The Story of the Guy With a Tank

September 3, 2002 Ari Fliescher, White House Press Secretary, announces the existence of a Guy With a Tank in the backwoods of Montana. "We see this as a clear threat to our nations soverignty. This tank could descend on the capitol of Montana, Helena, and lay waste to it. For this reason we are seeking approval from Congress to mount an appropriate response."

October 17, 2002 Condoleeza Rice appeared before Congress today, speaking in favor of the administrations plan to place Montana under martial law in order to capture the Guy with a Tank. She painted a grim scenario of what could happen if the administration did nothing. "We don't know this tanks full capabilities. It could have depleted uranium shells. It could have biological or chemical weapons. It might even be a super tank from the future. It must be stopped."

April 3, 2003 Martial law is imposed over Montana. Widespread rioting occurs in Helena and other larger towns. Donald Rumsfeld noted that "Freedom is messy" and also suggested that the occupation of Montana would be brief and uneventful. So far the Guy with a Tank has not been found.

July 23, 2003 US Authorities have revealed a car lot with several Off Road Vehicles, which might have, if unified, posed some form of threat to the people of the United States. Commenting on the Fox Network, Sean Hannity said "These vehicles are made of sturdy materials and can reach speeds of 90 miles per hour. This totally justifies our occupation of Montana, and anybody who disagrees is liberal slime." Liberals remain unconvinced. Said Tom Daschele, "SUVS are not Tanks, let alone super tanks."

May 19, 2004 President Bush continues to be embarrassed by accusations that he occupied Montana under false pretenses, but he continues to defend his policy. "We could not hesitate when threatened with a Guy in a Tank, and I promise that that as President I will do what it takes to keep the American People safe from all threats."

June 28, 2006 Tank specialists were called in to testify on the existence of several tank commanders helmets recovered at Earls Military Supply during the occupation of Montana. Said Leroy Hankerson, "Tank Helmets are not intrinsically dangerous. I mean I guess if you headbutted someone with one on you could hurt them. But the same is true of almost any sort of helmet. I know in my closet I have helmets that could do just as much damage, and I'd guess members of the committee do too." Rep. Curt Weldon replied, "I certainly do not have any Tank Helmets in my closet, and I think the speculation that I might is dangerous and unfounded. It is a deliberate attempt to blur the issue, which is that President Bush suggested that Tank Related Activities were occuring in Montana, and that is exactly what these helmets prove!"

Blog-O-Sphere Terror

I'm doing really well for a Blog-O-Fascist. According to members of the House of Representatives I apparently have the equivalent of weapons of mass destruction already. So fear me. Or "face the consequences"(TM).

This happy news comes via Salon's reporting on hearings held in the House of Representatives this week.

. . . David Kay, the CIA's former chief weapons hunter in Iraq, took a seat before the committee. He had been called to explain the importance of a recently unclassified report on about 500 chemical warheads dating from the 1980s that the military had found in Iraq. Republicans had released the report with much fanfare last week. "This is critically important information that the world community needs to know," Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum had blared. "We have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq."

Kay calmly explained why Santorum's enthusiasm was misplaced. As far back as September 2004, the CIA had disclosed the discovery of the old chemical munitions from Iraq's war with Iran. The CIA also explained that these weapons were not the ones the Bush administration had used to justify the invasion of Iraq. What's more, Kay said, the decades-old sarin nerve gas was probably no more dangerous than household pesticides -- and far more likely to degrade at room temperature. "In terms of toxicity, sir," Kay told Weldon at one point, "I suspect in your house, and I know in my house, I have things that are more toxic than sarin produced from 1984 to 1988."

These were not the facts Weldon wanted to hear. The House member quickly lost his cool. "There is nothing under my sink that could be classified as a weapon of mass destruction or violate the Chemical Weapons Convention," he thundered. "I think that is the kind of irresponsible statement that causes these kind of misperceptions out there. It's the kind of generalization that, in my opinion, is just plain stupid."

I don't know what you have under your sink, but I have roach spray, roach powder, generic bug spray and that green stuff. So tremble before you beloved fascist dictator!!!

I'm letting the Bastards Grind Me Down

I was very energetic earlier this week. But today's list of articles has just worn me out.

Besides Ann Coulter calling for Treason Trials for the New York Times, we also have Hugh Hewitt and Jeff Jacoby condemning the Times for reporting on a program this administration has boasted about for years. I particularly liked this response to Hugh Hewitts article.

Stand 'em against a wall and shoot them. It wouldn't take but a couple 'til the rest of these petulent swine started catching on. Perhaps Mssr. Keller should be deported to Iraq and set out on a street corner in the Sunni triangle. Then he could BECOME news as we watched some of his good buddies saw his head off while screaming "Allah AKBAHR!"

I do wonder how long it is going to take for Conservatives to start acting out their murderous fantasies.

Tim Chapman is happy that the blogs have pushed Congress to consider passing a bill to censure the New York Times. Blog-O-Fascism is the future!!!

Michael S. Adams is upset that, as one of the three conservative professors in all of academia, his fellow professors don't seem to like him very much. I think the fact that he's a whiny jerk might have something to do with it.

"Humorist" Burt Prelutsky condemns Liberals for not being happier at the death of Zarqawi. I guess he's right; I mean now that Zarqawi is dead we see that there are smooth times ahead in Iraq.

See if I were Aquaman I could dive deep in the ocean and not be bothered by all these conservative jerks. Of course the fact that these articles make me yearn to be Aquaman might be another sign of how depressing they are.

Saving the most out of date for last, filthy liar Emmett Tyrell is still supporting the Swift Boat Liars with a bunch of lying. Part of me wants to go on a rampage showing what BS this article is, and another part of me realizes there's no point. If you believe the Swift Boat Liars, nothing I saw is going to sway you.

I think I'll go see how long I can hold my breath.

Treason

I'd just like to remind everybody that Treason is a capital crime. When someone accuses another of Treason, they are, in effect, calling for that persons death. Keep that in mind as you read Ann Coulter's latest article.

Unless, that is, the country has simply abolished the concept of treason. We've got a lot of liberals who hate the country and are itching to aid the enemy, so what are you going to do? Indict the entire editorial board of The New York Times? (Actually, that wouldn't be a bad place to start, now that I ask.)

. . . The greatest threat to the war on terrorism isn't the Islamic insurgency -- our military can handle the savages. It's traitorous liberals trying to lose the war at home. And the greatest threat at home isn't traitorous liberals -- it's patriotic Americans, also known as "Republicans," tut-tutting the quaint idea that we should take treason seriously.

It's nice to be offered the difference between the veiled threats of an Ann Coulter and the outright calls for death of a Captain Ed.

The Absent Minded Terrorist - A Playlet

Scene 1.

(A small crappy appartment space containing a couch and a tv. Sitting on the couch is Snarly Pete, who is watching TV, as Explaining Eddie walks in.)

TV Announcer: As a reaction to the September 11 attacks, congress has passed the Patriot Act which gives Law Enforcement agencies the ability to moniter international financial transactions handled by an industry-owned cooperative in Belgium called the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Communication, or SWIFT.

Explaining Eddie. You know what this means, right Snarly Pete? We can't send money through any bank connected to SWIFT. We'll have to use some other means to get money to our terrorist buddies.

Snarly Pete Yeah. I'll have to watch that. (House Lights Drop)

Act II

(scene is the same as before, except Explaining Eddie isn't there because frankly I'm already sick of him.)

TV Announcer: Today in 2002 Bush administrations boasted that their surveillance of SWIFT has enabled them to keep moneys from getting from one terrorist to another. An unclassified report prepared for the UN Security Council by Bush Administration officials specifically references their ability to tap into SWIFT transactions and monitor them.

Snarly Pete: Oh yeah - I'd better not wire any money on using the SWIFT system. (House Lights Drop)

Act III

(scene is the same as before.)

TV Announcer: Today, in 2003, Bush Administration officials revealed that their capture of Hambali, a key leader of Al-Qaeda in Southeast Asia, was benefited by their ability to surveil transactions made on the SWIFT system.

Snarly Pete: What a dummy. Why everybody knows that if you send money on the SWIFT system it's as good as giving Uncle Infidel your business card and a time when you will be home.(House Lights Drop)

Act IV

(scene is the same as before, save that Snarly Pete is on the phone.)

Snarly Pete: What? Your plan to blow the heck out of stuff is stalled because you are out of money? Don't worry I'll get you some. (hangs up phone) Only one thing to do. I'll send him money using the SWIFT system! Thank goodness for international banks.

TV Announcer: Today the New York Times revealed that President Bush has in place a plan to monitor international funds transfers using the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Communication, or SWIFT. Other newspapers, such as the Wall Street Journal and the LA Times have confirmed this information.

Snarly Pete: That's right. Now I remember. I can't use the SWIFT account. Thank you American Media - without your help, absent minded terrorists like me wouldn't stand a chance. Now where did I put that C4? (Sits down, set blows up)

This little playlet was inspired by this Boston Globe Story. Your beloved Blog-O-Fascist commands you to put it on at your earliest convienence.

Ben Shapiro and the Flag Burning Amendment

Ben Shapiro supports the Anti Flag Burning Amendment. And thank goodness. You can't turn around these days without seeing a Flag being burned.

What's particularly Fascist about Shapiro's support of the flag burning amendment is young Ben's arguments as to why Flag Burning isn't protected political speech.

The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech. It protects political speech designed to contribute to the political debate. As James Madison and Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Virginia Resolution of 1798, "[the] right of freely examining public characters and measures, and of free communication among the people thereon … [has] been justly deemed … the only effectual guardian of every other right."

Not all expression or speech contributes to the political debate. That is why the First Amendment does not protect flag burning, just as it does not protect lap dances, sodomy, public nudity or child pornography. All of these may be labeled "expressive speech." All of them would land you in jail for most of our history.

I like the way young Ben drops sodomy in there just to remind you how much he hates gays.

But the overall point is clearly fascist, and as a Blog-O-Fascist, I'm all for it. Only speech that contributes to the political debate should be allowed. Since I can't see that the speech of Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh or, well, Ben Shaprio contributes to the political debate, their speech should be eliminated.

On the New York Times

For those of you interested in a more sane review of the current conflict over the New York Times stories, check out this post from Glenn Greenwald. He's not a Blog-O-Fascist, but he's pretty sharp. I particularly enjoyed this bit.

We've endured six months now of increasingly shrill and vicious assaults on the nation's media, whereby any journalist who publishes information which George Bush wants to conceal is branded a traitor and a criminal deserving of imprisonment, if not worse. And all of it is based upon a plainly false factual premise -- that these stories are disclosing information which can help the terrorists evade surveillance because they are disclosing critical operational details of our surveillance programs. Which information specifically has been disclosed that: (a) was not previously disclosed and (b) can help terrorists evade detection? There is none.

Thus, all anyone has to do to realize the sheer falsity of those claims is to compare the "treasonous" articles in question to prior public statements and documents from the Bush administration. Terrorists already knew that we were attempting to eavesdrop on their telephone calls because the Bush administration repeatedly talked about our surveillance programs. And, for the same reason, terrorists already knew that we were monitoring banking transactions -- including specifically those effectuated through SWIFT. And yet we are subjected to an increasingly frenzied lynch mob insisting that reporters have committed treason without their ever really being challenged by the media itself over these factually false claims.

Makes sense to me.

Another Command from your Beloved Fascist Dictator

Go check out this cartoon by Tom Tomorrow. Or "face the consequences" (TM).

You might also want to buy his latest book. It's got a number of very funny cartoons in it.

Fascism - It's not Just for Blogs Anymore

The New York Times posted stories about the Bush Administrations monitoring of bank accounts this last weekend. This naturally upset President Bush's many supporters, some of whom have called for some sane and practical solutions, like Captain Ed at Hyscience.

Just a few quick comments about what the New York Times, The L.A. Times, and the Wall Street Journal have done in divulging government secrets used to defend Americans against our terrorist enemy during a time of war.

The Rosenbergs where executed for a lot less - conspiracy to commit espionage for helping the Soviet Union steal the secrets to the atomic bomb from the United States during World War II.

Wouldn't executing Risen, Lichtblau, and Keller for treason (along with the person or persons responsible for leaking the government secrets) bring with it the ancillary benefit of encouraging other journalists and editors to find more socially beneficial ways to win a Pulitzer Prize and government leakers other ways of carrying out their leftwing Democratic party-supporting political agenda?

. . . Now that I've had input from some of our friends that live on the outer fringes of reality, and a little time to think about my not-so-subtle comment about "executing" Risen, Lichtblau, and Keller for treason, I'd like to slightly amend my suggestion - the SOBs deserve to be shot at sunrise - without a trial. What they did, they did intentionally, after having been warned by both the President of the United States and members of Congress of it's affect on specific sources and methods our nation uses to prevent our enemies from killing us.

Thank you. Yes you can see that Blog-O-Fascism is really making waves out there.

Well here at Make me a Commentator!!!, I certainly don't want to be accused of being a fascist-come-lately. So I am calling for the execution of Captain Ed for conspiracy to commit murder. And, as I think about it, I don't think we need to waste the expense of a trial. All good citizens of Make Me a Commentator!!! realize the guilt of Captain Ed. So just have him shot at sunrise, without the benefit of a trial.

For those of you who are satire impaired, I want to make sure you know that know that I am being mildly satirical. But, just to be safe, I am ordering you to ignore my fascist decree regarding the execution of Captain Ed.

Morality, Prager Style

Dennis Prager's latest article is about how the left is blurring the line between right and wrong. Not in the normal way of, say, accepting Homosexuality, but by saying things are bad even when they are not.

Take torture. Apparently the fact that we Liberals have described jamming objects up detainees butts as torture weakens the natural hatred we should have for real torture, which apparently involves jamming red hot objects up prisoners butts. You see the difference?

For example, the liberal press' unending preoccupation with American abuses of Iraqi detainees had a number of deleterious consequences. One was a further undermining of Arab and Muslim support for America's liberation of Iraq. But the longest-lasting negative effect was probably the cheapening of the word "torture."

It undermined the war against torture to characterize what some Americans did to some Iraqis in the Abu Ghraib prison -- actions that were indeed sick, un-American and shameful to our military -- as "torture." Labeling abuses as "torture" filled me with pity for all the people around the world who had experienced real torture.

I kept thinking about those whose bodies were burned, whose fingernails were torn out, who were hung by their arms in a way that broke their shoulders (a common Chinese communist torture), who were put into human shredders (in Saddam's Iraq) or who had burning hot steel rods shoved into their rectums. How did these poor souls react to seeing the Western media routinely describe humiliating and frightening naked men for the sadistic amusement of guards as "torture"?

At this point, I'd like to note that 108 persons died at Abu Ghraib and similar facilities. I'm pretty sure that such men were not humiliated or frightened to death. You can see a partial list of these people here. I'd also like to note, for those of you who are of the opinion that these were all terrorists, the bulk of the detainees were released without charges.

But, more to the point, what exactly is the danger in having a higher standard, Mr. Prager? How does it hurt the United States when we call forcing people to experience drowning (waterboarding) torture? How does it make the United States better if we call that "abuse?" And who exactly do we think we are fooling?

Sometimes It's Too Easy

Jeff Jacoby's latest article reviews Prayers for the Assassins, a thriller by Robert Ferrigno that details life in a hypothetical Islamic Republic of America. Life as run by militant Islam turns out not to be so pleasant for Christian Americans.

Of course, life run by Militant Christian Dominionists would be similarly unpleasant, I suppose. Jacoby flags this up himself, actually.

Many converts to Islam find comfort and reassurance in its moral certainty and firm standards, and Ferrigno underscores the point. "Don't tell me about the old days, girl, I lived through them," says one character, a top government official. "Drugs sold on street corners. Guns everywhere. God driven out of the schools and courthouses. Births without marriage, rich and poor, so many bastards you wouldn't believe me. A country without shame. Alcohol sold in supermarkets. Babies killed in the womb, tens of millions of them. . . . We are not perfect, not by any measure, but I would not go back to those days for anything."

That sounds a lot like what the Christian Dominionists would say if they got in charge.

He also ends with the standard chilling formulation. We need to fight terrorism in the Conservative way or we want the terrorists to win! That's nonsense. It's kind of insane to imagine the Islamic citizens of the United States taking over (the Dominionists have a much better chance, but even they have a long way to go). And the Republican way of fighting Terrorism (by invading Iraq and getting bogged down) seems open to criticism at the very least.

New Commands from Your Dictator for Life

As referenced earlier today, I am now a blog-o-fascist. You as a reader of this weblog are a citizen of Make Me a Commentator!!! Congratulations. That Means you must do what I say or "face the consequences" (TM).

My first command is that you you must use dashes in the words Blog-o-Sphere and Blog-o-Fascism. My reasons for this cannot be adequately explained, but since I'm a blot-o-fascist, that doesn't matter. You have to do it!!!

I will also be working on the National Anthem of Make Me a Commentator!!! as soon as I find my rhyming dictionary. Do you think I should go for four verses or six? Since you'll be required to sing it once a day (and twice on holidays), I'll let you, my citizens, have some input.

Sen. Lieberman

It's somewhat unfortunate that my first post after announcing my commitment to Blog-O-Fascism deals with Senator Lieberman, who is, for those who don't know, Jewish. I should make it clear that Make Me a Commentator!!! has no room for anti-Semitism. Rather the acceptable prejudice is Anti Limbaugh Conservativism.

Which, actually, Lieberman practically is. Check out how Lieberman describes Democrats who happen to favor his challenger in the upcoming election.

"I know I'm taking a position that is not popular within the party, "Lieberman told Broder, "but that is a challenge for the party-whether it will accept diversity of opinion or is on a kind of crusade or jihad of its own to have everybody toe the line. No successful political party has ever done that."

Did you catch the magic word used to describe those of us who aren't big fans of Lieberman? The magic word was "Jihad."

Seems like there's another group of people who get described with the term "Jihad." That's right it's we Blog-O-Fascists. Lieberman is attacking his political enemies using a loaded term just to play off of the natural antipathy people have towards us Blog-O-Fascists! And possibly Islamic Terrorists, as well.

Incidentally, Ann Coulter, everybody's favorite person has announced a favorite in the Connecticut Democratic Primary. And it's Lieberman.

COULTER: No. I would admire a politician, not as much as basically your run of the mill garden-variety Republican, but as far as Democrats go like Lieberman, who apparently does want to defend America and fight the war on terrorism. He is the one facing a primary fight.

Make me a Commentator!!! on the other hand suggests you take a good hard look at Ned Lamont, who seems like a good alternative to the Coulter-Beloved Lieberman.

Welcome to the Blog O Sphere

There will be no gum chewing while visiting my website. Any of you who are chewing gum right now, please spit it out or "face the consequences"(TM).

As you can tell, this website is taking a bit of a different tone. I have just learned, via Matthew Yglesias' review of a post by Lie Spiegal, of the exciting new ideas of Blogofascism.

I hadn't really considered being a blog-o-fascist before, but now that I have heard of the idea, I love it! After all I love pushing people around and making them do things.

Of course the difficulty is figuring out who constitutes the citizenry of Make Me a Commentator!!! The answer is simplicity itself. Anybody who reads my blog or even glances at it has to do what I say. Or "face the consequences"(TM).

So from now on whenever you log onto this website I want you to make the official Make Me a Commentator!!! salute which is . . . let's see . . . putting your fists overy our eyes and rubbing them as if you had just woken up. Both of them. I mean both of your fists. You are not required to use both of your eyes, although it seems unlikely that both of your fists will fit in only one eye.
Citizens of Make Me a Commentator!!! rise up. Read this blog daily! Or "face the consequences"(TM). More orders will come soon. When I think of them.

Hoops

The Horse's Mouth has some interesting analysis of Media and Conservative Hypocricy.

Just try to wrap your brain around that logic for a second. Dems, led by Jack Murtha, have been beating the drums and demanding that the head-in-the-sand White House make some sort of move towards troop withdrawals. In response, the GOP has adamantly refused, smearing anyone even whispering such things as a weak, vaccillating Jane Fonda defeatist. Buoyed by the Zarqawi killing, the media relentlessly tried to portray this smidgen of good news in Iraq -- and the GOP strategy of demonizing Dems as cowards -- as political winners for Republicans. But Americans refused to think the way the commentators told them to. Polls continued to show no real uptick in approval for Bush or for his handling of Iraq, and that sizeable blocs of the public want to see some sort of phased withdrawal.

So now word is being leaked that the top commander in Iraq is "projecting" just what Dems pushed for and just what the GOP derided relentlessly as embracing "retreat" and "surrender." So how does the media react? By refusing to even acknowledge the political context of this at all.

Remain Calm has some thoughts on the offer of Amnesty to those who have killed Americans and some Senators reaction to this offer.

. . . "no amnesty" also sets up a bad set of incentives if your goal is to end the strife.

This is based on the sound Conservative idea that we can kill the Iraqis into liking us.

Probably going to add both these blogs to the blogroll.

A Desire to Inform the American People Equals Hatred of the American People

Or at least that's the message of Michael Barone's latest article.

Why do they hate us? Why does the Times print stories that put America more at risk of attack? They say that these surveillance programs are subject to abuse, but give no reason to believe that this concern is anything but theoretical. We have a press that is at war with an administration, while our country is at war against merciless enemies.

Barone is, of course, upset at the Times for revealing President Bush's Warrantless Wiretapping program and, more recently, their Bank Account Spying Program. By telling the American people about such programs, they put the American people in danger. The only thing to do in a democracy as accept President Bush's right as our divine monarch to use whatever methods he chooses to protect us. I mean that is why God has ordained that George Bush the Second should reign over the American Commonwealth.

Wait a second. I just remembered this is a Democracy. President Bush rules with the informed consent of the governed. Barone is arguing that the Press should keep Americans uninformed. That might work in a feudal society, but not in the sort of Democracy our founding fathers envisioned.

So maybe the real question is why does Michael Barone hate America?

Why Conservatives Can't Be Trusted to Defend America

Diane West's latest article provides one clue as to why Conservatives can't be trusted, exhibiting a willful blindness to what America is trying to accomplish in the Middle East. She begins by noting that the Allies tactics in World War II were not considered moral by the standards of the day (without noting that the Nazis had already gone much further away from the old ways of fighting wars).

But if this argument continues to carry the day, it's because we still view that historic period from its own perspective: namely, as one in which Allied lives -- our fathers, husbands, brothers and sons -- counted for more than Axis lives, even those of women and children.

How quaint. That is, this is not at all how we think any more. If we still valued our own men more than the enemy's and the "civilians" he hides among -- and now I'm talking about the war in Iraq -- our tactics would be totally different, and, not incidentally, infinitely more successful. We would drop bombs on city blocks, for example, not waste men in dangerous house-to-house searches. We would destroy enemy sanctuaries in Syria and Iran, not disarm "insurgents" at perilous checkpoints in hostile Iraqi strongholds.

Conservatives believe that if we kill enough Iraqis we will win this war. And Diane West makes it clear that our refusal to kill civilians is hurting our ability to win over the Iraqi people. Because if we replicated Haditha on a national level, the Iraqi people would love us. Apparently.

But that seems crazy doesn't it? How exactly is killing Iraqi civilians going to win them over to our side? Unless, perhaps, you believe that the Iraqi people are sub-human somehow - that they have no pride and no love for their fellow citizens; but can only be reached by the fear of destruction and death.

But, once again that's crazy. And that's not the sort of philosophy one wants guiding this nation.

Top 22

Here is the third in the "The Road is Where You Are" series of rock collections - this one is a bit folkier, but has some great tunes on it.

"Song 2" - Blur
"Myxomatosis" - Radiohead
"Light & Day/Reach for the Sun" - The Polyphonic Spree
"All This Time" - Sting
"The Sidewinder Sleeps Tonight" - REM

"Everybodies Got Something to Hide Except Me and My Monkey" - The Beatles
"String Bean Jean" - Belle & Sebastian
"Runaround" - Blues Traveller
"Wasn't Born to Follow" - The Byrds
"Rock and Roll Woman" - Buffalo Springfield

"How Can I Apply" - The Trash Can Sinatras
"Big Sur" - The Trhills
"Country Girl" - James Iha
"Old Red Eyes is Back" - The Beautiful South
"Garden of My Mind" - the Mickey Finn

"Smile" - Pearl Jam
"Manic Depression" - Jimi Hendrix
"Heart of Gold" - Tori Amos
"Pretty in Pink" - The Psychedelic Furs
"Straight no Chaser" - Bush

"A Horse with No Name" - America
"Little Star" - David J

Coulter Vs. Hitler

If you think you know Coulter, take this quiz. See who is speaking, Ann Coulter or Adolf Hitler!

Was the Iraq war the Democrats Fault?

Some conservative commentators would like to change the narrative of the Iraq War. The current story is that President Bush and his allies lead us into an unnecessary war, misled us about how difficult it would be, and mismanaged the war leading to disasters like Abu Ghraib and Haditha.

This version of history, however, doesn't look very good for Republicans or Conservatives. So they need to change the story. One way is to suggest that Democrats wanted to invade Iraq just as much as Republicans did, and have since, hypocritically, changed their minds.

It was not so long ago -- only four years -- that a significant number of Democrats in the U.S. Congress evaluated the available evidence and voted to authorize war with Iraq. Eighty-one Democrats in the House, including a fair number of liberals like Patrick Kennedy, D-R.I., Ed Markey, D-Mass., and Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., endorsed a "Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq."

- Mona Charen, "The Spamalot party"

To put it simply, they initially supported the war in Iraq by voting for the use of force there. And then, when the going got tough and the reports of bloodthirsty animals who enjoy torturing, detonating and beheading their way to Allah became more pronounced, they decided that it was time to change their minds. They began declaring the war to be "a serious mistake", and "un-winnable."

Mike Gallagher, "Embracing the loser within"

No. Not exactly. It is clear that what Democrats thought they were voting for and what Bush and his buddies thought they got were two different things. You see it is 100% clear that President Bush and his Neo-Conservatives Chuckleheads were determined to invade Iraq. There is nothing Saddam could have done to prevent this (from their perspective). They were not interested in a peaceful solution to the Iraq crisis.

Many Democrats at the time, including myself, did not realize this. I believed the President when he talked of his hopes for a peaceful resolution to the Iraq situation. I was wrong, and I realize that now. Democrats voted for the Iraqi War Resolution, in part, because they hoped that by so doing they could avoid war. They failed to realize that war was exactly what President Bush wanted. It's embarrassing.

But to argue that Democrats wanted war in the same way that the President did is dishonest. And I'd rather be embarrassed than a filthy liar.

Living Self Parody

I think the time has come to take seriously the possibility that Ann Coulter is, in reality, a liberal performance artist. Consider the opening of her latest column.

I dedicate this column to John Murtha, the reason soldiers invented fragging.

In response to the arguments of my opponents, I say: Waaaaaaaaaah! Boo hoo hoo!

That's actually the bulk of the article as reprinted at Townhall (presumably they cut off a bunch of it, and possibly by the time you visit the article (assuming you do) it will be repaired.

That is an efficient way to respond to critics, I will admit. Not very mature, but perhaps that isn't one of Ann Coulter's goals.

Hackery

As some of you know I'm attending a convention this week. First rule of conventions; smile like an idiot. Just keep that smile on your face, and everything will go smooth. Hopefully.

Second rule of conventions - if they put out sodas, grab as many as you can without being obvious about it - you can drink them later on in your room.

Those are all the rules I know.

They had a comedian talk at the convention last night - a Christian Comedien. And he was a hack. And I'm not sure those two things aren't connected.

I think that Christians can be just as funny as non-Christians. And I think you don't need to work dirty to be funny or relevant. But when you are selling yourself as a "clean" comedian and as a Christian, there's a bit of room for hackery. Because people are supposed to like you and, more importantly, support you based on something besides your talent. This guy told old jokes, barely dusting them off, peppered his speach with references to meeting attendees, and stepped on his punchlines several times. He was pretty funny, all in all, but jokey and obvious.

Anyway it was kind of sad - but at any time you are trying to succeed based on something besides your talent (this goes for leftist bands selling themselves self-consciously as leftist bands, for example), well, there's room for hackery.

Global Warming

Dennis Prager's latest article takes on the seemingly bizarre disjunction between how Liberals and Conservatives look at global warming. Liberals see it as a huge problem; conservatives see it as nothing to get worked up about.

He notes that we can't call the Republicans bigots over this one (which is apparently our favorite tactic). And he writes out desire to support Big Business with a blase "most conservatives don't own big businesses."

Conservatives don't care about global warming because they prefer corporate profits to saving the planet.

But such an explanation could not explain the vast majority of conservatives who are not in any way tied into the corporate world (like this writer, who has no stocks and who, moreover, regards big business as amoral as leftists do).

Kind of a sad response. I need hardly point out that while many Conservatives in the field might be find attacking big business, the media figures they admire and respect, people like Rush Limbaugh and, well, Dennis Prager, are all conclusively in the tank for Big Business. And on an issue like this, where the science doesn't seem certain, you tend to listen to people you trust.

He spends the rest of the article explaining that Liberals are cowardly jerks for caring about Global Warming ending with another pathetic shot across the Liberal bow.

One day, our grandchildren may ask us what we did when Islamic fascism threatened the free world. Some of us will say we were preoccupied with fighting that threat wherever possible; others will be able to say they fought carbon dioxide emissions. One of us will look bad.

There's a couple of lairs of crap here. First of all there's the implication that Liberals don't care about fighting Islamic Terror and don't care about saving American lives. This is a gross canard, and as you all know, being opposed to President Bush's plan to fight terror doesn't mean that one likes terror or is supportive of it.

But in another sense, Prager is right. Barring the second coming, Global Warming will either becoming obvious enough that anybody can see it, or it will be exposed as a hoax. And he's right; our grand children may well have an opinion on whether or not we took this threat to the as seriously as we ought to have.

This Ain't Trip Hop

Hey all.

I'm not in the most mentally advanced frame of mind right now. I'm on the road and at a convention, plus still walking off the effects of last week's sickness.

I will give you one rule to doing well at a convention; smile like an idiot. The whole time. If at any point you notice that you aren't smiling like and idiot, begin smiling like an idiot.

Anyway I did want to point you to some people who are a bit more on the ball this week; who have posted comments in reaction to a guy named Texas Truth defending Ann Coulter. Here are his comments.

Ann Coulter is only saying what many people feel. She is not only a voice for herself, but for all those who cannot express the same thoughts for fear of reprisals in the workplace, public gatherings, and their own lives.

She has enough clout as not to worry that she will be fired for expressing her views.

I have heard liberal democrats say far worse and never be held to the scrutiny and contempt that she has.

This issue is proof positive that liberals and conservatives are not held to the same standards. Liberals, for the most part, are given passes on their views and controversial statements.

Here is Justin's reaction to Texas Truth (which is much wittier than my Texas Twit jab.

Actually, I think that Texas Truth is awesome! Oh... not in what he/she says, but just the moniiker. "Texas Truth"... Who can't see the irony in that? We must distinguish Texas Truth from Actual Truth. I think I'm going to start referring to the garbage spewed out by the right as "Texas Truth". I mean, if I order "Texas Tea" at the local bar, in no way shape or form am I fooling anyone around me into thinking that I am actually going to get something resembling tea, right? Not at all! Everyone knows that Texas Tea is a vicious little concoction that is sure to result in almost instant intoxication, and hence a warping of my own personal view of the world. What better parallel could there be to distinguish complete bullshit from reality than to tack on the word "Texas" on the front of something to give it a 180 degree twist!

And here is Random Goblin's more indepth review of the Words of this dingbat.

"She is not only a voice for herself, but for all those who cannot express the same thoughts for fear of reprisals in the workplace, public gatherings, and their own lives"

That's pretty much the lamesthing I've ever heard. Conservatives control all three braches of government, and the Republican party and conservative school of throught continue to enjoy broad support of large portions, if not a majority, of the American people.

"Reprisals in the workplace?" for supporting Bush? I've heard of reprisals in the workplace for criticizing the President, but for supporting him?

"Reprisals in public gatherings?" What does that even mean? Republican rallies where no Democrats are invited?

"Reprisals in ther personal lives?" Your girlfiend will break up with you if you supportBush and call Democrats traitors? Well, you should probably date someone that shares your political viewpoint. Just a good relationship rule of thumb.

But then again, maybe people _should_ fear "reprisals in the workplace, public gatherings, and their own lives" for constantly railing brutal insults at half of America, for accusing the widows of fallen soldiers and firefighters of being happy about their husbands' deaths, for insisting that half of America be sent to Guantanamo and charged with treason, and for maintaining that the implementation of racist profiling in law enforcement is only good sense.

People often don't say asshole things in public because other people will kick their asses. It's a fairly normal process of collective social control and it helps us all live in the same society.

Thank you readers of this website for being brighter than I am (this week). And thank you Texas Truth for providing the opportunity for my readers to be witty and wise.

The Story Writes Itself

As you know William Jefferson was removed from his position of power by his own party. The Congressional Black Caucus has protested that this move was unwarrented. And several prominent Republicans, such as Rush Limbaugh, are standing with them, saying that this reflects the racism of the Democrats, that they are always willing to toss off a Black Democrat.

Of course had the Democratic party stood with Mr. Jefferson, presumably Rush would be talking about what hypocrites we are for harping on the culture of corruption.

At any rate Star Parker, another Republican who is also a Black woman, disagrees with Rush in this matter.

The way in which Jefferson has handled himself during this episode, and the support he has gotten from a number of his Black Caucus colleagues, is an embarrassment and demonstrates, once again, the sore need for a new kind of black leadership in Washington.

Jefferson should have taken the high road and voluntarily relinquished his committee seat. The fact that he didn't, the fact that the Congressional Black Caucus leadership supported his decision to resist Nancy Pelosi's request that he step aside, and the fact that the caucus chose to insert a racial dimension to these events, seriously undermines the credibility of black leadership.

Of course the kind of Black leadership Ms. Parker yearns for is the kind that is conservative. Not sure how well that is going to go for her.

Bring Me the Head of Ann Coulter

I'm still sick, and I'm still pissed off, in case you couldn't tell.

Ann Coulter has called for the death of Congressman Murtha, former Marine. Or at least that is how Editor & Publisher is interpreting an online exchange in which Ann Coulter played the word association game with a conservative website.

In an email interview with John Hawkins at the Right Wing News web site, Coulter was asked, among other things, to offer short comments on several individuals. After harmlessly dismissing former Ambassador Joseph Wilson as the "World's most intensely private exhibitionist," she said of Rep. John Murtha, the hawkish ex-Marine and now antiwar congressman: "The reason soldiers invented 'fragging.'"

Fragging, which became a well-known expression -- and occurence -- during the Vietnam war, means soldiers attempting to kill their own officers for one reason or another.

In all honestly this is pretty bad, but far from the worst thing Ann has done. And liberals have done similar things (Julianne Malveaux, in a comment that was roundly criticized by the left and the right, famously wished Clarence Thomas would eat a lot of fatty foods and have a heart attack).

The bulk of Ann Coulter's work has a much broader target; Liberals in general. Liberals are bad. Liberals contribute nothing to America save harm and suffering and mean spirited attacks. Liberals are despicable pieces of human garbage who shouldn't be allowed to operate air rifles let alone decide the workings of our government. America should punish liberals by, say, taking away their freedoms (as in her lighthearted comment that we should be imprisoned in Guantenemo) or beaten (as in recent comments about a former spokesperson for the Taliban attending Dartmouth (if memory serves)).

Calling for the death of Murtha is despicable, but also par for the course. Doing everything one can to demonize half of America is probably the worse offense.

Who is as bad as Ann Coulter on the Left?

Or, to ask it another way, how dumb are do Conservatives think the American people are.

In his latest piece of shit, David Limbaugh comes up with a list of people who are the equivalent of Ann Coulter on the Left.

Nor is it harshness, offensiveness or insulting tones that bother them; otherwise, they'd have to denounce 90 percent of the Democratic Party's leadership for the vicious slander they've hurled at George W. Bush for six years or at Justice Clarence Thomas. They would excommunicate from their movement cartoonists for their racist depictions of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. They would condemn Michael Moore and the entire lineup at Air America. And they would be outraged at the defamatory drumbeat against Ann Coulter herself and portray her as a victim. One major newspaper called her book "pornography," a magazine called for her to kill herself, a major news anchor said she had trampled on something "sacred," and New York Daily News featured her on the cover as "Coulter the Cruel."

I guess I should be mature and come up with reasons why the Pansy-ass Democratic Leadership, Liberal Cartoonists, Michael Moore, the Voices at Air America and our national Print Media aren't really the equivalent of Ann Coulter.

But the truth is either you see that or you don't. And if you don't I doubt I can really persuade you there's a difference between criticizing President Bush and calling for Conservative Manly Men to beat up Liberals. We are moving to a stage where communication will be meaningless. Kind of sad when you think about it.

Everything Old is New Again

Remember back before the Iraq war when those who thought it was a bad idea were called appeasers? Good times. And times that some on the right, like Tony Blankley in his latest article, are eager to repeat.

The last sentence calling for diplomacy is such a feeble, mantra-like invocation of a hopeless solution when preceded by his confident statements that he thinks they want the bomb and will get it. Virtually no one believes Iran only wants peaceful nuclear generation. Neither do serious people believe that enactable economic and diplomatic sanctions will deflect the Iranians from their objective

Thus, the offer on the table -- to give them peaceful nuclear technology or threaten them with non-military sanction -- suffers from providing a "carrot that is not tempting and a stick that is not threatening." (Ian Kershaw's "Making Friends with Hitler.")

This evolving mental path to appeasement mirrors in uncanny detail a similar path taken by the British government to Hitler in the 1930s.

Yeah, it turns out, on closer inspection that it is our dealing with Iran that resembles appeasement in the 30s, not Iraq. What a shocker.

Of course he admits that this argument is going to be harder this time around.

This defeatist attitude exists largely because with the Iraq war as bad precedent -- just as WWI was a bad precedent for another war in 1933 -- military action has been placed, as an emotional response to unpleasantness, out of the question by a weary Western elite.

Yeah, after terrorizing us about the enemy out of Iraq, which turned out to be, at best, a paper tiger, It is going to be harder to get everybody railed up about the danger out of Iran. But, who is to blame for that, Mr. Blankly?

Comic Books and Brent Bozell

Brent Bozell, who is professionally upset at the news media, the movie business and the television networks, is also, surprisingly enough, professionally upset at the Comic Book industry. What a surprise.

If you haven't heard yet, the new Batwoman is going to be a lesbian (and a lover of an already existing lesbian character in the Bat Universe, if memory serves). He also notes that a few years back, Marvel put out a comic book about the Rawhide Kid which transformed him into a gay cowboy.

Most of it is Bozell lamenting over these characters in an artform he believes should be kept for children. I've got nothing against comic books for Children, but I don't think that's the only audience possible for the combinations of words and pictures.

He closes his article with this question.

Who would have predicted, 10 years ago, that the comics would become a red-light neighborhood where sexually perverted superheroes would be packaged to elicit from children fascination and sympathy?

For those interested in trivia, this September will mark the 20th anniversery of Watchman, a comic book by Alan Moore. And for those of you who don't see the connection, you should go get Watchman and read it or reread it.

Ann Coulter And Her Mind and Welcome To It

I know I am hitting Ann Coulter a lot lately. This is partially because I am a hack and Ann Coulter is an easy target. But also I am on the road (I am currently in beautiful Marco Island), and I have to be on the floor at the boutique in 53 minutes (I have to drive two blocks and walk across a street, and, worst of all, iron a shirt).

Hence an article I can write shortly, but that will give my fans a little thrill. For those of you who enjoyed the insights into Ann's character provided by her description of Bookstores as "Valleys of Darkness," here's a snippit of a recent softball interview she did with Time Magazine.

Q. . . . Why couldn't you offer your (already provocative) point that some "9/11 victims turned themselves into the arbiters of what anyone could say about 9/11" without the name-calling?

Ann. Name calling? The use of language is "name calling." . . .

Yes for Ann Coulter the use of language is name calling. She must lead a lonely life in some ways. But remember, her specialized use of language has brought her a lot of money, and enough money always attracts some people. So don't feel too sorry for her.

Why I Love NextWave

Because what other Marvel Comic Book is going to end with a note like this.

NextWave would like to remind the audience that dragging insane, corrupt police officers who change into giant killer robots into an alleyway and shooting them a lot is very bad and not the Marvel way. And also still illegal in most states.

Into the Valley of Darkness Pt 2

We were not content to stop our perusal of Florida Bookstores with one. After all Ann Coulter's claims that her book would be hidden by the hateful people who work at bookstores must be true, right? She wouldn't say it if it wasn't true. So we went to other bookstores to confirm her story.

First we went to Borders, and as you can see they had a display right at the front of the store.



Now you do have to take 7 steps into the store in order to acquire the book (at least I had to take 7 steps). So that is a step down from Waldenbooks (where you don't even have to go inside the Valley of Darkness to get it.

Books A Million is a step up from Borders as well, as you only have to take 5 steps into their Valley of Darkness to acquire the book.



However as with Walden Books, at both Borders and Books a Million you have to take a few more steps to actually purchase the book. I estimate that Anns fans will have to spend about 3-5 minutes in the Valley of Darkness actually purchasing the book.

The downside - so far it's looking like Ann Coulter isn't exactly telling the truth when she says that her book is being hidden.

Top 23

OK, a couple of months ago I put together a list of road rock songs for a trip I had to take. I have to take another trip on Saturday, so here's another list of songs I like.

Beck, "Deadweight"
Neil Young, "Buffalo Springfield Again"
They Might Be Giants, "Don't Let's Start"
The Smiths, "You Just Haven't Earned it Yet Baby"
U2, "Vertigo"
The Verve, "This Time"
PJ Harvey, "The Whores Hustle and the Hustler's Whore"
Dandy Warhols, "Bohemian Like You"
The Clash, "Rock the Casbah"
The Dave Matthews Band, "So Much to Say"
The Beatles, "Hey Bulldog"
The Cranberries, "Wanted"
Gin Blossoms, "Hey Jealousy"
REM, "Bittersweet Me"
Ani DiFranco, "Do Re Me"
The Byrds, "Gunga Din"
The Police, "When the World is Running Down"
James, "Low Low Low"
Dave Stewart and the Spiritual Cowboys, "Party Town"
Emmet Swimming, "Arlington"
Housemartins, "Happy Hour"
The The, "December Sunlight (Cried Out)"
Simon and Garfunkle, "Blues Run the Game"

Talk to you later.

Into the Valley of Darkness Pt 1

OK let's review Ann Coulters thoughts about where her book would be placed in the bookstore.

The main problem with "Godless" is that I had to walk through the valley of darkness to find it. You will have to push past surly bookstore clerks, proceed past the weird people in the "self-help" section, and finally past the stacks and stacks of Hillary Clinton's memoirs. If all else fails, ask for the "hate speech" section of your local bookstore. Ironically, if you find "Godless" without asking for assistance, it's considered a minor miracle.

It turns out that at the Mall Walden Books this is not the case.



If you can't see it's on a rack outside the store - you don't even have to enter the "Valley of Darkness" to get it (although you do have to enter to purchase it). Here's a confirming close up.



As you can see you just have to reach past, er, below a book by Dean Koontz to get it. But surely Walden Books is just an anomaly, I'm sure my visits to Borders and Books A Million will confirm Ann Coulters testimony that finding her book will be a real challenge.

Ann Coulter Reviews her own Book

Because life is so hard when you are a right wing nut case. I mean she only gets to be on TV six times a week, promoting her worldview that Liberals should not only be mocked but hated.

Anyway right off she rights her "review" for five paragraphs, then forgets that she's right a review and just starts repeating slanders from her book. Before she gets to that bit, though, there's this paragraph.

The main problem with "Godless" is that I had to walk through the valley of darkness to find it. You will have to push past surly bookstore clerks, proceed past the weird people in the "self-help" section, and finally past the stacks and stacks of Hillary Clinton's memoirs. If all else fails, ask for the "hate speech" section of your local bookstore. Ironically, if you find "Godless" without asking for assistance, it's considered a minor miracle.

It's nice that Ann sees bookstores as "valley[s] of darkness." Kind of says a lot about her nature, doesn't it?

Anyway I am going to put her thoughts on where her book will be in the bookstore to the test today and tomorrow.

Also if you would like to read an indepth review of the book, or would like to be spared such a cruel fate, let me know.

The Way of the Bush

Sidney Blumenthal's latest article for Salon is all over the place, and that's a good thing. The hook is his revelation that Former President George H. W. Bush campaigned to replace Rumsfeld and even selected a possible replacement. President Bush rejected the deal, which is his perogative as the decider.

But Mr. Blumenthal doesn't stop there - moving on to discuss Haditha and how President Bush's illusions of victory have led him into fighting this war in a less effective way.

The Bush way of war has been ahistorical and apolitical, and therefore warped strategically, putting absolute pressure on the military to provide an outcome it cannot provide -- "victory." From the start, Bush has placed the military at a disadvantage, and not only because he put the Army in the field in insufficient numbers, setting it upon a task it could not accomplish. U.S. troops are trained for conventional military operations, not counterinsurgency, which requires the utmost restraint in using force. The doctrinal fetish of counterterrorism substitutes for and frustrates counterinsurgency efforts.

Conventional fighting takes two primary forms: chasing and killing foreign fighters as if they constituted the heart of the Sunni insurgency and seeking battles like Fallujah as if any would be decisive. Where battles don't exist, assaults on civilian populations, often provoked by insurgents, are misconceived as battles. While this is not a version of some video game, it is still an illusion.

. . . Above all, the Bush way of war violates the fundamental rule of warfare as defined by military philosopher Carl von Clausewitz: War is politics by other means. In other words, it is not the opposite of politics, or its substitute, but its instrument, and by no means its only one. "Subordinating the political point of view to the military would be absurd," wrote Clausewitz, "for it is policy that creates war. Policy is the guiding intelligence and war only the instrument, not vice versa."

I particularly like that last paragraph because I hadn't thought of it like that before. Let's be blunt; the Limbaugh Conservative wants war and conflict, and sees anything less than war and conflict as unmanly and futile. So they see foreign policy as the servent of the war machine, not war as the servent of our foreign policy. This mentality has hurt us in Iraq and it's hurting us in Iran. For, make no mistake, on this issue, President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld are Limbaugh Republicans.

Anyway read the article - if you aren't a member of Salon, you will have to watch an ad to read it, but it's quite good.

Low Posting and Ann Coulter

Haven't been able to get on Blogger this afternoon. So haven't updated this blog.

But for those who are interested in such things, a reading of Ann Coulters book indicates that she believes Jews to be Christians, but isn't sure about Episcopalians.

Let's look at an Amazon Review from John Steinbeck.

Read the book.

So typical for liberal bedwetters to lie and say they bought the book and read it.

They didn't.

Read the book.

Ann proves how Godless and evil the liberal bedwetters are.

Read the book if you have any sense.

Bedwetter eh? Yeah I can see why Conservatism considers itself the party of ideas.

Here's a delightful review by T. McConnaughy Jr.

I have not read this book yet but judging from many reviews of those who don't like what Ann says, tells me it is probably a book worth checking out. It certainly has hit another nerve. I know of another book called the Bible, which gets similar reactions of hatred towards its contents.

Ann Coulter's "Godless"? The Bible? Hard to tell them apart really.

Of course there are a few dissenting opinions, like this one from Aenima

In her book Godless, Ann Coulter takes what sounds like the ill-tempered blustering of a barroom drunk and offers it as serious political commentary. But she's no barroom drunk. At least the barroom drunk would be embarrassed the next day and apologize for such remarks.

I am considering purchasing Ann Coulter's book, and doing a review of it. I am going to be on the road off and on for the next couple of weeks, and it might be entertaining to tear it apart. What do you think?

The Consistency of Mike S. Adams

I had planned not to tackle this subject again, but here we are.

The idea that Mormons are not Christians is also untenable. No one reading Romans 10:9 and John 14:6 can deny that Mormons are Christians who are saved by faith and destined for heaven.

First column on Mormonism.

Of course, the answer is that some Mormons have decided that Joseph Smith is a God. In other words, they have ceased to be Christian.

Latest column on Mormonism.

First of all don't be fooled by that "some" there. Adams makes it clear that this category of Mormons includes those who believe Joseph Smith to be a prophet which is, presumably, the vast majority of Mormons.

So what happened to make Adams turn on Mormons? How do Mormons go from being Christians subject to salvation to non-Christians in three short articles?

Well as some of you know, Mr. Adams is a very delicate person. And apparently he's received some criticisms from Mormons. So being so sensitive, he naturally lashes out at those who have offended his delicate sensibilities by criticizing them. Poor Mr. Adams. When you understand where he's coming from, one feels a bit more pity than disdain (even though, as a Mormon, I'm not fond of having my religion assaulted in this manner).

Hopefully someday Mr. Adams will develop enough self-esteem that he can withstand such criticisms; but I'm not hopeful.

I'm not following this

Maybe it's me. But Alan Sears latest screed on the dangers of opposing the Federal Marraige Amendment doesn't make much sense to me.

So, essentially, the argument in opposition to a federal marriage amendment comes down to this: sex trumps God.

Sex trumps religious liberty. Sex trumps the well-being of children. Sex trumps personal conscience.

Sex trumps the Constitution.

By forcing court-ordered same-sex “marriage” on the rest of us, political activists pushing the homosexual agenda will compel the great majority of American citizens and religious groups to ignore their deepest spiritual convictions, and effectively embrace—at the point of a legal shotgun—a homosexual definition of matrimony.

Hmmmm. Sears does understand that Heterosexual Christians aren't actually going to be required to participate in gay marriages, right? I mean if that was the plan, I'd be opposed to it too. But that's not the case.

Rather Sears seems to believe that two men or two women in another part of the city or the country formalizing their commitment to each other poses a threat to "religious liberty," "the well being of children" and "personal conscience." He might be overselling his case.

He then continues to argue that if homosexual marraige is allowed the next step is an end to religious liberty. If Gays are allowed to get married the door will be open for activist judges to shut down churches who do not choose to celebrate gay unions.

That doesn't seem all that likely in my mind.

Two Minute Warning: Ann Coulter

Just so you know, Ann Coulter's new book about Liberals and God is on the shelves today. Here's a sample.

Liberals are constantly accusing Christians of being intolerant and self-righteous, but the most earnest Christian has never approached the preachy intolerance of a liberal who has just discovered a lit cigarette in a nonsmoking section.

Does that strike anybody else as a bizarre comparison?

If you want to read more of Ann Coulter's work, they have a chapter up at Townhall. We are not linking to it, because, well, screw Ann Coulter.

Mike S. Adams Branches Out

Mike S. Adams is a college professor at the University of North Carolina at Wilmington. Most of his columns are about how hard it is to be a conservative on a college campus. It's particularly difficult when you are the sort of conservative who has to mock all opinions you don't agree with. But this week he is branching out to take a look at the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints - which happens to be my religion.

In his first article, Mr. Adams lets us know how, once again, he's being persecuted for telling the truth.

Several months ago, I decided to pick up a copy of The Book of Mormon. I did so because numerous Mormons wanted me to decide for myself whether it was divinely inspired or merely fictional. Now that I've made the "wrong" determination, many Mormons are deeply offended. Some say I am just deeply prejudiced against them.

Poor guy. It's hard being a conservative truth teller in modern society; you are always complaining about being attacked for simply telling the truth. Of course, it's possible Mormons might take issue with how you phrase your discussion of their first prophet, in your second article.

The fact that Joseph Smith roamed about in upstate New York as a young man searching for the lost treasures of Captain Kidd should have been enough to warn people that he was a few fries short of a happy meal. But his later claims to have received a set of Golden Plates from the Angel Moroni spared him from being seen merely as a quack. Instead, they ensured that he will go down in history as both a fraud and a heretic.

What was I thinking - of course that kind of sensitive treatment of deeply held religious beliefs should be totally inoffensive. I mean you choose your words so carefully. People must be right round the bend to find that characterization of their prophet offensive.

Still you have to give Adams points for consistency - no matter the situation, he's always a victim.

The Marriage Amendment Circus

In case you don't know the battle of the century is about to start. This may well be the defining moment in American history, a moment to make all other moments seem pale in comparison. And this moment involves the Marriage Amendment. Why is this most important of moments upon us? Because President Bush and his band of dingleberries were unable to distract us all with the immigration debate.

How do I know the key importance of this Marriage Amendment debate? Conservative columnists have told me.

The battle waged to protect the institution of marriage has arrived. For the past three weeks I have reminded my listeners, as well as my readers of this fact on a daily basis.

- Kevin McCullough

Today Mark Earley and I will be at the White House, meeting with President Bush and leaders of the pro-family movement. The president will then speak to the nation in support of the Marriage Protection Amendment. Thank God we have a president who supports this.

- Chuck Colson

This is a key moment in American history. Except it likely won't be. History is against the Marriage Amendment and everybody knows it (which is why some "Family" groups are so keen on getting this passed know. It's not a huge chance, but it's probably their last.

For more thoughtful thoughts on Gay Marriage, I point you to this old chestnut by Random Goblin, which many of you have read before.

Needed: New Narrative

This seems to be a good day for Conservatives to give advice to Liberals. Because if there is one group that has Liberalism's best interests at heart, it's Conservatives. John Leo's latest article suggests that we move away from the bizarre caricature he and his fellow Conservatives have constructed for us.

You know what I'm talking about. I'm talking about "today's blame-America, soft-on-totalitarianism left." Apparently Leo and Peter Beinhart think we should try to turn this perception around. But of course Leo is far more interested in pretending that Liberals and the Democratic Party have lived up to this phony caricature rather than studying the actual Democratic platform or the views of prominent liberals. Why let facts get in the way of a good caricature?

An optimistic reading of Conservatives rush to give Liberals advice might suggest they want to talk us into being friendly weaklings before we take back power. Not sure how that is going to work for them.

The Importance of Being Lieberman

Conservatives are baffled by Liberal dislike of Senator Joe Lieberman. After all he makes it his business to support Republican policies pretty much at every turn; what's not to like in a guy like that?

Well, speaking as a Liberal, I think I would prefer someone who supports Liberal programs and opposes Conservative ones. Lieberman's convictions might be very deeply felt and he might be noble for following them. But if his convictions lead him to supporting President Bush and his neo-conservative agenda again and again, than I'd just as soon not have him in power.

Duh.

But apparently this is a cause of moral decay in the Democratic party, as pointed out by Nathan Tabor.

There was a time when statesmen spoke of ending partisan bickering in Washington . . . of working past party differences in order to govern the nation in a spirit of unity and teamwork. But Democracy for America wants no part of that. The organization's leaders want all discord-all the time. If the President says "yes," they want Democratic members of Congress to say "no"-apparently, no matter what the issue.

And the irony here is that Democracy for America is adopting policy stands which, if put up for a democratic vote of the people, would probably lose hands-down.

This organization is clearly misnamed. It should be referred to as Liberals for America. Or make that Liberals against the American President. Democrats who veer from the radical liberal line and dare to say a kind word for a Republican President need not apply for any political post-even if they do have a winning record.

Sounds all fine and noble doesn't it? Poor Lieberman - just trying to get along in a statesmanlike way. Why don't we appreciate all of his hard work? I mean bending over backwards so regularly is hard on your back.

But there's the rub. Compromise with Republicans means doing what the Republicans want. Bush isn't interested in compromising with Democrats but he's pretty happy when sell out Democrats want to compromise with him.

I also don't think Mr. Tabor understand the whole point to a primary. Or I don't know which people he is talking about whom he claims that Democracy for America is offending. The people of Connecticut? The Democratic Party members? Or Americans in general? And how does Mr. Tabor know what these people want?

It strikes me we might find out by letting them all vote in, say, a primary election. And then we might know what they want, instead of going on this conjecture.

Do the people need to know?

Or, what do the people need to know?

The question raises in the case of Haditha. I made fun of this the other day, but the truth is our Conservative friends probably see little to no reason why people need to be informed of what went wrong there.

And they have a point.

You tell the average Joe on the street about Haditha and what is the next step? Well if you are against the war it fits into a narrative. The war was a bad idea, and leads to bad things. As Haditha shows.

Or

The rationales for the war have collapsed. They told us it was about weapons of mass destruction; there weren't any. They told us it was about connections to al Qaeda; there weren't any. They told us it was about helping the poor suffering people of Iraq; now we hear about Abu Ghraib and Haditha.

But if you are for the war, Haditha's meaning is a little harder to grab onto. You have to shift the focus away from the events in Haditha and towards the people commenting on those events. The story isn't about what happened in Haditha (in fact Conservatives have to pretend not to even know what happened there. The story is about those rotten liberals and how they hate the troops and how they are rushing to judgment before we even know anything.

But in this narrative there's no reason to even consider whether Haditha matters or not. Either the soldiers are innocent or they are guilty and the military will bring them to justice. In either case, there's no reason for civilians to be concerned in the slightest, because any concern reveals a lack of trust in our troops. And of course all good Americans want to trust our soldiers.

It is an interesting conflict.

The Conservative World View

This is a quote from Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit, a conservative blog.

. . . crying wolf leads in the end to moral callousness, as people assume that there’s no point in behaving morally when they’re going to be called monsters anyway.

Quote provided by Jonathan Schwarz at This Modern World.

We live in violent days and they are only going to get more violent with thoughts like that going around. Combine that with the Conservatives self-pitying worldview that teaches that they are constantly under rhetorical attack by all powerful liberals and their allies in the media, and you have a recipe for violence.

I think it is hilarious that my conservative friends believe that Conservative columnists can stir up hatred and glorify violence pretty much harmlessly.

It's mostly my neck talking, but I'm ready for it to boil over. This waiting around for the other shoe to drop is a pain in the neck. And I don't need two just now.

The X-Men are Gay

Or maybe not. Unclear.

Townhall movie reviews (for those of you who like your reviews mixed with a bit of conservative ideology (two great tastes that taste great together - like cabbage and toenail clippings) has reviewed the latest X-Men Movie, and apparently it's about gayness.

Where X-Men I and II flirted with the idea of the mutant gene being equivalent to a hypothetical homosexual gene, The Last Stand's inclusion of a muscled-yet-effeminate winged character who resists his father's shame over his "natural state" makes the suggestion far more explicit. (At one point during the movie my husband leaned over and whispered, "Ratner knows that being gay isn't a superpower, doesn't he?")

This is in reference to Angel, one of the original five X-Men who's a somewhat problematic character at this point. After all, once you have Jean Gray or Storm, having giant wings doesn't look all that impressive, does it? So most successful modern attempts (particularly Brian Bendis's reinvention of him in Ultimate X-Men) have played up his, well, angelic qualities.

But of course angels aren't as masculine as you might like, if you are really hung up on that kind of thing.

Conservatives are really hung up on this kind of thing.

Of course the X-Men began as a civil rights metaphor (a pretty hamfisted one in the early days), and today that means gay rights to Conservatives (since it is no longer profitable to take shots at blacks and other people of color (although Hispanics might be getting back on the list)).

Townhall also notes that Batwoman is Gay. Kind of a rough week for Conservative Comic Fans.

The Right to be intolerant

Conservative Christians are suing for the right to be intolerant towards Homosexuals.

They are suing for the right to wear anti gay tee shirts to school, for the right to denounce Gay Pride month, for the right to refuse attend diversity training. Because these Christians feel that they have a duty to attack Gays publicly wherever they are. It is part of their faith.

To be a Christian, in their worldview, is to attack gays publicly. To prevent a Christian from attacking gays publicly is the same as expecting gays to give up loving people of the same sex or painting black people white. It is discriminatory, because, again, to be a Christian you have to attack gays publicly.

I suspect that if operated a business and I employed gay people I would not permit excessive displays of affection while on the job. And if employed this particular type of Christian I would not permit excessive displays of "Christian" intolerance on the job.

Robert J. Elisberg has some thoughts on this subject.

But no, Rev. Rick Scarborough, who as an adult should know better, says with a straight face that this policy against gays and lesbians is a civil rights issue for Christians. "Christians are going to have to take a stand for the right to be a Christian," he insists.

And that in a nutshell is the problem these ultra-conservative groups created for themselves: those 139 million other Christians in horror at seeing how their own personal faith is being portrayed. That this is supposedly being "a Christian." It forces the question for these other 90+% of Christians - you know, the ones who have no problem not being intolerant to anyone: is this what you think being a Christian is?

The point is that this is not what Christianity is about. The values of Christianity are deep and loving, which is why they have been ingrained in the hearts of so many. The point here is that it's time for those Christians, that other 90+% - and everyone - to stand and not allow such intolerance to get away with it. Enough already.

This is not an attack on religion because self-imposed intolerance has nothing to do with religion.

That's a fair question. As a Christian I do find it offensive that some are fighting, in my name, for the right to be intolerant.

Haditha

One reason, besides neck ache, that I didn't post yesterday was that the first two articles I read where on Haditha (by Michelle Malkin and Ben Shapiro). The Right Wing is playing their regular game in regards to the events that seem to have taken place in Haditha.

Phase one: unconfirmed reports service (in this case repeated by Rep. Murtha) about an atrocity committed in Haditha.

Conservatoid Response: those reports are unconfirmed and it shows how much Democrats hate soldiers that they are latching on to them to attack our efforts in Iraq.

Phase two: the Reports are confirmed by further investigation.

Conservatoid Response: The investigation by the military isn't done yet, so the Media and Liberals should just ignore this story, until the military finishes their investigation. Presenting this evidence to the American people just shows that they hate the military. This response works for any new evidence in between now and the time the Military finishes their investigation.

Phase three (possibility A): Despite clear evidence, the military takes little to no answer

Conservatoid Response: Total silence, or a continuation of their response to Phase 2.

Phase three (possibility B): The military holds those soldiers responsible guilty and punishes them.

Conservatoid Response: See the system works; but this is an old story now, and any continued discussion of it only shows how the Media and Liberals hate soldiers.

When is the right time to discuss the implications of Haditha? Never, according to our friends the conservatives. It's always either too soon or too late.

Ultimate Fighting Blog

As some of you know, Blogger did not have a good day yesterday. But that is not the reason I did not post. I did not post because my neck was killing me and I spent the day in bed. I thought about blogging about my neck pain, but felt that would be boring.

In other news, if you have some extra scratch you might through it to the Countess who is going through some rough times apparently. I don't remember all the details (because I'm kind of a flake), but it's not going good over there.

What about War?

Burt Prelutsky, in his latest article, argues that War gets a bad rap.

I realize that some folks are going to bring up innocent bloodshed as an argument against war. But, the truth is that, one way or another, everybody dies. Why is it only a big deal when they die during warfare? For instance, in America, alone, 35,000 people will die this year from influenza; another 50,000 will die in traffic accidents; well over 100,000 will die of tobacco-related diseases.

Most of them will perish because they neglected to get flu shots or because they insist on drinking and driving or because they'd rather risk cancer than give up their cigarettes. So, while Americans go nuts every time a soldier dies while doing his duty, you don't see people demonstrating in the streets against the flu, and you don't see Susan Sarandon all over the tube haranguing against booze, and you sure don't see Michael Moore producing message movies about the horrors of nicotine and tars!
The reality is that while bad people--be they Napoleon, Hitler or Hussein--fight bad wars, good people fight good ones.

A few points.

First of all in the first season of the Awful Truth, Michael Moore did take a "voice box choir," made up of people who had lost their voices to cigarette related diseases, around to sing Christmas Carols to Tobacco Company Executives, which I always thought was a strong image.

Not technically a movie though.

Secondly, I'm so tired of the "everybody dies" excuse. I mean come on - imagine a murderer sitting before a judge, arguing that he or she only killed one person; cigarettes kill many times that. The truth is we make a moral distinction between people who die and people who are murdered. Granted it can be a fine line in some cases. Some people don't want to hold factory owners or mine owners responsible for creating unsafe conditions, while others do.

If Iraq were a legitimate war fought for legitimate reasons, than the deaths of American soldiers is the price we would have to pay. Regrettable but necessary. If the war is illegitimate and unnecessary (as many people believe) than how many lives do you want to piss away fighting it?

Which brings me to my third point. I totally agree that bad people start bad wars, and I'm grateful that Prelutsky noted that. I leave it up to my audience to consider whether President Bush is good people or bad people.

At any rate, Sidney Blumenthal notes that the Bush Administration shares Prelutsky's warm feelings towards war in his latest article.

In the beginning, the elements of the war paradigm appeared to be expediencies, conceived as a series of emergency measures in the struggle against al-Qaida. But, in fact, their precepts were developed in law review articles before Sept. 11 by John Yoo, promoted to deputy assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice, where Vice President Cheney's office assigned him to write key secret memos on torture, surveillance and executive power. Once Bush approved them, the clerisy of neoconservative lawyers, at least as tightly knit as Opus Dei, put them into effect. The war paradigm is Bush's "Da Vinci Code," the difference being that its high priests acknowledge in private that it is real.

They fervently believe that the Constitution is fatally flawed and must be severely circumscribed. The Bush administration's "holy grail," another phrase officials use in private, is to remove suspects' rights to due process, speedy trial and exculpatory evidence. The war paradigm, which they contrast with a caricatured "law enforcement paradigm," is to be constantly strengthened to conduct a permanent war against terror, which can never be finally defeated. There is no exit strategy from emergency.

I do have one question for Blumenthal. Is it you or is it the Bush Administration who sees terror as something that "can never be finally defeated." Because I agree that it doesn't seem like we can really defeat it; but I'd be surprised if the Bush Administration felt like that. Shades of 1984 there. While there are plenty who believe the Bush Administration that sinister, I see them more as ideologically driven dunderheads.

Setting that aside, the Bush Administration's ideologically driven dunderheads do seem to be getting a lot out of the "war paradigm."