his thoughts on Gay Marriage and they are well worth perusing.

I am of the same faith as Mr. Goblin. I do not have my thoughts completely sorted out on the subject, but I find Mr. Goblin very persuasive.

Media Bias

There's a great new report on Media Bias that has just been released. What's even greater is Media Matters for America's debunking of the new report.

Apparently they decided to see how many times reporters referenced political organizations and think tanks. If they referenced Conservative Think Tanks they were skewing conservative and if they referenced Liberal Think Tanks they were skewing liberal. Easy enough, although it begs the question of what to do if they quote an organization and an individual with different view points. Obviously they heap the organization on the scale, ignore the individual, and judge the story biased.

The best part, however, is how they determine the liberalness or conservativeness of an organization. If a Conservative or Liberal senator quotes an organization approvingly, well, that organization must be more to his way of thinking. So if Bill Frist quotes the ACLU, well, the score of that organization moves a little to the right. But wait, don't senators often try to quote from organizations on the other side of the fence so as to appear more non-partisan and "cool?" I mean everybody knows that Dick Cheney is buds with the NRA (although not a good example of gun safety apparently), but when Harry Reid quotes them approvingly, that looks good.

At any rate, according to this methodology, the ACLU falls, just barely, on the Conservative side of the fence. That probably tells you all you need to know about this methodology.

But for our friends, the conservatives, they'll probably buy off on any survey that tells them what they want to hear.

Anyway it's a good and thorough debunking, covering a lot more than I just referenced - go check it out.

Pure Naked Politics

The title of this article comes from a song by SPK (called Pure Naked Aggression, if memory serves). I can't really expect you to know that.

Anyway on Friday, Stan Goff explained in an article why we need to focus on Cheney's little accident.

However pathological the macho death-cult of guns is in this country, the people who have taken the trouble to learn anything about firearms at all now know that Cheney is what my dad used to call a pig-hunter and a fool that traipsed around after his "one beer" lunch on the quail preserve with his finger on the trigger. He's no more a hunter than Bush is a cowboy.

He's just another stupid, pampered, autocratic narcissist like Bush-bullshitting his way through high office-and leaving bodies in his wake with as little concern for them as he does for 70 pheasants.

This is largely true. But if you boil down this argument it amounts to "this issue matters because it can hurt Cheney with the dummies who support him." Well, yeah. It should.

But let's not pretend this is anything but us slamming in the Cheney because we can (in much the same spirit that Republicans slam into Democrats on the slightest pretext. It's just politics, nothing less, nothing more.

It's not statesmanship. But I suppose we are in an era in which statesmenship would be as useful as a horse and carriage.

Defenders Saturday (A Day Late)

Hey. As you've noticed I've been not doing this for a while. Part of that is laziness (a big part) but part of it is also that this next story is both long and gloriously goofy. So I was intimidated. I have decided to break it up into more managable chunks so this issue will be in two or three parts. Here's part one.

Marvel Feature presents the Defenders Issue 3

We start out with two astronauts landing in the middle of the ocean. Waiting in the ocean is General “Thunderbolt” Ross, Hulk’s arch-enemy (but mostly in a Moby Dick/Capt. Ahab kind of way). Apparently Hulk’s been quiet so he has time to stand around on an aircraft. With him is Jim Wilson who can apparently control the Hulk.

The capsule lands on a whirlpool somewhat arbitrarily. Equally arbitrarily the Sub-Mariner is around to rescue them. A Giant Squid attacks the space capsule (everybody knows how those squids can’t get enough giant metal things). Sub-Mariner saves the day and gets pissed off at sailors who point that he saved the day. “Fools! Do you think I care about your paltry Headlines? I saved this capsule because it was likely to have men within. Yet to do so I harmed a denizen of the DEPTHS. And, by Nepture, I LIKED IT NOT!” Sailors don’t like being called fools and decide to attack, not showing all that much smarts.

They scuffle a little, and Jim Wilson shows up to say “Hey stop fighting those sailors or I’ll sic the Hulk on you” More or less. And the Sub-Mariner acknowledges that it was wrong of him to let those sailors attack him. The Astronauts on the other hand, think that Sub-Mariner has the right idea. If these swabbies were doing their jobs right, the space program would run smoothly.

Yeah I’m not sure I follow that either.

Anyway they announce that they are leaving the space program and taking up a life of celebrity. That doesn’t seem like a very good career plan today, but this was back in the day. The offer a cut of their astronaut money to Namor, but he turns them down. “Now I RETURN to the deep, for, it seems I dived for GIANTS, and brought forth but a pair of MINNOWS!” In rapid succession the astronauts get their picture taken, but the pictures don’t come out. Then they immediately sign a TV PACT!

Their show title – the Astronuts! It’s about two stupid astronauts who try to keep Xemnu (from the Magic Planet (which is just to the left of the Planet of Making Stuff Up). His first line is “And I’m going split right BACK there as soon is I get PAID, I am, I am.” Yes, apparently all the planets of the galaxy went through a vaudeville period. We see kids really getting into it, despite the fact that it is crap. This is a sign that something is wrong because in the real world, people never continue watching shows they know are crap.

Then Xemnu says “In fact, you’ve been SO wonderful to me that I might just take you WITH me when I go next month.” But does Xemnu really mean it? Tune in next time for the shocking continuation of this recap.

Sedition Begins at Home

Or, to be more precise, the persecution of people for expressing the wrong opinions, begins at home.

I know that many of my readers take Ben Shapiro (and Ann Coulter and Cal Thomas and so on) as a joke. I myself found his latest article, calling for Al Gore, Howard Dean, and John Kerry to be tried for Sedition, more humorous than threatening. But perhaps I spoke too soon.

Natalie Davis at All Facts and Opinions has a piece on a woman in Albequerque who was investigated by her employer (the Veteran's Administration) for writing a letter to the editor criticizing the Bush handling of hurricane Katrina. And what was she investigated for? Sedition.

Yeah, this was probably some over-zealous administrator. But it's starting to add up, you know what I mean?

Anyway go read Ms. Davis's review of the situation - very well done, and she makes some important points.

Back in the Day

Thinking about eighties music brings back a lot of memories. I was kind of a late bloomer when it came to music (or it seemed that way to me). My best friend got into music a little ahead of me at a time (13 and 14) when I was still into comic books and action figures. I was an imaginative kid.

At a certain point, however, I got it in my head that this wasn't the sort of thing a grown up did. And I wanted to be a grown up (for reasons that are complex and simple at the same time (one factor - other kids picking on me (other kids sucked))). So I figured I could talk like an older kid people would see me that way.

So I looked at what other older kids (pretty much older boys, I must admit (wait, nobodies holding a gun to my head. I DON'T admit it)) were into - and I quickly came up with three possibilities. Cars, Sports, and the Opposite Sex. I didn't care about cars. I barely cared about sports. And I had, at best, a vague awareness that the opposite sex existed. So my goal of self-improvement through conversation seemed doomed to failure. Then I noticed my best friend seemed to be into music. Hmmmm.

So I got into music. And after a few false starts (two of my earliest albums were Huey Louis and the New's "Sports" and Hall and Oates "Big Bam Boom" (Still have a fondness for the "Method of Modern Love")), I got into Depeche Mode, Erasure, Yaz, OMD, Thompson Twins, and so on. After a remarkably short time I became a bit of a music snob, reading Rolling Stone (for free, as I worked at at a library) and Spin (occasionally) to see what music was hot, and, to a certain extent, getting into that music. Obviously my beloved synth-pop didn't get in the limelight all that much - so I got other albums here and there - Talking Heads, R.E.M., U2, The Cure.

I got Talking Heads "Naked" right after it came out and played it incessantly trying to convince myself that my initial impression was wrong (three good tracks on the first side, nothing on the second side (yeah, it was a cassette)), and it was brilliant all the way through. Had numerous arguments with my brother, who's music tastes at the time could be summed up in one word. Rush.

Of course now that I'm a bit older and a bit more exposed to music I can enjoy 9 out of 11 tracks (still find Facts of Life and Bill a little weak. Cool Waters, on the other hand, and Ruby Dear have grown in my estimation quite a bit).

Being a Music Snob did not in fact turn out to be the route to acceptance. It turns most people find Music Snobs annoying (particularly other Music Snobs). So I dropped the part about looking down on people for liking Tiffany (well, at least publicly) and the part about looking in magazines for validation of my music tastes. I kept the part about being adventurous and seeking out all kinds of different music. So now I am a Music Enthusiast. Which, now that you mention it, is a lot like being a Music Snob. But hopefully less annoying to other people.

Unprovoked Meanness

Just got a new CD put out by Rhino called Future Retro. The high concept behind this album is "lets get a bunch of great 80s songs and have modern DJ's remix them." It's not a bad collection.

One of the tracks is "New Song" by Howard Jones (Peter Black & hardrock Strike Mix Edit), a song I remember from back then. I had several Howard Jones albums, including Dream into Action and One To One, but was never into him the way I was into New Order or Pet Shop Boys or Depeche Mode. I do remember my sardonic response to a line from "New Song" (his first hit, although it was eclipsed by What is Love, if memory serves).

I don't wanna be hip and cool
I don't wanna play by the rules

Whenver Mr. Jones would sing that first line, I always though "Not much chance of that."

Yep I've been mean spirited since 1984.

What is the Role of Congress?

This is going to be an odd little post; I am going to praise George Will's latest article. It's very sharp, and highlights some of the logical inconsistencies of modern conservatism.

1. After railing on liberals for decades for interpreting the constitution in light of the society we live in, the insist on reading in expanded powers for the Executive in light of, well, the post 9/11 society we live in.

2. If the President's interpretation of the Authorization for Use of Military Force is accepted, no president ever need congress to declare war or authorize military force again (so long as the president can invoke terrorism on the part of our enemies).

3. Why does the President press for the passage of the patriot act when he clearly feels he already has the right to pretty much do whatever he wants to fight terrorism?

Good points, all of them. Will does support the passage of a Patriot Act, on the grounds that it would both define and limit the President's power.

But 53 months later, Congress should make all necessary actions lawful by authorizing the president to take those actions, with suitable supervision. It should do so with language that does not stigmatize what he has been doing, but that implicitly refutes the doctrine that the authorization is superfluous.

Yeah, but can't President Bush just attach a signing statement saying "I will interpret the suggestion that I am not all powerful in light of current conditions, i.e. I am all powerful and screw you congress!"

Still nice that some conservatives are catching on to how much power President Bush has taken unto himself.

Did You Know?

"Will my friends betray me?" is not the right question.

"When will my friends betray me?" is closer.

White Phosphorus and Fallujah

We just want to make it easy on future sedition prosecutors.

White Phosphorus is an incendiary weapon. According to Wikipedia, these are the effects of white phosphorus on the human body.

Incandescent particles of WP cast off by a WP weapon's initial explosion can produce extensive, deep (second and third degree), painful burns. Phosphorus burns carry a greater risk of mortality than other forms of burns due to the absorption of phosphorus into the body through the burned area, resulting in liver, heart and kidney damage, and in some cases multi-organ failure.

The United States used white phosphorus as a weapon during the invasion of Fallujah.

The US-led assault on Falluja - a stronghold of the Sunni insurgency west of Baghdad - displaced most of the city's 300,000 population and left many of its buildings destroyed.

Col Venable told the BBC's PM radio programme that the US army used white phosphorus incendiary munitions "primarily as obscurants, for smokescreens or target marking in some cases.

"However it is an incendiary weapon and may be used against enemy combatants."

Of course the military claims that the weapon would only be used against enemy combatants. They said the same thing about napalm, if memory serves.



How did that work out?

An Italian documentary claims that the civilians suffered strange burns and wounds because of White Phosphorus and others have reported similar incidents.

Yet there are other, independent reports of civilians from Fallujah suffering burn injuries. For instance, Dahr Jamail, an unembedded reporter who collected the testimony of refugees from the city spoke to a doctor who had remained in the city to help people, encountered numerous reports of civilians suffering unusual burns.

One resident told him the US used "weird bombs that put up smoke like a mushroom cloud" and that he watched "pieces of these bombs explode into large fires that continued to burn on the skin even after people dumped water on the burns." The doctor said he "treated people who had their skin melted"

This is what America has done to the people of Fallujah.

Repeating these facts is going to anger the Islamic world further (and who can blame them). It might even make the Iraqi resistance fight harder, leading to more deaths. This information also happens to be the truth. So if you do get around to arresting people for seditiously speaking the truth, we hope to make the list.

We're Going to Jail

Good news everybody! We're going to jail! All except Cheery, who will play the part of grieving widow and will send us cakes. And McIckleson who is fictional. Well come to think of it Jean Louis Crowley and The Post Modernist are both out of the country currently. And Durango could probably cop an insanity plea (since he is, more or less, insane). But Space Lobster, The Monster, and me are going to jail. For Sedition.

Ben Shapiro, boy prognosticator, has written an article calling for the prosecution of Al Gore, John Kerry, Jim McDermott and Howard Dean. He doesn't say what law he is would prosecute them under, but, then again, young Ben is not a lawyer. He's a mean-spirited dunderhead*.

This is not to argue that every measure taken by the government to prosecute opponents of American wars is just or right or Constitutional. Some restrictions, however, are just and right and Constitutional -- and necessary. No war can be won when members of a disloyal opposition are given free reign to undermine it.

Translation - we still want to piss on Roosevelt for locking up the Japanese, while simultaneously arguing that he was more or less in the right for doing so. You didn't expect us to play fair did you?

One nice new feature of Townhall is that they allow comments on articles. Here's one entitled None Dare Call It Treason, by grubby.

But I Do! That fantastic idiot, Al Gore, who somehow flatters himself that he's a statesman, even though he couldn't correctly identify the bust of Jefferson within Montecello, utters irresponsible, anti-American and treasonous statements on the very soil that resurrected and nurtures the particularly vile brand of Wahabi Islamism that seeks to destroy the Christian/Western culture. Many more US soldiers will die because of what Gore said which is clearly aiding and abeding the enemy in time of war. He needs to be prosecuted at the capital level for treason - or else the Constitution means nothing, not even to the Republicans.

Or, to put it another way, Sedition doesn't work because it wouldn't allow us to execute our political enemies. Maybe there's a down side to this whole going to jail thing after all.

Here's part of another comment, entitled Ban Sedition until we win the War on Terror, by a guy named bulldogged.

Shapiro's historical case for the necessity of wartime rights violations is stellar, but he omits several pertinent examples. Lincoln imprisoned political opponents during the Civil War, and indeed, we won the Civil War. But what about WWII? The United States interned 120,000 law-abiding Japanese citizens during WWII. We won WWII. The correlation must indicate that violating rights during wartime is the REASON we won those wars. Factors such as our overwhelming military might are irrelevant. Anyone who doesn't see that really needs to take a Stats class (in addition to ceasing to spout treasonous logic).

Hmmmmmm. I wonder if young Ben gets the punchline. Probably not.

Anyway if this is sedition, best to make the most of it. Tune in later for a post on White Phospherous.

* term on loan from the McIckleson collection, all rights reserved.

Did You Know?

1984 successfully predicted nothing. But everybody likes pretending it did.

Brave New World did better, but hits a lot closer to home, so we all focus on 1984.

Two Stories

The first story is that the Vice President shot Harry Whittington, a big donator and a 78 year old lawyer, on a hunting trip. They then chose not to reveal that information for 24 hours (during which time the owner of the land they were hunting on notified the press. It's unclear if they would have unburdened themselves if they hadn't had to). A bird pellet entered Whittington's heart and he has suffered a heart attack, but will apparently recover.

A few points.

1. This probably was an accident, and isn't that significant other than another chance to mock the Vice President.

2. The Vice President is going to have to take his lumps from comedians (and bloggists) over the next couple of days, and that is the only price he will probably have to pay.

3. The White House and the Vice President's office screwed up by delaying mention of this accident.

4. There is a lot of speculation on Democratic Underground and elsewhere on the real story behind this accident.

5. The vast majority of this speculation is based on nothing but a surety that Cheney is an evil guy.

6. This accident does come at a fortuitous time for the Vice President and this administration, given that it distracts away from Scooter Libby's testimony and Michael Brown's testimony.

7. You shouldn't read to much into point 6.

8. It's entirely possible that I am completely full of crap.

Second story, Ann Coulter made some highly inappropriate comments lately, this time centered around the Danish Cartoon Controversy.

Iran is soliciting cartoons on the Holocaust. So far, only Ted Rall, Garry Trudeau, and the NY Times have made submissions.

Well Ted Rall doesn't think this is very funny - so he is soliciting opinions on whether or not he should sue Ann Coulter for Libel.

I'm torn myself - anything that exposes Ann Coulter is certainly appealing to me, but I'm not certain this particular action would do that. For one thing, as Rall admits, she's almost certainly going to say that she was only joking. She will attack Rall for not having a sense of humor (although the "humor" in Ann's comments eludes me). So, I'm not sure he could actually win this particular case.

On the other hand, if there is even a chance at embarrassing Ms. Coulter, won't I hate myself for not supporting it? Anyway if you want to send Mr. Rall your opinion, do so.

The Narrative

This would be a good story for the Post Modernist to respond to, but, as you know, he is still on his mission to safe us all from "u" deprived madness.

Anyway this is an article by Michael Barone that discusses the dominant political narrative of our times. Barone notes that for most of this century presidents were judged according to President Roosevelt. President Ronald Reagan, however, changed the narrative by rejecting government solutions to domestic problems.

Barone's theory is that Reagan's narrative is now the dominant one and Democrat's struggling against it isn't likely to accomplish very much.

Democrats were used to writing our history in most of the past century. But without a competing vision of their own, they seem no more likely to succeed than Roosevelt's or Reagan's furious opponents.

Barone rejects the Clinton narrative, and his disdain for Clinton causes him to miss out on the opportunity to further his theory. Clinton clearly had paid attention during the Reagan years and was willing to say things like "the era of big government is over." But, Clinton was the enemy, so it's more fun to portray his years as a failed attempt to create a new narrative.

Barone is right that history moves in cycles, and the last few years have been years of conservative ascendancy. But now that Conservatives have pretty much everything they could want as far as political power goes, they are going to actually have to perform. They have to make things better. And to a lot of Americans, both liberals and conservative, they just aren't doing it.

Round the Horn. Three Fingers of Bryant Version

Hi all. I haven't done any blogging around in quite a while, but I can sort of remember how to do it.

Happy Furry Puppy Story Time has a really good rundown on Republican Scandals - particularly congressional ones. If you think you might haved missed one (considering how many there have been recently), you might want to give it a look.

Musing's musings reviewed Alberto Gonzeles's "testimony" and found it wanting in logic. More to the point, the legal theories he proposed do not seem consistant with the principles this nation was founded on.

All Facts and Opinions has a piece on the internet - apparently many of the major broadband providers are considering tightening the pipe to squeeze out things they don't like. Doesn't seem like that would be a good thing.

Steve Bates, the Yellow Doggeral Democrat, has the news that President Bush can appoint incompetents to more than just the federal reserve (see McIckleson's post below for the link on that story). Apparently he can appoint them to the higher education board as well. But more to the point, the post discusses how businesses look at education, and how that is not necessarily a positive thing.

Speedkill has the details on the most recent of Ann Coulter's many crimes against logic, democratic principles and Christian values. I don't know how much more to say than Speedkill says, except to say that perhaps Ms. Coulter was concerned that she isn't in the papers as much as she used to be.

Finally Sooner Thought has some thoughts on putting the current political climate in a sort of historical context. We shouldn't think ourselves immune to the mistakes we made in the past.

Anyway that ends my session in this set. Hope you have enjoyed this, and expect us to resume our normal programming tomorrow.

Winged Mammal Theme

David Cole has a really great editorial over at Salon this morning, discussing Attorney General Alberto Gonzales's recent appearance before congress.

In the end, Gonzales's argument is circular: You need not reach the constitutional question of executive authority to violate the law, because the president acted consistently with the law. But you must find that the president acted consistently with the law because otherwise the law would be an unconstitutional infringement on the president's powers. At the center of this circle is an astounding assertion of presidential power -- the power to choose the "means and methods of engaging the enemy" without being subject to any legal limits imposed by Congress, whether they be limits on cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, torture, or spying on Americans.

What the NSA spying debate is ultimately about is this: Do we want to live in a country where the president, like the rest of us, is bound by law, or do we want to live in a country where the president, by invoking the magic words "commander in chief," can order that criminal laws be violated in secret? One thing is certain: The Bush administration will never want a hearing on that question.

You see the President is like Batman - he has to be outside the law in order to protect us. The terrorists, they don't play by the rules. So the President can't play by the rules either.

The terrorists aren't worried about the complexities of American Laws - neither can our President can't.

The terrorists don't care about civilian deaths or infringement of basic human rights - neither can our President.

The terrorists don't admire or care for western decadence and commitment to ideals like ideals of human decency - President Bush needs to feel the same way in order to defeat them.

In order to defeat the terrorists, our President needs to become a terrorist. That is the only path to victory.

Did You Know?

The original name for King Kong was King Kane. Ironically enough the original name for Citizen Kane was Citizen Kong.

I would pay good money to see a movie called Citizen Kong.

Republican Discontent

There is a good article over at Salon today on, as you might have guessed, Republican Discontent.

Instead of shoring up the conservative base, Bush's bland rhetoric and ticky-tacky domestic initiatives -- more switchgrass, less malaria -- only confirmed conservatives' ever-growing concern: Far from an heir to the legacy of Ronald Reagan, the president has become just another free-spending, big-government politician.

The governor who wooed conservatives in 2000 became a president who increased federal education spending, signed a pork-laden 2002 farm bill, and passed the largest new entitlement since the days of Lyndon Johnson, the Medicare prescription drug bill. After becoming a champion of leave-us-alone libertarians, he went on to authorize a vast expansion of executive power with the Patriot Act and warrantless wiretapping of Americans. And after promising to appoint another Supreme Court justice like Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas, he nominated his own ideologically unknown lawyer, Harriet Miers, to the job.

Interesting, and certainly pleasant to contemplate as we go into the electoral season. Still, this might be a bit too rosy. I think I'll see if I can get Grumbly over here and ask her about this.

Presented without Comment

From Ann Coulter's Latest Article.

As my regular readers know, I've long been skeptical of the "Religion of Peace" moniker for Muslims -- for at least 3,000 reasons right off the top of my head.

. . . In order to express their displeasure with the idea that Muslims are violent, thousands of Muslims around the world engaged in rioting, arson, mob savagery, flag-burning, murder and mayhem, among other peaceful acts of nonviolence.

Muslims are the only people who make feminists seem laid-back.

. . . Making the rash assumption for purposes of discussion that Islam is a religion and not a car-burning cult, . . .

But Muslims think they can issue decrees about what images can appear in newspaper cartoons. Who do they think they are, liberals?

News Flash. I'm Messed up.

Just in case you were looking for further evidence that I am messed up, check out this line from my "humorous" script for "The FISA Beat."

James - Dammit Chief, I can't stay again. My wife is upset that I never see it.

Did you catch it? Let me highlight it for you.

James - Dammit Chief, I can't stay again. My wife is upset that I never see it.

Yeah I'm really 1720's kind of guy. Oh well, for those of you offended at this lapse in pronounery, I can assure you I am just as offended. And embarrassed.

Two points not related to each other

Once again at the funeral of a prominent liberal, Coretta Scott King, Republicans are upset that the comments made at that funeral reflected the political nature of her life. In her memorial service some comments critical of this administration were made. Ms. King also made comments critical of this administration. For example she said to Rueters, "When you use war as a way of settling disputes, you only cause more war. . . . In the long run, the only way to have peace is to use peaceful means."

Conservatives are acting like this is the end of the world, and I suspect many Americans will agree with them. Which shows just how childish we Americans are.

President George W. Bush and Coretta Scott King represent different legacies and different beliefs. No, that's too mild. They represent opposing legacies and ideologies.

No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

That's Matthew 6:24. And it's true. You cannot support both President Bush's and Coretta Scott King's vision of America. You have to choose which side you are on. Any adult looking at the situation would come to that conclusion.

But here in America, land of the childish, we are all supposed to pretend better.

Speaking of childish, Rich Lowry has determined who the real bad guys in this wiretapping case (well him and a bunch of other Republican Politicians and Conservative Pundits).

Democrats pooh-pooh any negative fallout from the NSA leak on grounds that terrorists already know that we are trying to surveil them. The furor over the program, however, reminds terrorists to be very careful. This is not nothing. Mafia cases are often built on the astonishing sloppiness that complacency lures mobsters into.

Um yeah, Lowry. That's pretty believable. I guess we should ignore the constitutional and legal ramifications of Bush's actions, because without constant reminders the terrorists will get sloppy. Hmmmm. That's giving me an idea for another TV show.

And I guess these items were kind of related.

New Television Series Pitch

Title - "The FISA Beat"
Creators - Bryant E. Gries, Space L. Lobster, Cheery M. Jetson
Pitch - It's 2007, and President Bush can't operate outside the system anymore. But he still wants to stop the terrorists and eavesdrop on them. So he institute an elite squad of clerks and cops, working together to prepare the paperwork necessary to permit him to collect necessary information.
Characters - The Chief, Gortack the Preparer, Belinda Mae, James John Geoffry.

Sample scene.

(The sun streams in from the windows indicating that the sun is setting. Gortack, Belinda, and James are getting their effects together. Suddenly the Chief bursts into the room.)

Chief - Hold everything! Agents in Walla Walla just intercepted a phone call from Osama bin Ladin's number two man. They need the paperwork over there within 72 hours! (looks around) Looks like we won't be going anywhere.

(Gortack and Belinda spring into action, going back to their desks. Belinda pulls down some complicated law books (note, use actual law books. I think audiences would catch on to the old encyclopedia Britannica scam). Gortack puts a raft of forms on his desk and starts working on them. James approaches the Chief, angrily)

James - Dammit Chief, I can't stay again. My wife is upset that I never see it.

Chief - Dammit, don't you think I know that? But you and your wife know that you serve a higher purpose.

James - Dammit, she wanted me to bring her home some shitake mushrooms so we could have spaghetti.

Chief - Dammit, you are just going to have to give her a call and tell her you can't make it. I need you here.

James - Dammit, I love spaghetti.

Chief - Dammit, you get back in your desk and get on the phone with Walla Walla - I want to know all the details before we finalize these forms. (walks over to Gortacks desk) How's it going, son.

Gortack - It's coming along - these forms are so complicated.

Chief - Well the forms are to protect us. So they need to be complicated.

Gortack - Why can't we just let the NSA spy on whoever they want? Be better than these forms.

Chief - (sitting on the desk) Sometimes I wish we could. But we are going to play by the rules. Without rules we are little better than the scum we are going after! You see them al Qaeda folks think that they should be able to tell everybody what to do and trample all over peoples rights. Here in America we don't cotton to that way of thinking. Rather we demand, even while defending ourselves, that we play within the rules so as to safeguard our freedoms.(turning to Belinda) I can see that you are hard at work, being one of the best attorneys in the nation who gave up her 6 figure salary job to serve your country, so I won't bother you.

(The Chief stands up and walks to the center of the room, looks around briefly smiles. Suddenly Gortacks pen breaks, ink spilling out all over the forms he is working out. He looks up stricken, as the camera zooms from him to the Chief. After a beat he speaks).

Chief - I guess we are going to have to get our hands dirty. (Main title sequence).

This goldmine idea for an ongoing series can be yours, Hollywood, for practically no money (by your standards).

The Argument

There are two arguments you can have over the wire taps.

Argument number one is, "Should the President be allowed to spy on terrorists in order to keep Americans safe?'

Argument number two is, "Should the President be required to act within the law, even when claiming to protect the American people?"

Obviously the first argument is the one that most conservatives prefer to engage in. They are much less interested in the implications of whether or not the President has the legal authority to do what he is doing (he doesn't). They don't want to have to grapple with this question - "The President could get all the warrants he needed through the system as it is set up. Why did he have to go around it?"

Well we get one answer from Linda Chavez's latest article.

Which of these two alternatives will make America safer? The United States government will intercept communications from al Qaeda operatives overseas and their agents or enablers in the United States in the fastest, most efficient way possible, even if it means not obtaining a warrant beforehand. Or, if the government wants to intercept phone calls or e-mails between al Qaeda operatives overseas and their agents or enablers on American soil, government lawyers will have to spend hours, days, perhaps even weeks compiling legal arguments and factual evidence of the kind and quality that would hold up in court should any of the parties ever later be charged with a crime in U.S. courts.

This is a smokescreen of course, but it is also an answer. I think Democrats have been pretty good about explaining that you can get a warrant up to 72 hours after the wiretapping, and that these requests for wiretaps are seldom refused, so the substance of this argument would appear to be, it's just a lot of extra paper work.

Well that's to bad. But, as I saw on a bumper sticker once, freedom isn't free.

The Cartoon Controversy

This is the big story going on these days - what to do about those damned cartoons.

Short version - some anti muslim cartoons were published in Denmark. Muslims got very upset (to the point of rioting). Danish cartoonists are scared. Europe is wringing its hands. American Media is not showing the cartoons (although they are, of course, readily available on the internet.

This is a story made for Conservative Commentators. Poor Danish cartoonists being harassed by intolerent and hateful Muslims.

The riots and demonstrations across the Middle East and Western Europe (though not yet playing here) over some cartoons of the Muslim prophet Muhammad have set off a parallel intellectual riot in the West over the nature of free speech and free expression. Many pundits and editorialists have worked feverishly to keep this a debate about the propriety of running cartoons. Some news outlets are updating their procedures so as not to offend "religious" sensibilities in the future.

The quotation marks around the word "religious" should say it all. We're not talking about "religion." We're talking about a specific religion - Islam.
- Jonah Goldberg, "Controversy is about culture clash, not cartoons"

The cartoon implosion now rocking the Muslim world - featuring embassy burnings, threats of 9-11 sequels and the Arab street equivalent of the Terrible Twos - is based on equal parts fake photographs and a default riot mode looking for an excuse. Extreme propaganda on one side and a lack of fortitude on the other have brought us near the brink of extinction through a global act of accidental self-mockery.
- Kathleen Parker, "The end of civilization was a joke"

Those who argue for republication of the Danish cartoons are not "instigating" a clash of civilization. Nor are they pouring gasoline on a fire. Rather, they are defending against the already declared and engaged radical Islamist clash against the Christian, Secular, Jewish, Hindu, Chinese world by expressing solidarity with the firemen.

In this case, the firemen, perhaps surprisingly to some, is the European press. French socialist newspapers, The BBC, and other major secular European media stand shoulder to shoulder with a right-wing Danish newspaper against what they correctly see is an unyielding demand by radical Islam that Europe begin to start living under Sharia law.
- Tony Blankley, "Cartoons, but not the funnies"

I have to admit not having a strong opinion one way or the other on this issue. The cartoons are mostly banal and not very funny, I can't see defending them as some great artistic statement. And of course it's hilarious for the newspaper who requested these cartoons to pretend they didn't know this might happen.

On the other hand, my own religion has been mocked before. In cartoons and in articles. And reading those articles and cartoons did sometimes upset me. But I didn't riot. I didn't demand that my personal feelings be taken into account by my entire society.

On the other hand, I am pretty well off. Perhaps things would look different to me if I was broke. Or, more to the point, if I lived in a society that I felt prevented me from ever making something of myself. Perhaps the riots are just a symptom of larger social problems in Europe.

So like I say, not sure what to say about this issue.

Conservatives History with Race

Slavery was introduced to the nation before it's founding and continued up till the civil war. Before the civil war, Southern Conservatives (most of who where Democrat) wrote and argued in favor of their "peculiar institution," while Northern Conservatives argued against any radical changes. When Lincoln became President, Southern Conservatives attacked Fort Sumter and plunged America into a civil war.

After the war Republican Liberals tried to reform the south, but Southern Conservatives waged a war of terror against Northern Liberals and Southern blacks. This war of terror included lynchings and murders and was successful. Southern Conservatives managed to stave off civil rights for another century.

When Liberals began mobolizing in favor of civil rights in the 1950s and 1960s, Conservatives decried them as communists and revolutionaries, and fought against civil rights with violent tactics. After African American Civil Rights were finally enforced by the liberal Supreme Court, Liberals (both Democrats and Republicans) in congress, and the liberal and Democratic Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson, southern Conservatives left the Democratic Party in droves, finding a new home in the Conservative Republican Party (and, naturally, they pushed it even further to the right).

To sum up, if you are looking for the political philosophy that condones and supports racism in America, you should probably consider modern conservatism.

This article brought to you thanks to Bruce Bartlett's latest article "The Democrat's Own History with Race" which is accurate but quite misleading.

I do not give permission

I hereby do not express consent to the NSA eavesdropping on any telephonic, Internet or other electronic forms of communications I may have -- whether I initiate or am on the receiving end of the communication -- with any person or persons the government has reasonable basis to conclude is a member of al Qaeda, affiliated with al Qaeda or a member of an organization affiliated with al Qaeda.

This may seem like a shocking step to you, but I have no contact with al Qaeda, so the situation does not arise. David Limbaugh's similar declaration at the beginning of his latest article, in which he gives permission to the NSA to spy on him if he is talking with al Qaeda, is similarly pointless.

Unfortunately as a a private citizens I may not be the best person to make the call of whether or not I should be eavesdropped upon. For one thing, if I were in contact with al-Qaeda, you wouldn't expect me to admit it.

So who decides? Well in the 1960s and 1970s the power to wiretap was used for political purposes. Nixon used it to spy on political enemies, and J. Edger Hoover used it to spy on people he just didn't like. So they set up a board for judges to approve wiretaps. Sensible, right? We are going to need to wiretap criminals and spies and terrorists, no doubt about that. So we need a system that lets us do that, while also being assured that such wiretaps aren't being misused. So they set up the FISA court.

But that's not good enough for President Bush, who sought the right to wiretap people whenever he wanted. He asked congress for this power repeatedly, and was rebuffed. So the President, just like Jack Bauer of Fox's "24", went outside the rules to protect America.

Of course, reasonably people might ask why, if protecting the USA was the goal, he didn't just seek the appropriate warrants.

Surprised by Grace

Erik Lokkesmoe takes on the subject of why Conservatives have a hard time breaking into the entertainment industry (which seems to be a hot subject these days). He hits a lot of high notes, but misses some and makes some confusing points as well.

His second "mistake," for example, hides a key problem with a certain type of conservative trying to break into movies or music or whatnot.

Mistake #2: We don't quite understand common grace – the idea that the good, the true, and the beautiful can be found in the most “unlikely” of places (Broadway) and people (liberal artists). Without a strong belief in common grace, we will either get angry at the culture or withdraw from it entirely.

First of all, is it really all that unlikely to find something beautiful on Broadway. I saw Lion King there and it was very enjoyable.

Common grace is all well and good, but the implication is that conservatives are just better than most of the people they work with. I don't know how you engage successfully in a collaborative art with people you despise, even if you believe in random flashes of inspiration.

Much of it is exhortations that Conservatives not set out to make specifically Conservative art. Rather they should just try their hardest to make art, and hope that their art reflects their values.

He also seems to deplore conservatives natural antipathy towards art and artists. He opposes boycotts (hooray!) and favors voting with your wallet for work that you like. On the other hand, he doesn't address the connection between hatred of art and hatred of anything effeminate. Art is effeminate by it's very nature (in some peoples eyes). A man choosing to be an actor or a set designer or a dance and so on and so forth is probably not really a man. He alludes to this when he says that parents should encouraged talented children (rather than reenacting "Dead Poets Society" for example), but he misses his mark when he focuses on the money making possibilities of careers, rather than the "fruitiness" quotient.

Of course it's possible that he's liberated enough that it didn't occur to him. I wouldn't think the same would apply to his audience.

The innocent have nothing to fear

Or, to put it another way, "If you'?re not a terrorist, don't worry." Comforting isn't it?

According to Armstrong Williams, the only people who have anything to fear from President Bush's new wireless spying program are terrorists. A few points Williams neglects to mention.

1. The authority to wiretap terrorists already exists under the FISA program. President Bush could have obtained the authority to accomplish those wiretaps within the system if he so chose. He chose not to.

2. The President does not have the authority to circumvent the law simply because he chooses too. The fact that the President's surrogates have repeated requested the authority to do these wiretaps (and been rebuffed) shows that.

3. There is no way of knowing whether or not the President is targeting only those with terrorist ties. That's the whole problem isn't it?

4. Armstrong Williams is a bought and paid forpropagandist.

I can kind of understand why Williams would leave out that last one, come to think of it.

To Defeat Republicans Simply Become Republicans

Many on the right are convinced that in order to succeed, Democrats need to become Republicans. This is typified by the repeated exhortations to take Lieberman seriously. Poor sap.

But here's the pinnacle or nadir of that kind of thinking; Democrats need to applaud programs they oppose so as to look good to the American people. This theory was advanced by Tucker Carlson and Chris Matthews in the run up to the State of the Union (Yes, here at Make Me a Commentator!!! we boldly comment on week-old stories), and recorded by Media Matters for America.

MATTHEWS: Will there be moments -- I want to get back to substance, but I love the visual because I think it is a television event now. It's a studio audience, basically. Will there be a moment where the Democrats sit on their hands dramatically and the Republicans stand up and roar?

CARLSON: There always is, absolutely. I think people are always surprised by -- and every year, not just this year -- but they are always surprised by how partisan it is. I don't even think most people at home know that the parties sit in different places. I mean, I think it is shocking to people who don't follow Congress that one side, you know, won't respond at all to the president, and the other side goes crazy.

MATTHEWS: Do they look bad when they don't?

CARLSON: I think they do. I mean, I'm not shocked by it; I've lived here a long time. But yeah, I don't think the public likes that.

MATTHEWS: Suppose the president says, "I'm gonna make my tax cuts permanent," and the Democrats sit on their hands. That's good for the Republicans, right?

CARLSON: Yeah, probably so.

So there you have it. The American people are morons and when they see Democrats not clapping the President their little minds tell them "Democrats bad. They should clap President Bush. Not clap. That bad!"

Did you Know?

Frog spelled backword is Grof.

The State of the Republicans - Delusional

Tony Snow wrote this week, responding to President Bush's state of the Union. He's frustrated, as I'm sure many Republicans are, at the lack of Conservative Domestic programs being proposed. He's also frustrated that many of the programs that President Bush is proposing don't seem all that conservative, things like government research into alternate energy sources. He's not keen on that.

For now, however, they'll [the American people] have to settle for dreams of filling their gas tanks with rotted corn stalks.

But more interestingly is a section near the end where he talks about why he's upset that President Bush is being so timid.

Make no mistake: Despite the shortcomings in the speech, George W. Bush is the only figure who counts in American politics. On the seminal issues of national security and global destiny, he positively dwarfs the political opposition.

That is interesting. For one thing we don't have a system that encourages one man rule. Quite the opposite.

For another, it's strange that Snow, given that he works for Fox News, hasn't heard of the Plame Scandal or Jack Abramoff or the Domestic Spying Program. All of which drain the president's power just a little bit. But frankly this encourages me. I want Conservatives swinging for the fences right now. It will just increases their frustration and disillusionment when their players are only able to achieve infield singles. If that.

Did You Know?

One of your friends has been replaced with an alien replicant. Probably the one you least expect. But you will never guess which one it is, so it really shouldn't affect your life in the slightest.

Right?

The Old Lies

Last year at this time I couldn't post for more than five minutes without bringing up Social Security. Good times.

In last year's State of the Union the President promised a new initiative to "save Social Security." As the American people became aware of what he planned, it was roundly rejected.

In Tuesday's State of the Union, the President referenced the failure of his plan to "save Social Security," and Democrats clapped. To Tony Blankely this was an enormous mistake.

As the party of reactionary inertia -- as the party that not only doesn't have any solutions to today's dangers and problems but denies that such problems exist -- the Democrats on the floor of the House Tuesday night demonstrated a flawless, intuitive sense of its new, disfunctional self.

The Democrats' wild applause on behalf of doing nothing was more than a merely tactical political blunder. It displayed a deeper truth about them.

. . . Social Security is the single most iconic Democratic Party issue of the past hundred years -- the Democrats created Social Security in 1935, and have won countless elections since then by beating up Republicans for allegedly not supporting it.

. . . Worse than that for the Democrats, it shows how severely degraded their political instincts have become. Tip O'Neil's Democratic Party of 20 years ago would never have cheered the failure of Social Security -- even to try to make a small political point. To be sure, they would demagogue the issue ruthlessly, but never be seen to be walking away from the sacred program.

Here's the parts Blankley leaves out. The democrats weren't cheering the end or the failure of Social Security. Rather they were cheering, because they had protected Social Security from President Bush's half-assed scheme for "saving it."

Here's another deception - Blankley gives the impression that Republicans support Social Security. Possibly some do, but Conservatives do not. Conservatives want to either turn Social Security into a program that is not Social Security or they want to do away with it altogether.

This includes the Bush White House. We all remember the memo that stated "for the first time in six decades, the Social Security battle is one we can win . . . " Six decades ago the debate was over whether or not a program like Social Security was a good idea or the path to socialism. The Bush White House is still fighting that fight, and, last year, they thought they could win it. That should be a pretty big clue about what their program would do to Social Security.

So all in all, I think it's pretty good news that the President failed in his plans to "save Social Security." Certainly news worthy of a little applause.

The Christian Ghetto

There's an article over at Townhall about the release of the new Left Behind movie which is being aimed at specifically Christian Audiences. Mark Joseph writes that this is a worrying trend, and compares it to the history of Christian Rock.

Many executives who populated the music industry in the ‘70’s and ‘80’s were all too willing to have devout artists leave their industry and make their statements of faith in the cultural gulag of Christian rock, where they would be sentenced to cultural obscurity. It was the pop culture equivalent of being shipped off to Siberia and being put to work breaking up rocks, a tactic effectively used to shut up freedom-loving Russian intellectuals in the former Soviet Union.

What resulted was two decades of nearly unbroken absence of serious religious faith from the mainstream of pop music.

This is kind of a warped version of the story. First of all, subjectivity aside, the artists who ended up in specifically Christian context usually were the ones who couldn't compete in a larger context. That's how they got there. If a Christian Artist could move units he or she would break through.

Secondly, I think it's just a little arrogant to consign all mainstream recording artists who commented on matters of faith as not "serious."

Frankly I'm pretty sure that if Left Behind could compete in this market, it would. Apparently it can't.

On a side note, if you haven't checked out Slactivist's review of Left Behind, there's no time like the present.

Would you Kick a Conservative's Dog?

Here are two ways of looking at our rivalry with the Conservatives of this Country.

1. We are all good people and patriotic people who want a strong and successful America. While we differ on how to get there, it's important to remember that that which unites us is stronger than that which divides us.

2. Conservatives are the enemy, the ideas they present are bad ideas. Bad for America and bad for the American people. In order to prevent their bad ideas from taking hold on the United States, we need to do whatever it takes. They are our enemies, and as such, they must be defeated.

When I first started this website I believed in the first supposition. Part of me still wants to believe it, but another part of me believes that it's crap.

The problem with the first supposition is that it only holds true as long as both sides believe it. The moment one side drops to supposition 2, they gain a huge advantage while the other side believes in supposition 1.

Republicans and Conservatives believe that Liberals are the enemy and they are clearly willing to do what it takes to crush us. Liberals and Pseudo-Liberals in particular continue to accept supposition one.

Which brings me to my question. If you believed kicking a Conservative's dog would provide some help in overturning conservative ideas, would you kick it? Please don't cop out by saying "Well I don't see how that would help." The thought experiment assumes that you do see a way in which it would help.

The Conservative Crack Down

This is the term Rush is using to describe the Conservatives reactions to having a bad year last year. The Conservative movement is getting more sure of itself and more confident. Exhibit number one today is the Alito confirmation.

Now it's time to bring on the next vacancy. We are on a roll, ladies and gentlemen -- and take down those words, Senator Kerry, for your next floor statement about me, because I want those words echoing throughout the land: Bring on the next vacancy; we are on a roll.

Bring on the next court vacancy isn't exactly the same as we need to slip rat poison in Judge Steven's creme brulee, but they are similar sentiments.

But let's get to some gloating about the Democratic failure to stop Alito.

Kerry rides in to save the day, and ends up... How many votes did the cloture vote get? Did they get 19 or 20 Democrat votes yesterday for cloture? Kerry barely got about half their caucus. He got about half the Democrat caucus to go with him, and it was known in advance this was going to happen. What an idiot Kerry must be. His Democrat leaders had already said while he was in the air on the way back to lead the filibuster, his Democrat leaders -- Dingy Harry and others -- had already conceded there was no hope. A filibuster would be pointless and yet there is Senator Kennedy, along with his protege, Senator Kerry, leading the way. It was the blind leading the blind; the tone deaf leading the deaf. Now, it was just incredible. This crackup that we are witnessing is historic, folks, and you are watching the midst of it, you are in the midst of it, and you are part of what's making it all happening. The Democratic Party and the American left have no clue how to deal with an informed opposition.

See this one victory shows that liberalism is a dead thing. But before you get all panicky, I urge you to consider the source. Good old Rush has been predicting the imminent demise of liberalism quite a while, and we are still here.

Rush also applauds a Daily Kos writer for excoriating those Democrats who voted for cloture.

You go to the site, and they tell you, read this. This guy is good. This guy's got it. Read this. Live it; love it; learn it. Here's what this Democrat wrote at Daily Kos:

"What I want is a complete list of every scum-sucking, [bleep]ing Democrat, [bleep]ing senator who voted for cloture. That's what I want. I don't know what to do with that list, not yet, but I know for [blank]damn sure I won't be voting for any of them, let alone sending them any [blank] damn money!

By the way, isn't Maryscott O'Conner a wierd name for a "guy"?

Those bleeps are almost certainly added in by Rush Limbaugh. Praising this attack on "moderate" liberals quite a long way from thanking those who did the right thing (in conservative's mind) by voting for cloture. Kick them while they're up. Kick them while they're down. Simple enough. After all a liberal who does a nice thing is still a liberal.

Let's see how this pattern is followed as conservatives write about their triumph over the next couple of days.