The King is Dead but not Forgotton

My Left Wing has a thoughtful piece on the death of conservativism. Apparently it's dead.

Republicanism is not dead--far from it--but "conservatism" as we have come to know it is. Kiss it goodbye; it's gone, and it's not coming back.

It's an interesting read, and rests on the idea that the philosophies espoused by conservatives in the middle of the last century are not what so called Conservatives are espousing anymore. Fair enough.

But it reminds me a bit of the argument some conservatives make about classic Liberalism and how it's the opposite of what modern Liberals believe. Words change meaning over time, unfortunately, and if Conservatives now believe in big deficits and an internationalist foreign policy, well, that's there call, after a fashion.

Anyway, it's well worth reading and considering.

22 Lines from 22 Songs

When will you change this sad refrain / I always knew that you were insane / I like vanilla it's the finest of the flavors / I Wasn't born, so much as I fell out / If you're looking for a thrill that's new / Take a look at my new toy, It'll blow your head in two! Oh boy! / There's three of them she'd rather have going down on bended knee / J’ai ouvert la portiere pour te jeter dehors / Come on in out of the cold / I'd have my fun with a shy girl and maybe hop a train and I'd look back at her standing in the rain / Take me in your arms I'm a fade away when i hear you say what you gotta say / Burned down days like cigarettes for your hollow praise / I give her my heart, but she wanted my soul / She's three miles of bad road / I don't want your cadillac car / And everywhere I look there's none around / You're your favourite stranger / I'll see the sights, I'll hear the sounds / your hat's all off and i'm gone away... / Who said I lied because I never / a smile from a frown circles round / Tonight will be all I have left to recall

Stop Punching Yourself!

As you know, President Bush, following his buddies in the conservative pundit class, made the following statement in the State of the Union.

Some in this chamber are new to the House and the Senate -- and I congratulate the Democrat majority.

Of course the adjective associated with the Democratic Party is, well, Democratic. But people have positive associations with the term Democratic, so Conservatives are switching to the Democrat party. From there it will be a short step to DemocRAT party - which I think I saw on FOX News just the other day.

Anyway here's two different responses to the controversy. The first from Conservative Mary Katherine Harris.

How about the Party of the Suffixionally Fixated? The Lexical Paranoiacs?

And, how dare Bush be insincere in preaching bipartisanship?

The Democratics can dish it, but they can't take it. They're whining about an -ic. Leaving off an -ic is all that's required for the president to be accused of lowering the level of discourse. The double standard is just terrif.

And here's Joshua Micah Marshall, at Talking Points Memo.

You address people the way they choose to be addressed. You address them by what they consider to be their name. In the ordinary course of life, when people do otherwise, we rightly recognize that they're trying to pick a fight or demean the person in question.

It is, as Matt points out, another illustration of the 'bitch-slap theory of politics'. You assert dominance over someone by mangling their name and continuing to do so even after the correct pronunciation or style is pointed out. It's right off the schoolyard and it's no surprise that it's a stock and trade of this president.

You can guess which side of the fence I come down in this issue.

More on Hillary

I just can't shut up on this subject just now. It's a problem. But then again, I'm not the only one with this particular curse. David Limbaugh's latest article is about the Clinton Campaign. He's worried that people might not realize that Clinton is a far leftist.

Though we will continue to see abundant evidence apparently to the contrary between now and November 2008, Hillary knows exactly who she is and what she wants. The open question is: How many naive or uninformed voters can she fool without permanently estranging herself from her natural soulmates on the far left?

It's interesting how people can look at a person differently. My take on Hillary Clinton is that when she makes feints to the left, she's being a little phony, while her centrist statements, pro-business and pro-war statements strike me as more sincere. I note, for example, that her "socialized medicine" was essentially a give away to the insurance companies.

There's also this interesting passage, which reveals a bit of why Conservatives aren't keen on Ms. Clinton.

In the past, Hillary has vacillated between righteous indignation at any expectation that she should be home "baking cookies" and her acquired awareness that she must not go too far and project herself as cold and heartless.

You'd think there'd be some difference between staying home baking cookies and being cold and heartless - but not to Limbaugh Conservatives. To Conservatives of a certain stripe a strong woman is, almost by definition, cold and heartless. Which reveals a bit more about them than it does about Ms. Clinton.

Is this Treason?

These are the words of Radio Host Mike Gallagher who really really really hates Jane Fonda (and peace protesters in general, apparently).

Seeing Jane Fonda Saturday was enough to make me wish the unthinkable: it will take another terror attack on American soil in order to render these left-leaning crazies irrelevant again. Remember how quiet they were after 9/11? No one dared take them seriously. It was the United States against the terrorist world, just like it should be.

Is that treason? The answer is left as an exercise for the reader.

A Very Cynical Attitude

Paul Weyrich, determined to become a prophet with honor, has written a new article about the Democratic field of candidates. As is standard forh im, he tries to take a very scholarly route, so it's not as fun to write about as say "Why Liberals Hate Christians."

Instead he says that Conservatives don't like Clinton, which is not a shocker, and that they think she's cold and divisive. I think she's divisive at the very least (for which I will be chided by The Daily Howler (see below)). He gives Edwards and Obama marks for not being the front runner and therefore having the opportunity to move up.

Front runners have only one place to go - down. Whereas Obama or Edwards, reasonably close to Hillary in the latest Fox Poll, can look forward to going up if they gain traction.

He notes that Bill Richardson is a strong candidate and will probably be Clinton's pick for Vice President (assuming we get that far). And he takes Biden to task for not being interesting enough on the senate floor.

He does praise Nancy Pelosi on the other hand - a safe move considering she's not running for anything.

Turning back to Hillary Clinton and divisiveness, The Daily Howler went on a bit of an extended discussion about this very issue yesterday.

Is anyone dumber than our Dem Party activists? In fact, even as these party stalwarts spoke, Newsweek released another national poll. This poll, conducted last Wednesday and Thursday, showed Clinton leading McCain by six points (50-44) and Edwards leading McCain by four (48-44). In fact, it was the third straight Newsweek poll, in a span of two months, which showed Clinton ahead of McCain; she also leads Giuliani by three in this latest survey (49-46). But so what! Nothing stops us liberals and Dems from reciting the types of defeatist points which reporters then rush into national papers. Hillary Clinton is unelectable! Because of “her political baggage!” (Sometimes, we’re such perfect tools that we say it’s because she’s “too polarizing.”) In short, the RNC doesn’t need to exist. We liberals and Dems are now quite pleased to recite their talking-points for them.

. . . We’ll discuss other spins this week and next, including the utterly matchless spin-point: Hillary Clinton is soooo polarizing. But then, we’ve even seen major Dem Party strategists repeat that bromide on the air! Could we possibly get any dumber? Could our “leaders” be any more clueless?

I'm a big fan of the Daily Howler, and have been for a while now, but I'm not sure I agree with their analysis here. I do agree that we shouldn't say that Hillary Clinton is unelectable. But I do think those polls aren't the whole story. What I've always said, is that the campaign of Hillary Clinton will energize the Republican Base to fight meaner and uglier than they have in the past (and it's not like they held much back in the last two elections). But her grass roots support is not that strong.

I also don't understand why he is so upset that we describe Hillary Clinton as a polarizing figure. It strikes me as the simple truth. Now I happen to live in the south, where perhaps resentment of her is a bit higher. And if it is the truth, why shouldn't it be said? Particularly at this juncture, when we are deciding who will represent us in the 2008 election. If one sees flaws in Hillary Clinton (and I do, both from a political and from a governance stance), why shouldn't one express them?

Somerby promises to get back to this subject, so perhaps a more complete analysis will be forthcoming.

Senset

This sequence of letters defies Dictionary.Coms prodigious powers of definition. That must be why Cal Thomas chose to use it in the title of his latest article "Aquarius senset." In the article he uses the more definable word "Sunset," but for an article with the novel, even revolutionary tactic of making fun of hippies, only "Senset" would do.

Or it's just a typo and they have fixed it by the time you get over to see it.

At any rate it's a hippie bashing article - apparently people who want peace are monsters, and we should take our political cues from the writers of 24 because they understand how we are all doomed unless we follow our conservative masters. Because invading Iraq has proven to be such a bang up great idea.

Why I hate Kevin McCullough

Kevin McCullough's latest article is entitled "Why Liberals Hate Christians." That's reason enough.

At first I thought I could see my way through his patent nonsense by pointing out that some Liberals are Christians (including, I hope, myself), but no such luck. His first sentence makes it clear that not all Christians are Christians, at least in this context.

Liberals in America despise Christians of true faith.

Presumably those liberals who dare to call themselves Christian are not Christians "of true faith."

The bulk of his article is about a movie on HBO that does not show Christians in that good a light. For one thing it implies that they want to do nasty things to homosexuals. Which is true. But Kevin McCullough pretends that liberals are opposed to any expression of faith when it comes to sexual matters. There may be some liberals who feel that way, but I don't know of any. Liberals do on the other hand oppose laws which discriminate on the basis of sexual preference. Those are two separate issues.

He then pulls out the old "look liberals are just jealous" routine.

And it is the reality in seeing the joy, peace, and contentment that we have and that they do not - that drives liberals to draw angry conclusions.

Conclusions that will send them to a Godless eternity...

To unpack that last line, McCullough is reminding his readers that us Liberals are going to hell.

I should think that God might have something to say to his children who consistently judge and discriminate, who fight to make life harder for societies underprivileged, who support a President who takes us into an unnecessary war.

But what do I know; I'm apparently not a Christian of true faith.

The Future

The future is looking pretty blurry to me. Or maybe it's just my monitor.

But my future looks positively rosy compared to the future Craig Shirley paints for the GOP and the Conservative movement in his latest article. He accurately describes a party and a movement that has made any number of Faustian bargains with itself. Isolationism has been thrown overboard in favor of Neo-Conservativism and Laissez-Faire Economic policy in favor of corporate welfare. Not to mention the Social Conservatives.

Cynical politicians have manipulated the social right, through the meddling in the Terry Schiavo case, to the banning of gambling on the internet and a constitutional amendment defining marriage has helped transform the conservative movement, which was once about the expansion of freedom, into "Big Christian Brother" which is now concerned with the expansion of virtue. It is the height of intellectual dishonesty for a political party to say out of one side of its mouth, overturn Roe because we believe behavioral issues belong at the state level, while out of the other side of its mouth say we need to federalize the private act of marriage. Republicanism has become incoherent for most Americans.

It is pretty bizarre to line up their rationales for a federal ban on gay marriage with their rationales for overturning Roe v. Wade.

At any rate, he does hold out hope that his version of conservativism will prevail once everybody comes to their senses. I suspect most conservatives feel the same way, which makes it hard for me to fathom any real compromise coming soon.

Smarty Pants Random Goblin

Random Goblin did make a good comment on a post down below.

"So... 20,000 people *demand* that Bush send 20,000 more troops it Iraq?

"Hmm, where can we find some volunteers...?"

He's pretty sharp, but should blog more. Also Katy has started a blog as well, and it's pretty good. Random Goblin and Katy have some sort of connection.

Another piece of the puzzle

I commented earlier that the Republicans want to raise the stakes in Iraq because they want failure in Iraq to be the Democrats fault. Jonah Goldberg continues this themes in his latest article, complaining that Democrats for failing to support President Bush's plan to win the war on terror.

The president asserted that no one wants failure in Iraq. Understandably, the commander in chief wanted to avoid conceding how very real a possibility failure is, so he chose his rhetoric carefully. He spoke in the abstract about the bipartisan desire for victory and success.

And yet the Democrats for the most part sat on their hands, refusing to applaud, never mind rise in favor of such statements from a wartime president.

What Jonah wants to say is that Democrats failed to applaud because they want to lose. The truth is that if we could win that would be great, but the President has not shown that his plan will work. Rather his track record in Iraq is one of failure after failure.

We have to Win in Iraq

Or at least that is the new mantra of conservatives. Given that there is an outlet for the opposition to the Iraq War in the Democratic Congress, they have to start taking the Anti-War argument seriously. Or at least a little more seriously than they have.

Consider Dean Barnetts latest article. In it he writes glowingly of a pledge not to support the National Republican Senatorial Committee if they support any candidate that votes in favor of an amendment calling for the President Bush to withdraw or to not do the proposed escalation. Apparently 20,000 people have already signed this pledge. That doesn't seem like that many, actually, but I guess it's the thought that counts.

There are two reasons to demand loyalty to Bush's war. One is that they genuinely believe that we can triumph. The other is that they want to ensure that Democrats get the blame when we lose.

Everybody Knows This is Nowhere

Hey all - expect low posting the next few days. They are refurbishing our cubicles, and as such I am like a pack-rat, moving from cubicle to cubicle, one step ahead of the law. Well maybe a few steps. The laws not actually looking for me so it's hard to measure the distance between me and the law.

Anyway I do want to post some thoughts on Hillary Clinton. I think she's probably an OK Senator, but I don't want her to get the Presidential Nomination. I can point to a few practical reasons - she botched the best chance we have of getting health care, her position on the war is awful, she hasn't shown the kind of leadership in the senate that I would like to see.

But my biggest reason for not being keen on her getting the nomination is largely selfish. Her run is going to bring out the worst in the Republican Party. They hate her. She makes them angry and crazed in a way that John Kerry or Al Gore didn't. And we all remember how vicious those campaigns were. Their response to her run will make what Kerry got look like a walk in the park.

Part of their hatred of her is connected to the fact that she's a strong woman who doesn't fit the mold of what a strong woman should be (i.e. secondary to her husband). They don't like her because of the type of woman she is.

That's awful. But the flip side is that I don't like how she has failed to fight for liberalism. She's a moderate at best, and on foreign policy there's not all that much different between her and President Bush. Domestically she'd be better, I'm sure.

So I find myself in a situation of wanting to defend Hillary Clinton against the slings and arrows of some truly despicable people, while being quite conscious of the fact that Hillary Clinton's not fighting for my values and will sell me and most of the left out for political advantage.

And that just annoys me - I wish she would choose not to run (although I recognize that she has every right to do so). Anyway those are my thoughts on this issue - and I expect I'll be writing variations of this article up until she gets the nomination.

Are Democrats Traitors?

Dinesh D'Souza is scrambling to the top of the liberal hatred pile with his latest book explaining that, yes, we are traitors. He must be feeling his oats because today's article concludes with yet another reminder of this "fact." Most of his article is about how the Sunnnis and Shi'ites are not fighting a religious war. Apparently the fact that it's not a religious war means that if we just let them get on with slaughtering each other, things would settle down once somebody won.

It's a ruthless war, to be sure, but it's not a religious war and there's no reason to think it will go on and on. One gang will win.

Cause that's what happened in the former Yugoslavia or in many African nations. Southeast Asia too, come to think of it. There was a little violence, a little bloodshed, maybe a slight genocide and then everything calmed down. Thank you Mr. D'Souza for pointing out that, in the long run, we have nothing to worry about.

Kind of puts the lie to the theory that we are there to help the Iraqi people though, doesn't it?

At any rate, he then talks about where we Americans get the bizarre idea that this is a religious war.

The myths are part of the propaganda produced by the cultural left which is rooting for Bush to lose the war in Iraq and the war on terror. If Iraq is lost, the chances are it will be lost not in Baghdad but in the American mind. Bin Laden and the insurgents are completely outmatched in force, but they can still win, courtesy of the lobbying efforts of the enemy at home.

Yep it's all liberals fault. Just like in Vietnam which we could have won if it wasn't for the Democrats and Media. It's the same damn thing.

Of course the ongoing question is what should be done to those D'Souza has declared America's enemies. I mean we know what the Right wants to do to Muslim Terrorists - but what plans do they have for us Leftists.

Dogs are better than Cats

Shocking I know - but Mixter's Mix has the news that people who own Dogs live longer than people who own cats. Hooray for Dogs.

I have one Dog, Lupita. I will have to post some more pictures of the little scamp. She is currently obsessed with a sock monkey a friend sent me. She wants to destroy it. She also hates squirrels. On the other hand she hasn't met a people food she doesn't like.

I weep for my cat-loving friends. Not literally because I have a heart of stone. But figuratively.

How Black is Barak Obama

This is the subject of a thought provoking article over at Salon by Debra J. Dickerson. I usually don't post too many articles from Salon because you have to watch an ad first but this one is worth it. I'll be honest I'm entirely comfortable with the implications of this article, but that's not the articles fault - it's realities fault.

The ending though gets me angry and depressed.

Yet until Obama survives the scourging he's about to receive from Hillary Clinton (God help him if he really did lie about his Muslim background) and the electoral process, no candidate of color will ever be taken seriously. Clinton isn't about to leave the stage in the name of racial progress, and the pundit class has only just begun to take apart the senator's record, associates and bank accounts.

This drives me nuts - Hillary Clinton should drop her run for the Presidency, but she won't. So we are stuck with her. I'm not sold on Obama either, but at least he has the potential to run a campaign that will make me feel good to be a Democrat.

What does your soul look like? (Pt 2)

For those interesting here are the answers to yesterdays song titles. For those who don't want to be spoiled we will make them fade into the background; just select down and you will see them.

The Smiths - Stop Me If You Think That You've Heard This One Before
U2 - Bad
The Beautiful South - Old Red Eyes is Back
The Velvet Underground - heroin
Neil Young - The Needle and the Damage Done
Spiritualized - The Twelve Steps

So mystery solved. And the theme of these songs was, of course, substance addiction. Which is fitting, given Mr. Thomas's back story.

On to today's article.

Continuing from Thomas's theories, Dinesh D'Souza has written a book entitled "The Enemy At Home - The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11". I'll bet you didn't know that you and I (assuming you are Liberal) were responsible for 9/11. Anyway he got interviewed over at Townhall, and he is not asked for clarification on how we caused 9/11 - I guess they want you to buy the book. But he does make several interesting statements. And by interesting, I mean annoying.

Even so, the cultural left has shown itself extremely reluctant to support Bush's war on terror. They aren't just against the Iraq war, they are against the Patriot Act, and the telephone surveillance program, and the invasion of Afghanistan, and the sanctions proposals against Iran' nuclear program. In short, they want Bush's war on terror to fail. And this means that they want the Islamic radicals to succeed.

If you don't favor Bush's boneheaded way of fighting the war on terror, you want the terrorists to win. Republicans have been saying this for a quite a little while now. You'd think they'd taper off given how poorly Bush has performed, but no, they just keep on keeping on. It's Bush's way or you are pro-Terrorist.

But that's not all - the leftists need to be stomped out not just because we don't want to defeat the terrorists. We need to be stomped out because we stand in the way of making friends with mainstream Muslims.

. . . we have to persuade traditional Muslims. Why? Because traditional Islam is the recruiting pool for radical Islam. It's not good if we kill a hundred Islamic radicals and 200 traditional Muslims sign up the next day. So we have to address traditional Muslim concerns about America. The radicals are telling them that America is a fount of global atheism, that America fosters family breakdown, that American values corrupt the innocence of children. I think it is foolish to dismiss these concerns entirely, because there is a grain of truth to them. Not all of America is like this, but it is the America that has been promoted by the cultural left, and it is the America that most Muslims see through the images of our popular culture. I think America could improve its image among people in traditional cultures, including Muslim cultures, if we showed them "the other America": the people who go to work every day and look after their families and abide by traditional values and go to church on Sunday.

Yep - we need to show Muslims that we hate our gays and atheists and we oppress our woman. Then they will be cool with Israel and our imperialism. Apparently.

Or to put it another way - we must stop the lefties because they will force us to surrender and they will keep us from surrendering (to traditional Muslims).

I was very nearly clean you know

Why this crap scares me, even as it amuses me. Jack Thomas clearly believes this stuff he's saying. He clearly has the opinion that people who disagree with him politically are "not normal." Read this bit from his piece on Jonathan Haidt.

First, the fact that he is a professor of psychology tells me a lot about him as an individual. Very few people ever went into this field in order to help other people. They entered the study of psychology to cure themselves of some sort of emotional disorder. But, in the process of searching for that elusive fix, they were granted a degree, license and authority by the state to tell other people how to deal with their mental problems. Remember, if you educate a crazy person, all you end up with is an educated crazy person.

Haidt is a psychologist so he must be crazy. Good analysis there, Thomas.

Here's a more complete analysis of where Non Normies come from and what they are.

Normal people seek guidance in life, knowing that they don't have all the answers. This is why most normal people believe in some sort of God, and they pursue His help in their daily lives. When normal people get angry, it usually is due to a specific rational cause.

Non-normal people are like the earth's two polars-both frozen in place on two opposite ends of the world. One type of non-normal people seeks license to do whatever they wish, while the opposite extreme non-normal people seek total law to force everyone to behave according to a strict set of their guidelines.

There is no if and when about non-normal anger. It's a constant and permanent part of their psyche, and it looks for places where it can be displaced.

. . . Yet, both types of non-normal people still want (actually demand) to gain the same good results out of life (for themselves) as normal people receive. They are jealous of normal people because non-normal people are basically selfish and self-centered.

Boy us Non Normies sound awful don't they? Selfish and self-centered? Angry? Extreme? We're just awful people. And fortunately Thomas has a simple 5 step plan for normals to combat us. Define us as non-normal, divine our arguments as non normal, assault our arguments as being non-normal and therefore false, ridicule us, and marginalize us. Nice to lay it out like that.

Let me stop here to underline something - opposing President Bushs plan in Iraq as Chuck Hagel has done, is not normal. Of course polls show that the majority of the American people are not keen on it, but I suppose that means that a lot of people aren't normal.

Liberalism itself is non normie.

Liberalism is a polar-left anti-capitalist philosophy.

This philosophy of the polar-left non-normies is based on serving the driven dysfunctional psychological anti-capitalistic symbols that reside in the psyches of polar-left non-normie members.

I don't know, however, if you can take my word for it, since I'm so clearly a non-normie. After all, as Mr. Thomas explains, "They [non normies] may even assault this site, non-normie.com, as idiotic."

I guess he's one step ahead of me.

He does not advocate any sort of governmental action against non-normies which is probably smart. However his whole tone is that there is something fundamentally and psychologically wrong with me and with most of you. Our brains don't work properly. In a perfect world, should people whose brains don't work properly be allowed the same access to the political system as people who's brains do work properly? As far as I can tell Thomas hasn't answered that question, but it's one you can figure out the answer to relatively easily.

I sing the song because I love the man I know that some of you don't understand

So now we get to the part of my review of Non-Normie.com where I explain why I bring it up at all. I don't know if he defines a normie as a conservative Republican, but it's pretty that he defines a liberal Democrat as a non-Normie. And you get this most clearly when you review his Non Normie of the Day feature. He picks a person or organization and explains why they are not normal, taking a moment to analyze their underlying psychology.

Let's look at the last 10. Jonathan Haidt, Chuck Hagel, Barbara Boxer, the ACLU, the Queen Bee (the phenomenon, not the creature), Malik Shabazz, Eric Vickers, the Former Non Normie Friends of Oprah Winfry (in this case he means that they were formarly friends, not that they were formally Non Normies), Robert Scheer, and Cameo Patch.

Cameo Patch (1-4-07) had sex with a student, Jonathan Haidt (1-17-07) wrote an article making an positive analogy to certain aspects of Hinduism, The Queen Bee (1-11-07) is a phenomenen where in a female executive prefers to surround herself with males so as not to be threatened, and the Former Non Normie Friends of Oprah Winfry (1-8-07) are upset that she spent money building schools in Africa rather than in America. So these are more or less non political. Or not directly political - obviously many Conservatives are often opposed to non Christian religions getting respect and woman executives (I guess I can't really comment on sex with underage students in the wake of the Foley scandal).

Barbara Boxer (1-15-07) and Chuck Hagel (1-16-07) are both considered liberal politicians (albeit from different parties), The ACLU (1-12-07) is considered a liberal organization, Robert Scheer is a liberal columnist, Malik Shabazz (1-10-07) is part of the new Black Panther organization, so also a liberal. Finally Eric Vickers (1-9-07) argued on behalf of Minneapolis / St. Paul Cabbies who wanted to refuse to transport alcohol and animals (i.e. pets (including seeing eye dogs)). He would argue of course that Erik Vickers in on the right side of the fence, but that is just a way of keeping conservatives in the middle (the normies).

So that 60% liberal in the first 10, plus 2 others that while not technically liberal reinforce Conservatives opinions of Liberals. I've scanned down the list and seen this patten to be broadly consistant; Conservativism is normal, liberals are non-normies.

The more I read this site the more disturbed I get (in between the laughter). I'll come back to this this afternoon if I can.

I wish that I was born a thousand years ago

Are you normal? Jack Thomas, creator of Non-Normie.com has a simple 100 question test that can help you determine your normalness. Let's check out a few of the questions. Incidentally, each yes answer moves you closer to non-normie-ness, while a no answer indicates that you are normal.

17. Do you work in any of the following occupational fields: nursing, mental health, politics, law, care-giving, social work, teaching, journalism, media, entertainment or religion?

Everybody in those fields is apparently less than totally normal.

38. Do you either: Favor gay marriage? or... Believe that gay people should be arrested for practicing homosexual acts in private?

Again - each yes answer subtracts from your normalness quotient.

43. Do you either: Wear Birkenstocks? or...Regularly wear camouflage outfits?

I guess this one is self explanatory - look down - if you see Birkenstocks, you are not normal.

55. Do you like to mock things or people?

I know I do.

57. Do you either: Believe that feminism hasn't achieved all of its goals yet? or... Think that a woman's place is only in the home, doing a woman's work

Believing that there's still some work to be done in the field of gender equality is not normal.

64. Have you been single for a very long time?

I refuse to answer on the grounds that I might incriminate myself.

85. Do you either: Believe that the United States is imperialistic and should be made to decrease its influence in the world? or... Think that the United States is not imperialistic enough and should spread its influence even further?

It's normal to think that the United States is doing everything right, apparently. Stupid eyes, stop looking at Iraq.

Here's a final one, out of order.

33. Do you pathologize normal behavior (look upon normal behavior as being abnormal)?

When it comes to Mr. Thomas's definition of "Normal" I sure as hell do. And I doubt I'd be alone. I took the test, incidentally, and came up with a score of 25% - I'm normal but borderline.

Of course here Mr. Thomas is pretending to be even handed, but when you get into his Non-Normie of the day feature you find out which political philosophy he has declared Normal, and what philosophy is good for us non-normies.

Incidentally we are continuing our post titles as being lyrics from songs - all of yesterdays and todays lyrics share a common theme - how many songs can you guess and what's the theme linking them together?

A lazy little tear running from each eye, they could never be blue

Are you normal? Or to put it another way, are you a normie? Or a non normie? Well if you don't know the answer to this important question, there's a website you should check out. It's called Non-normie.com. This website is apparently dedicated to promoting normalness.

This is not a web/blog site for whackos. This is a web/blog site for normal people, which exposes the psychologically driven non-normal people who haunt and affect your daily life, in business, politics and personally, unless you live in a cave. You cannot get this information from any other source-because it simply doesn't exist.

Yes Jack Thomas alone possesses the information you need to fight against the wierdos out there. Jack Thomas, owner of the website, chosen by God to expose non-Normals, many of whom are motivated by delusions of grandeur.

I could be at this website for a while.

Anyway Mr. Thomas is promoting a vision of normalness that existed sometime in the 1950s and then mostly on television. He's written a string of posts highlighting the Non-Normie of the day, and he has a quiz which will help you determine your normie-ness. Both of those pages deserve some examination. So expect some more insights from Jack Thomas on what makes people normal.

desperation, dislocation, separation, condemnation, revelation, in temptation, isolation, desolation

David Limbaugh's latest article takes Senator Barbara Boxer for her rudeness to Condoleeza Rice. What is said rudeness? I'll reprint it here for you to gasp at.

Who pays the price? I'm not going to pay a personal price. My kids are too old and my grandchild is too young. You're not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with an immediate family. So who pays the price? The American military and their families.

What rudeness. Apparently reminding the Secretary of State that the American Military and our Soldiers are paying for her and President Bush's war is very rude.

Limbaugh dives into the chicken hawk argument - i.e. that Conservatives who haven't served should shut up because they haven't served. That's an oversimplification of what Democrats actually say, but it's easier to argue against, so most Conservatives stop there.

It's understandable why Limbaugh would want to shift the terrain of this debate from what Ms. Boxer actually said to the theory that by saying it, she was telling Rice to shut up.

What this really boils down to is the antiwar left's intolerance for dissenting opinions and their propensity to make decisions on an emotional, rather than logical basis. If you don't agree with them, you either aren't listening -- another charge Boxer leveled at Rice -- or you don't have the right to opine.

This is nonsense. Of course Rice and Bush and Limbaugh all have the right to opine. But if you opine you have to expect to have your opinions challenged. That's America, Mr. Limbaugh.

I will note parenthetically that Limbaugh posts on the same page as Ann Coulter, who's made it very clear what she would like to see happen to Liberals in America. And she says things a lot more direct that Ms. Boxer.

I do want to go back to Ms. Boxers statement at the beginning though, and remind us all why David Limbaugh wants to confuse this issue. The military is paying a price for the decisions that President Bush and Secretary Rice and others made. They were bad decisions. And David Limbaugh himself has been a tireless supporter of those decisions. I don't doubt that Bush and Rice and Limbaugh regret the deaths of our Soldiers, but they are the ones who put them there.

Maybe it is inconvenient for Limbaugh to have Sen. Boxer remind us who is paying the price for their decisions. But, again, this is America. This isn't the middle ages when we owe fealty to our leaders regardless of what they do. We have both the right and duty to ask hard and unpleasant questions about why are troops are giving their lives.

Anybody know what song this post title comes from?

And So I Drank One that Became Four and When I Fell on the Floor I Drank More!

Bark Bark Woof Woof pointed out that i don't have individual links to posts, so I have changed that. I am looking forward to getting rid of this new format in two weeks.

A Make Me A Commentator!!! salute if you remember the tune from which the above lyrics were taken.

Who's tying our troops hands?

Once again we read from Thomas Sowell about how our troops hand are being tied, preventing them from winning in Iraq.

American and other coalition troops in Iraq have had their hands tied with "rules of engagement" based on political, rather than military, considerations.

How long will President Bush allow our militaries hands to be tied? How long will he let our troops fight with one hand behind their back? Who is responsible for the military anyway? Who is the chief commander of our military forces, and if he can't give our military the tools they need, why is he still in power?

The rest of Sowells article is about how Iraq is just like Vietnam. We could have won in Vietnam and we can win in Iraq, if we keep the liberals and media from undercutting our efforts. Nonsense, but to conservatives, very believable nonsense.

Slow Posting Ahead

Dark Times have overtaken Brytopia - so I probably won't be posting till later on today.

Hugh Hewitt Pt 2

After his post at his blog last night, he's written a whole article today. His post last night looks, in fact, suspiciously like a rough draft for today's article. He leaves out the bit about how we need to be careful not to criticize the President if we love the troops. He underlines that the Military is apparently going to be unshackled, echoing comments the President made last night.

Many listening tonight will ask why this effort will succeed when previous operations to secure Baghdad did not. . . . In earlier operations, political and sectarian interference prevented Iraqi and American forces from going into neighborhoods that are home to those fueling the sectarian violence. This time, Iraqi and American forces will have a green light to enter those neighborhoods -- and Prime Minister Maliki has pledged that political or sectarian interference will not be tolerated.

That's the president. Let's see how Hewitt interprets that.

Supporters of the war at home heard what they have long hoped to hear: The rules of engagement are changing.

Yep. Up until the American military in Iraqi has been handcuffed to a policy of being wusses and avoiding taking the steps we need to take if we are going to win this war. Now they are going to be able to take the fight to the enemy. They will have a green light to pursue victory.

But wait, who handcuffed our military before now? Who was running around putting up red lights? Who's in charge anyway? Whoever has been keeping our troops from fighting this war to win had better watch out for President Bush - cause he's coming for you, whoever you are. How dare you run this war in such a bad way, creating rules of engagement that hamper our troops! Thank goodness President Bush is standing up to you, whoever you are.

Commander in Chief!

Rich Galen's written an article to remind us all that President Bush is the Commandeer in Chief. So even if most of America concludes his new plan is a timid escalation of an unwinnable war, we pretty much have to do it.

Neither Nancy Pelosi, nor Harry Reid, nor Joe Biden nor any other member of the House or Senate nor anyone running for US President from either party has the right to deny the President the power granted to him as commander-in-chief.

So thank you for that clarification. But each of those people has the right and even the duty to speak out when the President is busy shooting our collective foot. Speaking out doesn't deprive the President of his rights; it merely makes it unpleasant for him to exercise those rights foolishly.

He points out that Congress could cut funding, but that they wouldn't dare do it. He might be right there. On the other hand, opposition to this plan from Democrats, Republicans and the Military has been pretty vocal, so perhaps it will be revised as time goes on.

The Surge

Didn't catch the President's speech tonight, but according to Conservative pundit Hugh Hewitt, it was a humdinger. Apparently he struck just the right tone, reminding us all that we have to win in Iraq no matter how unlikely that seems. And our enemies should expect that we will beat the pants off of them. And of course we should support the troops. Thank you Mr. Hewitt for reminding us of this crucial duty.

Even as the debate carries forward, we cannot often enough remember that all of the cost is born by the men and women in the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps Coast Guard, National Guard. and their families. The "decisive ideological struggle of our time" is being waged by them, and even the most sincere critics of the president's policy ought to convey that criticism while keeping in mind that not only are the troops real time observors of this debate, so too are our enemies.

Let me unpack that for you - people who criticize this president should shut the hell up because it puts our troops at risk. Also Hewitt should have spell checked before posting, but I can't really complain because I've made that mistake often enough.

Can't We All Just Get Along?

This is the theme of Paul Weyrich's latest article, and he's talking about his buddies in the Conservatoid movement.

There are times I am so frustrated I want to scream. Such was the case this past week. I was in a gathering of around twenty well-educated and informed conservatives. The topic turned to the Presidential election. Mind you, I had written months ago that we had best find a candidate who agreed with us and then back him to the hilt. If we did so we might be able to move that candidate to the top tier. It has not happened.

Moreover, exactly what I predicted would happen has taken place. Some of our group is in every camp.

The problem is that every part of his movement has their own ideas of what constitutes real conservativism. Is it Christian Conservativism? Is it Libertarianism? Fighting for a candidate that represents their point of view is what a primary season is for, even if, at the end of the day, you lose a bit of what you want.

He does write this humorous passage.

I am morally certain that if we do cast aside our principles to support a candidate who does well in the polls, as soon as that person gets the nomination there will be a savage attack on the GOP nominee, leaving our side in shambles.

I have to believe that both Al Gore and John Kerry would feel some sympathy for that hypothetical candidate.

Family Values

Or woman are great at raising kids but let's not pretend that being a Mother is real work. Ben Shapiro's latest article is all about how Nancy Pelosi's status as a Mother shouldn't protect her from criticism. Brilliant work there.

This is absurd. There are literally billions of mothers in the world. I love motherhood as much as the next fellow, but it has absolutely nothing to do with running the House of Representatives. Lady Macbeth had a child (Act I, Scene 7), but she wouldn't be my first choice to run a country. It is no less offensive for Pelosi to run based on her uterus than it would be for a man to campaign based on his working prostate.

I don't mean to be vulgar but how many of you believe that Prostate was young Ben's first choice of a body part to end that sentence with?

Secondly, it's clear that Ben's objections aren't to Ms. Pelosi's motherhood but to her liberalism. This is similar to Conservativism's objections to professors and journalists. They hate those guys, unless, of course, they are saying things that Conservatives want to hear. By the same token, they love their mothers, unless, of course, those mothers happen to be saying something they don't want to hear.

Dark Times

There's a really good article on the Bush Administration and revenge over at Salon. Very dark, suggesting that president Bush might have something in common with the protagonists of jacobin revenge dramas.

It may seem a stretch to compare the political beliefs of George W. Bush and his right-wing supporters with a death-obsessed, grimly self-destroying dramatic genre that is now more than 400 years old. Certainly the parallels cannot be drawn too closely. But the comparison sheds light on Bush's moral vision. Like a protagonist in a revenge tragedy, Bush sees himself as surrounded by evil, one-dimensional villains, whom he has sworn a solemn oath to defeat. Like Vindice, he figuratively carries around a skull -- in his case the shield of a policeman who died on 9/11 -- to spur himself on.

But like so many revenge tragedy protagonists, Bush is fatally flawed. By taking revenge against a foe who had not actually injured him, he opened a Pandora's Box of gratuitous violence, one he cannot now close.

Anyway it's well worth considering, despite being quite depressing.

While you have access to Salon you might also check out their War Room - they've been on fire the last few days.

All the Lonely People

I don't really have any thing to say right now. Just thought I'd quote the Beatles momentarily.

Is Conservativism Dead?

Nope - and it's probably not going anywhere either. But that doesn't stop Conservative commentators from writing articles explaining that Conservativism isn't dying. I suppose these articles are more enjoyable than the articles they were writing two years ago about how liberalism is basically over and conservatives are going to run things from now.

Todays article is from Suzanne Fields, and she argues, unsurprisingly, that Conservativism is not dead. Specifically she is talking about Reagan conservativism, which is a smart move. Reagan is one of the more unifying figures in Conservativism, someone both free market libertarians and family values voters can agree on. The article might not be as much about conservativism as it is about those who honor Reagan's legacy, which it seems clear many will still do.

How will George W. Bush fit into this legacy? Probably not well.

George W. Bush is not Ronald Reagan, but in some ways he echoes the earlier president's foreign policy vision. He has not fought the war in Iraq with the competence we expected, but his vision sounds like the vision Ronald Reagan shared with the British parliament in 1982: "We must be staunch in our conviction that freedom is not the sole prerogative of a lucky few, but the inalienable right of all human beings. It would be cultural condescension, or worse, to say that any people prefer dictatorship to democracy."

We'll have to wait and see whether this can apply in Iraq. That will be the president's legacy, for better or worse, no matter how we characterize his ideology.

It is a noble vision I admit - it's just a shame that said vision lead America through Abu Ghraib, Haditha, and our eventual defeat in Iraq. But I suppose that's the lack of competence fields notes.

McCain in 2008

Does McCain have a prayer of winning next November? He worries me more than anybody else, but, then again, he has to go through the nominating process. And Kevin McCullough's latest article reminds us that the Republicans just don't cotton to him. But first let's point out a typo.

His most signature work in the U.S. Senate sought to undue [sic] guaranteed protections for free speech – particularly in an election cycle where free speech is of most importance.

Of course you have to remember that Republicans consider money to be speech for this argument to make sense.

Among McCains other sins are his participation in the Gang of 14, his lack of connection to the dominionists, and his mockery of building a wall along our southern boarder. Oh and he took the Lords name in vain as well.

What's funny is that the very qualities that make McCain a bad nominee are the same ones that make him a good candidate. Assuming the Bush Administration's track record of failure continues as it has, the Republican nominee in 2008 will want to look like a break from the past. McCain can sell himself as a contrast to Bush because he seems pretty different. I wouldn't vote for him, given that his position on the war is exactly the same as Bush's but I can understand how others might.

Ann Coulter sez - Democrats are Traitors

I'm so tired of Ann Coulter, it's a chore to even read her articles anymore. Her latest is about how this war is a lot like Vietnam. We could have won Vietnam if there were no liberals and we can win Iraq if we get rid of or ignore the liberals. She starts with this truly breathtaking display of hatred for Democrats.

Fortunately for liberals, the Iraqis executed Saddam Hussein the exact same week that former President Ford died, so it didn't seem strange that Nancy Pelosi's flag was at half-staff.

Nice. Coulter claims to believe that Democrats are mourning the death of Saddam Hussein a mass murderer - is there any lie that Ann Coulter won't tell?

Being Wealthy is only Shameful if you are a Liberal

Daily Howler is quite good these days, and I was struck by a post he wrote on David Brooks writing on Nancy Pelosi.

Was Nancy Pelosi "chauffeured [i.e., driven] to school as a child?" We don't have the slightest idea. (A Nexis search on "Pelsoi AND chauffeur!" failed to produce any meaningful matches. Other searches got us nowhere.) But Brooks' crafting is sadly familiar; he pictures Pelosi as a pampered child, just as his class contrived to do, in various ways, to Gore and Kerry before her. Indeed, this very image-the image of the child being driven to school-was often used, in precisely this way, to drive the image of rich, pampered Gore. We weren't told that he was "driven to school" (at St. Albans) by a DC transit bus. Over-class craftsmen chose their words well-and we rubes were encouraged to conjure.

In this passage, Brooks conflates Pelosi's wealth as a married adult with her life as a child-when she lived in Baltimore's (working class) Little Italy, with her father, then Baltimore's (working class) mayor. Was Pelosi a child of the pampered rich-the image one takes from Brooks' paragraph 2?

What strikes me about this is how angry Rush and them get when we start talking about taxing the rich - then it's all about how we shouldn't punish or resent the wealthy for being wealthy. But when it's a Democrat wealthy person, than all bets are off. Then they didn't earn their money and they are out of touch and don't understand America in the slightest.

Or to put it another way, it's funny how Rush's wealth doesn't distort his vision, at least according to him.

Oh and apparently I'm not changing the look of the blog after all, it looks like the feeds are working again.

You Need Not Exist to Contribute to this Blog

There is a big to do over in the right wing blog-o-sphere about how the awful reporting coming out of Iraq. Exhibit A - there was a report about six people being burned and shot in a sectarian attack at a Sunni Mosque. The Right Wing blog-o-sphere determined that this report was clearly fictitious because one of the key sources for the report, Capt. Jamil Hussein, does not actually exist.

Except as it turns out, he does.

For the rightwing response to this error on their part check out this long and typically brilliant post at Orcinus. My favorite line comes from right wing blogger Micky Kaus.

Capt. Jamil Hussein, controversial AP source, seems to exist. That's one important component of credibility!

I was going to joke about only allowing people who exist to contribute to the blog, but then I realized that with Space Lobster, McIckelson and others, I couldn't really make that fly.

Speaking of people who do exist, however, Random Goblin has a great post over at his blog on the coming political landscape.

Also you'll note that the look of the blog has changed - hopefully this will allow my feeds to work, as they haven't previously.

Turn this Mother Out

I'm in my new local and I feel like I am becoming more leathery.

I'm also concerned that my feeds might be el busteroni, so working to fix that.

Update

I mentioned last week that I am moving across town - well the big moving day is today and today is the day we pack up. Because I'm capable of seeing the future (using common sense) I got ready for the move last week while it was quiet and consequently don't have much to do. The other two people moving, being smarter than me, are doing it today so I get to help them. Hence i'm unlikely to post again today and tomorrow will be the actual move which means I might be without a computer for a day or so.

Anyway if you don't hear from me, that's why.

The Boy Prognosticator Rides Again

You know what's fun and easy? Writing about the election two years before it will actually happen. You just pull some crap out of your place you pull crap from and mention McCain and Hillary Clinton and whammo - you got a column.

It's kind of a shame that so many conservatoid columnists are taking this route. I mean not all of them have Ben Shapiro's gift of prophecy, which he sprinkles all over his latest article. Apparently, using his prophetic vision, Ben Shapiro has noted that McCain, Guiliani, Gingrich are running for President. And they all have drawbacks - McCain and Guiliani with the base, and Gingrich in the general. He then sums up the Democratic race.

For the Democrats, the choice is clearer: It's Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York all the way. Although constant media attention has elevated rookie Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois in the polls, this is part of a broader Democratic strategy to boost Clinton. The Democratic Party believes deeply that the illusion of political momentum for a candidate emerging from the primaries is more important than actual political momentum. To that end, the Democrats dub a challenger every four years. Every four years, they talk about how popular the new kid is. Every four years, the old warhorse, the candidate obscured by the blinding brightness of the hot new star, emerges victorious. In 2000, the hot new thing was Bill Bradley; the old warhorse was Al Gore. In 2004, the hot new thing was Howard Dean; the old warhorse was John Kerry.

Of course in 2000 the hot new thing on the Republican side of the fence was McCain - and we know how that ended up. But I suppose it's only phoney when Democrats do it.

Actually now that I think about it, I'm not sure Shapiro has the gift of prophecy at all. I was so sure he did, once upon a time.

I can't think of a good title for this post

Debra Saunder's latest article makes fun of some of the cliches opponents of the Iraq War have repeated over the year.

The Pottery Barn Rule: You broke it, you own it. There was a time you couldn't go a day without hearing an Iraq war opponent invoke former Secretary of State Colin Powell's famous warning about sending U.S. troops into Iraq. Apparently, these folks never really believed in the rule, because they now want America to disown an Iraq mired in chaos.

Well the rule was used in two senses, the political and the practical. Now that Iraq is a mess the practical effect is that we have a duty to do what's right by the Iraqi people (although we might clearly disagree on what that right is). We wrecked their country so we owe it to them to help rebuild. I buy that. I suspect most liberals would. The question is what is the best way to help our Iraqi victims. Should we stick around, continuing the cycle of violence? Or should we depart, learn a lesson about the limits of our power, and provide financial and humanitarian aid to the Iraqi people as they rebuild? Or something in between?

On the political side of the fence, which you would think Karl Rove will have at least considered, the Republicans blew the call on Iraq - the American people should keep that in mind when considering whether or not they want to trust Republicans with power.

Here's another

Impeachment is an attempt to overturn a popular election. The left used that argument repeatedly when the GOP House impeached President Bill Clinton. Funny, you don't hear the left making that argument when Democrats call for the House to start impeachment proceedings against President Bush.

She leaves out an article, which is probably a smart move all things considered. Impeachment should be a mechanism of protecting America from a wrongdoing President. In the 1990s Republicans felt that the union had to be protected from a President who had sex with an intern and lied about it. In the 2000s some Democrats believe that the Union has to be protected from a President who systematically deceived the American people into invading Iraq while committing several violations of their basic rights.

You might disagree with their assessment but at least the Democrats reasons seem a bit more serious, don't they?

Contest!

I will note that I will be changing the look of the blog about once a month, rather than weekly as I did previously (you'll just have to take my word for it).

I will note that the design to the left there is taken from a major world city. It's from "Taking the Long View" a website by the Library of Congress dedicated to panoramic pictures. I downloaded one of those pictures, of a major city, cut it into pieces, improved it, till the contrast was pretty great, then watercolored it.

So what major city is it? Only I know the answer, but feel free to guess. If one of you is right, I will acknowledge your rightness, which is certainly a wonderful prize.

New Format

This new format may stay up for a while - it's hard to publish in but is easy enough to read once it's published. What do you think?

Pax Americana or Isolationism

This is the subject of Patrick J. Buchanan's latest article. For those of you interested in what he has to say but lacking more than 15 seconds to spend on the matter, I'll summarize his point.

"Neener neener neener. I was right and everybody else was wrong."

To be more concrete - America made a mistake in deciding it could fix the world (particularly in Iraq) and should instead withdraw from the world. He's partly right of course; Iraq has been a disaster. On the other hand it's clear that he sees no middle ground between the dunderheaded way the Bush administration has gone about fixing the middle east and his own policy of shutting our borders and ignoring the rest of the world.

Events abroad and disillusionment at home are causing more and more to ask whether what we call the American Empire or Pax Americana is really worth the aggravation, the cost and the ingratitude.

Interventionism has failed us. Americans are groping toward a new foreign policy that puts America first and a trade policy that puts Americans first.

First of all the people most likely to use the terms Pax Americana or the American Empire are those who oppose us being involved in the rest of the world. People like Mr. Buchanan, for example.

Secondly, while people are clearly upset with the Bush Administrations blunders, I doubt that really implies that they are open to his policy of isolationism. Rather I think they are looking for a more reasonable and rational foreign policy between these two extremes. Most people still remember how Isolationism worked in the 1930s (although Mr. Buchanan has done his best to confuse that particular issue).

New look

This new look will last tonight and I will change it in the morning, because it takes to long to load. But if you want to get an idea of what i worked on all day, click on the link to this post, and you can see it.