Scott McClellen and his book

Scott McClellen has written a book, in which he claims that the Bush Administration propagandized us into war, he claims to have seen Karl Rove and Scooter Libby having a clandestine conversation, and he claimed that the media was overly deferential to the White House. Can you figure out which of those three claims the Conservative and the Mainstream Media aren't touching with a ten foot pole. That's right. Everybody knows we have a liberal media or an aggressive professional media; for McClellen to to claim they are just lapdogs is crazy!

So instead we get bizarre attacks, like this one from Mike Gallagher's latest article.

I often wonder if people like Scott McClellan ever stop and think about the pain and grief their money-grubbing antics cause the families of the brave men and women who are serving their country overseas. After all, if one accepts the premise that President Bush erred in going to war, then the mission of the United States military is absolutely in vain. Perhaps when McClellan cashes his hefty paychecks, he'll be like Ebeneezer Scrooge seeing the face of Marley on the door post and see the pained faces of men and women who simply cannot understand why a man like him would want to publish an anti-war book smack dab in the middle of a war.

Do you suppose Osama bin Laden will read McClellan's book? If he does, he's sure to enjoy it.

That's just down right nasty, isn't it? Telling the truth about this war is practically an act of treason and it stabs our brave fighting men and women in the back. Nasty. And untrue.

We have civilian control over the military and thus it is our duty as citizens and civilians to keep an eye on the military. We need to protect our military from being used unwisely, a task that we, as a nation, failed at in 2001. The fact that we were propagandized into invading Iraq is not a slur on the soldiers, as Gallagher asserts, but instead a condemnation on us and the Bush Administration. The Bush Administration for deceiving us, and us for letting ourselves be deceived.

For more on what I think is McClellen's most damning complaint, that the media was too compliant in the run up to the Iraq War, here is a post from Glenn Greenwald.

Just consider how remarkable that is. George Bush's own Press Secretary criticizes the American media for being "too deferential" to the Government. He lays the blame for Bush's ability to propagandize the nation on the media's uncritical dissemination of the Republican administration's falsehoods. And most notably of all, McClellan actually uses cynical scare quotes when invoking the phrase which, in conventional political discourse, is deemed the most unassailable truth of all: The Liberal Media.

How much longer can this preposterous myth be sustained when even the White House Spokesman not only mocks the phrase but derides the media for being "too deferential" to the right-wing Government "in regard to the most important decision facing the nation during [his] years in Washington"?

Yeah, I guess I can see why the Media and Conservatives aren't keen to talk about this.

I-Pod 10

1. Aldo Vanucci - "I Warned You Baby"
2. Beastie Boys - "3 MCs and 1 DJ (Live Video Version)"
3. Daniel Ash - "Spooky"
4. Paul Van Dyk - "Namistai"
5. Vangelis - "Tears in Rain"
6. David McCallum, "The Edge"
7. Death in Vegas - "One More Time"
8. The Beatles - "I'm So Tired"
9. The Glove - "Orgy"
10. The Leaves - "Hey Joe"

Wierd Mix today - these songs don't really go together. But they are good songs, more or less.

Balancing the Ticket

Matt Towery's latest article takes the progressive step of acknowledging that all of the various candidates have potential problems with how people see them. McCain is old, Clinton is a Woman, and Obama is a black. All of them are facing problems because of who they are. He argues that McCain should pick a good Republican woman to balance out the ticket and to pick up those women annoyed that Hillary Clinton didn't get the nod.

Then he makes this interesting statement.

There's another bias in this country -- regional bias. Though it's become less fashionable to say so out loud, many Americans still view the South as being knee-jerk racist, not to mention generally backward and unsophisticated. Southern accents still get plenty of good ribbing. After all, they don't call former President Clinton "President Bubba" for nothing.

I guess that's true - the South does get a pretty good rubbing on occasion. But, Towery, they dish it out too. I mean California is the land of homosexual kooks and New York and the North East practically a Communist Country down here. And frankly the attacks that the South has made on other parts of this nation are more hurtful then the attacks they've had to suffer. Hell you practically can't get to be president without being from the south - while Northeasterners have a lot harder time.

Depressing Regularity

Regularity is something I like. I'm a regular guy. I like things to happen in a regular ordered order. It makes me happy. But of course not everything is worth repeating. Take for example, the regularity with which Republicans attack Democrats for not loving the military enough. This is the subject of Ben Shapiro's latest article. His first point? Barack Obama made a speech at a College Commencement in which he praised public service but failed to praise military service. So that proves he thinks that some hippy community organizer or some peace corps goon is better than the brave men and woman who join the military.

Or maybe it proves that Obama was talking to college graduates.

Also, and this is a real shocker, Obama apparently prefers to peace to war, and will make it is goal as President to fight for peace. But our soldiers are there to fight war; so once again Obama is a military hater. It's almost like he doesn't want our soldiers to have the opportunity to die in glorious battle.

Also Obama apparently wants to make sure that money we spend to support our military is spent wisely. No really. That shows he doesn't love the military.

He is the man who actually ran a campaign ad bragging, "I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending. I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems. I will not weaponize space. I will slow our development of future combat systems. I will institute an independent Defense Priorities Board to ensure that the Quadrennial Defense Review is not used to justify unnecessary defense spending . . ."

He wants to cut wasteful spending? He wants to avoid unnecessary defense spending? Doesn't he realize how bad that is for Hallib. . . our American Fighting men and women?

Fortunately for young Ben, there will be plenty of people with a bit more skill than him following this theme as the summer goes on.

The Creeping Menace - Scarves

Just so you know, eating at Dunkin' Donuts might be taboo if Michelle Malkin has her way. Apparently she feels that annoying TV Chef, Rachel Ray (I'm sorry Ms. Ray, but it's true. Your recipes are good though), is wearing a salute to Palestine around her neck in a Dunkin' Donuts ad.

So if you are going to continue eating Terrorist Donuts, just make sure not to wear a Scarf while doing so.

A Voyage of Discovery or Ann Coulter's Nuttier than Five Squirrels

Michael S. Adams has made a remarkable discovery in his latest artice; that Ann Coulter, she might not be all there.

I wasn’t the only one who noticed that Ann was unusually angry. Neil noticed it, too. And he asked her why she was so angry. She responded by accusing McCain of lying on a regular basis. Neil then asked her why she had a more favorable opinion of Romney who has been accused of lying about his positions on abortion and gay rights. Coulter quipped that he had to lie in order to get elected in Massachusetts, adding that trying to get elected there was like trying to get elected in North Korea.

Strange as those comments were they were tame in comparison to Ann’s next assertion; namely, that John McCain “has no honor.

Interesting. Comparing one of our States to a repressive dictatorship is "odd" but what really pushes Ann past the boundaries of reasonable discourse is her attacks on McCain. Now for the record I agree that saying McCain has no honor is not accurate. I won't be supporting him for President, and I think that those who will be are making a tragic miscalculation, but he served his country.

On the other hand where the hell has Adams been the last few years? Lots of people have said far worse things about McCain, many of them Conservatives. And Ann Coulter regularly says far crazier things than that. But I guess he's got his eyes on the main score; electing McCain.

Parenthetically, I'll be surprised if Ann Coulter doesn't respond to this sort of criticism, probably by implying that Adams is some kind of Nancy boy.

More on Appeasement

Where there's smoke, theirs fire. If people get upset at getting called Appeasers, maybe that's because the accusation strikes close to home. This is a popular explanation of why people are upset over President Bush's comments in Israel. For an example let's check out Emmett Tyrell's latest article.

The mere mention of "appeasement" apparently sets off paranoid tantrums amongst members of the political class. Once deemed a very enlightened tool of statecraft, "appeasement" has become a slur, a hate term. Speaking before the Israeli Knesset, President George W. Bush associated appeasement with those who "believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along." Kapow! The Democrats went on the offensive, though they had not been mentioned.

Kapow? Did the Democrats punch President Bush? No they disagreed with his characterization. As for the theory that President Bush didn't mention the Democrats, everybody on both sides of the aisle knew who he meant.

With this kind of partisan hackery you can't win for losing. If Democrats don't respond to attacks like this, they are pansies, if they do respond they have guilty consciences.

I Heartily Endorse this Article

This article is by Paul Roberts and it's entitled "Your Friend, the Kitchen."

If we’ve lost our kitchen skills and our connection to food, both can be regained. Schools are bringing back home economics classes. Cooking classes are gaining in popularity, and some cookbook publishers are simplifying recipes to help novices find their way.

Yes, we’ve heard about kitchen renaissances before. But this one comes with a potent incentive: When done thoughtfully, home-cooked food is not just healthier, safer and better tasting but much cheaper than the factory version.

Yep. I love to cook myself, and I enjoy cooking food as well. Cooking is great!

McCain's Role and the Core Issue of the Day

It's hard to know what the core issue of the day is; it seems to change from minute to minute. But certainly near the core has to be the issue of Iraq and the War on Terror. Anmericans are questioning whether or not President Bush's approach to the War on Terror has really made us safer, if the war in Iraq was really necessary.

Today's article by Tony Blankley is intended to cheer the Conservative Masses by encouraging conservatives to remember how great Conservatism is and how Conservative American's are. But then he gets to this interesting section.

Moreover, the Democratic Party has not even advanced its programs to a plausible credibility yet. Their argument is almost completely a negative one: "Kick the Republican bums out." Thus, their central theme is the credulity-strained slogan that a vote for McCain is a third vote for Bush. Whatever McCain is, even the Democrats know he has almost been the anti-Bush (and anti-Republican) these past many years. Not too many elections are won on an obvious lie.

First of all, of course it's nonsense to say that Democrats haven't put together a positive agenda. If you visit the Democratic Party Website or the Websites of either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama you will see all kinds of positive things they want to do. The fact that such proposals don't have the same media juice as Reverend Wright says more about the media than it does about the Democratic party.

Secondly, the statement that electing McCain is a third term for President Bush is really quite fair. If you consider their entire career and positions, well yes, there are some real differences between President Bush and Senator McCain. But when it comes to the key issue of the day, Iraq and the War and Terror, there aren't that many differences. Both Bush and McCain think invading Iraq was both necessary and desirable. Both favor a "get tough" approach to Iran which probably involves military strikes if not a full scale invasion (now they may not get this, but they want it). Both oppose negotiations with Iran or Syria or the Palestinians. The only area they disagree is on Torture, and even there McCain's opposition is somewhat weaker than he portrays it.

The Terrorist Monkey Can Not Be Negotiated With

Or so says Uspace, who posted on a post down below. I agree. Monkey's, like many Republicans, lack the cognitive abilities to rationally discuss with. On the other hand but the United States and Israel have been negotiating with our non-monkey enemies for decades, as Pat Buchanan noted in the article referenced below.

The dingus has a website as well, basically it's abstract questions that aren't quite as clever as he or she thinks they are.

Sometimes Agreement is worse than Disagreement

Patrick Buchannan's latest article takes President Bush to task for his appeasement comments in Israel. This is not as enticing a prospect as it first appears. First of all he takes Presiden Bush to task for criticizing Hitler's reasonable demands to get back Danzig and the Sudetenland. Not an auspicious start.

But then Buchannan notes how Ronald Reagan, a Conservative Hero, didn't seem to think it a foolish delusion to meet with the Communists. And Israelis seem to think sitting down with Palestinians, like Arafat, isn't the world's worst idea either. He concludes with this interesting argument.

. . . JFK's diplomacy in the missile crisis may have averted a nuclear war. And Eisenhower, Nixon, Gerald Ford and Reagan all met with foreign dictators with blood on their hands, without loss to America, and sometimes with impressive gains.

What has Bush's refusal to talk to Hamas, Hezbollah, Damascus and Tehran done to make either Israel or America more secure?

That's a damn good question.

Momentary Intermission

I am on the road so you are going to have to think for yourselves today. Don't worry, I'll be back tomorrow.

Appeasement

Thanks to President Bush's speech in Isreal the other day, we are back to Appeasement. A subject I'm sure I've talked about before. Apparently 57 times, although some of those may be repeats. Here's the quote I'm responding to, from David Limbaugh's latest article.

. . . when Mr. Bush, in addressing Israel's Knesset, compared those who want to negotiate with today's terrorists and tyrants to an American senator in 1939 who lamented that Hitler's march into Poland might have been avoided "if only I could have talked to Hitler," Obama, other Democrats and the mainstream media went ballistic.

. . . Democrats can choose to interpret everything through their partisan prism, but Bush was wearing his presidential cap in Israel and was stumping not for John McCain, but for the United States of America. It's too bad, but understandable, that Democrats so often find themselves on the wrong side of our national interests. President Bush was acting abundantly presidential and in furtherance of our national interests when assuring Israel and warning Iran that we will stand by our closest Middle Eastern ally.

I'd like to point out that whatever you think of the practicality of invading Iran, President Bush and Senator McCain would like to take military action against Iran.

Well let's see if I can recycle something I wrote previously. Here's something that fits the bill, responding to David Limbaugh's brother Rush.

Rush practically froths at the mouth when it comes to what he calles Appeasers and "the appeasement crowd." By this he means all those who question the impending war with Iraq. Of course the term Appeasement is totally bizarre in this context. The term arose in Inter-war Europe where England (particularly) and other Europeon powers acquiesed to Hitler's desires to increase his terroritory. In other words the appeasers gave Hitler concessions in hopes that he would not attack them. The policy stands as a pitiable failure that strengthened a vicious tyrant and weakened the west.

So what concessions do Modern Appeasers offer Saddam. Well we aren't ready to kill him. That's about it. Are we offering him land? No. Are we giving him anything? No. The situation is akin to two muggers holding up a guy (admitadly the guy in this case is a vicious monster). The "Appeasers" say "Do as we say or we'll blow your head off." Rush would rather hear, "We are going to blow your head off no matter what."

Still holds up.

Of course in this case President Bush was trying to imply that if our ally of Israel was invaded, there's a good chance that a President Clinton or a President Hillary would do nothing but try to appease Iran. This is nonsense, and the Republicans know this is nonsense.

Your Weekly Rush - Everybody Sucks but Me

Here's Rush on his Presidential Candidate, John McCain.

. . . this, ladies and gentlemen, is why we conservatives are in a very difficult state right now. We can't vote for socialists. We can't go out there and vote for socialists like Obama or Clinton.

But, hell's bells, the Republican Party's nominated a candidate who spent decades pandering to these very people and these very elements and is still doing it as our nominee! He spent decades undermining our party. McCain-Feingold, amnesty, McCain-Kennedy. And this is the movement he now claims to be part of and whose support he seeks?

Rush is also concerned that if McCain wins the Presidency it will show the country that being doing these kinds of things, being kind of a liberal, is what wins elections.

The Evangelical Manifesto

Pointing you towards Slactivist's discussion of this document. He finds a lot to like in it and other things he is not so keen on, but his analysis does seem well reasoned.

The other bogeyman word here seems to be "secularism." Making this a bogeyman word leads to some serious confusion in the section of the manifesto subtitled, "A civil rather than a sacred or naked public square." What they're advocating here is secularism, but they've decided they can't call it that, so instead we get a page and a half endorsing secularism and the separation of church and state while simultaneously condemning "secularism" and the "strict separation of church and state." It isn't pretty.

Well worth reading.

Our Inspiring President

For those who don't know, President Bush has given up golf to support the Iraq War.

His [President Bush's] decision to give up golf in 2003 was a result of the war, he said. "I don't want some mom whose son may have recently died to see the commander in chief playing golf. . . . I think playing golf during a war just sends the wrong signal."

Not sure what to say about that; but it does lend itself to bitter joking, doesn't it?

The Most Liberal Senator in Congress

I'm keying off of an article by Brent Bozell III here. It's his typical drivel; the left wing media is in the tank for Obama and hates McCain. Parenthetically that view is so at odds with reality that I am curious to see if people outside of Right Wingers are going to buy it.

But that's not my main point. In the middle of his dopey article, he makes this statement.

He was asked if he could handle the coming "assault" from the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy that could be heard manufacturing its wicked armaments off stage. What lies will they stoop to tell? Blitzer suggested told Obama they're going to "paint" him as a tax-and-spend liberal.

"Paint" him? Who needs to add any paint to that picture? That is the truth -- he's the most left-wing senator in Washington -- and they know it.

How is Barack Obama the most left wing Senator in Congress? Well the National Journal keeps track how Senators votes and based on their votes assigns them a score. Four years ago John Kerry beat out all of his colleagues to become the most liberal in the senate and this year Obama somehow got the brass ring. What are the odds that two Presidential candidates are the most liberal in the senate?

Pretty high actually, when you consider both men had to balance their congressional duties with the rigors of the campaign trail. When you are running for President you can't show up for every single vote (which is why Presidential candidates often get dinged for absenteeism as well as Liberalism). Obama and Kerry had to pick their votes, and naturally picked those votes that mattered most to them. And theirs a natural tendency for those votes to be more liberal.

The National Journal knows this. I would guess many Conservative Commentators know it too; but that won't stop them from saying, over and over again, Obama is the most Liberal Senator in the Senate.

I-Pod 10

1. Oingo Boingo - "No One Lives Forever"
2. Supreme Beings of Leisure - "Sublime"
3. Bob Dylan - "Dink's Song (Home Recording)"
4. Nirvana - "Milk It"
5. Daniel Ash - "Walk on the Moon"
6. The Beatles - "Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite (Takes 1 and 2)"
7. The Beatles - "Money (That's What I Want)"
8. George Jones - "The Grand Tour (Clean Version)"
9. Fatboy Slim - "Talking Bout my Baby"
10. Cornershop - "Spectral Mornings"

Two Beatles songs in a row. Number 6 though is only a minute long and doesn't contain the song just some false starts.

McCain on Judges

Dylan Loewe over at the Huffington Post has an article today about McCain's position on Judges. Apparently McCain addressed this last week in a major way in a speech that got overshadowed by the primary battle between Clinton and Obama.

With so many Clinton supporters suggesting they would rather vote McCain than Obama, few issues could be more central than McCain's judicial philosophy. As we saw on Tuesday, though unsurprising, his views underscore yet another example of the McCain of 2000 withering into an unrecognizable and incoherent McCain of 2008. McCain said he would appoint judges in the same mold as Roberts and Alito, arguing that, "The moral authority of our judiciary depends on judicial self-restraint, but this authority quickly vanishes when a court presumes to make law instead of apply it."

It is hard to understand what John McCain, or others that repeat similar phrasing, could possibly mean by such a statement. Our justice system is based largely on common law, case law in which justices make decisions that do, in fact, become the law. One cannot interpret the law without making it. A judge, no matter his philosophy, when presented with a case in which the law is not explicit, will have to glean from somewhere other than the Constitution what the law ought to be. Even Justice Antonin Scalia must participate in such a practice. The distinction between strict constructionist and activist is a political one more than it is a legal one.

McCain's formulation seems to indicate that though he knows what the Republican talking points are, he does not fully understand what they mean.

I particular agree with the statement that the debate between strict constructionist and activist is political rather than legal. The strict constructionists aren't suggesting we throw out every judicial decision that's come about since the constitution. They aren't suggesting we move back to slavery for example. Rather they are picking and choosing which parts of an 18th century America they like and which parts they don't.

They just dress it up as Strict Constructionism so as to make it seem like their particular interpretation is the only rational one. And McCain apparently agrees with them, or at least that is what he is saying. I suspect that he knew nobody would be paying attention to him last week, least of all Democrats and Undecideds, so he took the opportunity to try and appease his base.

The Fearmongering

I was going to title this the fearmongering has started, but that wouldn't be accurate - after all Conservatives have been fearmongering for decades now. But they are going to step it up for this election. They kind of have to. McCain isn't a candidate the right wing likes very much, and what they like most about him is his devotion to the War in Iraq and his promise to continue killing scary Muslims. Unfortunately the Iraq War and the promise of new wars in the Middle East aren't exactly going to win over undecided voters.

So they need a two tier strategy. Strategy one is portraying McCain as a reasonable Republican, willing to listen to the middle, a thinker and a far cry from President Bush. That will win over soft-minded liberals and some moderates who don't ask the obvious questions ("If McCain is so different from Bush why has he been so enthusiastic in supporting Bush's wars?", for example).

Strategy two is scaring the hell out of the base. This will keep them voting for McCain even as McCain doesn't court their vote. They can't sell their man to both the Conservative base and the moderates/undecideds at the same time, so instead of selling their man to the base they are going to scare the hell out of the base, by painting grim fantasies of an Obama presidency.

And for exhibit one of this second strategy, let's take Dennis Prager's latest article, which promises that a victory for Democrats in the fall dooms America.

But if "headed in the wrong direction" really does mean for most Americans that voting Democrat will put our country on the right track, it is hard not to conclude that America has begun the decline that has ended all great civilizations. For if the Democratic Party -- given how far left it has become -- comes to control Congress and the presidency, America's values will soon stray so far from what they have been since its founding that it is difficult to imagine ever being able to undo the change.

Yep - vote for America and end America. Gosh with that choice I guess a good conservatoid will have no choice but to vote for McCain.

You can tell that this article is intended strictly for the base, because it has this laugh inducing bit.

George W. Bush has passed legislation -- such as prescription drug benefits for the elderly -- that Democrats would pass; he is a personally decent and honest man who has led perhaps the most scandal-free eight years in modern American history; . . .

Yep. Not to many outside the Conservative faithful believe that any more.

Look for more articles of this stripe all summer and fall.

What kind of Conservative is McCain?

David Limbaugh's latest article takes on Senator McCain and his comments on Global Warming. He starts with an interesting statement.

If John McCain were truly a maverick, he would publicly break from the politically correct culture that demands obedience to its global warming narrative. But sadly, he continues to do the opposite.

Liberals have denominated McCain a maverick because he has taken so many positions contradictory to his party's platform and to the conservative ideology that undergirds it. Now that he is the putative Republican nominee, you don't hear much about his maverick nature, but it's certainly not because he's changed his ways in opposing his party.

McCain is kind of out of the spotlight, what with Clinton and Obama still duking it out for the Democratic Nomination. But McCain continues to annoy Conservatives of the Limbaugh ilk.

As always though remember that Limbaugh and McCain agree on a lot more than they disagree on - particularly the major issue of the day which is what kind of role should America play in the Middle East. Both Limbaugh and McCain believe we should invade Iran and both proudly supported and continue to support our debacle in Iraq.

Hillary Clinton and Iran

For those of you who don't know, Hillary Clinton has pledged to wipe Iran out if they threaten Israel. This is not going over very well, and several liberal commentators have noted the foolishness of these words.

What would she do, as president, if the Iranian regime ever strikes Israel with nuclear weapons? First she could have noted that the question's premise is wrong, at least according to the most recent National Intelligence Estimate, which found that Iran neither possesses nuclear arms nor is likely to acquire them anytime soon. Then she might have answered as all presidents (or aspiring presidents) should when asked about such hypothetical military scenarios: "Our adversaries know very well that we have the power and the resolve to respond if one of our closest allies is attacked."

Alluding to the potential use of justified force is far smarter than blustering about an act of genocidal brutality.

Joe Conason, "Hillary Plays the Crazy Card."

In the increasingly unlikely event of a McCain-Clinton election, folks who care about the peace issue would have serious reason to worry. Both of these candidates are inveterate hawks, and what we would be up against is a choice between the neoconservatives and the neoliberals as to who could be more adventurous in getting us into unjustifiable foreign wars.

Both not only voted to authorize President Bush's irrational invasion of Iraq but also have failed to apply those lessons to the real challenges we face, particularly concerning Iran. On the one hand, we have Sen. John McCain's wildly inane "bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" singing refrain, and on the other, Sen. Hillary Clinton's commitment to "totally obliterate" Iran in response to any nuclear attack by Tehran on Israel.

Clinton has stood by her implicitly genocidal threat against the 70 million innocent Iranians, who have no effective control over their government's policy, a threat made in response to a question raised in the heat of primary day in Pennsylvania.

Robert Scheer, "Battle of the Hawks."

Doesn't look that good for Hillary Clinton. Which is maybe why she isn't doing as well in the Primary.

Back from the Dead

Well I'm back. My work situation has improved considerably since I realized I just don't give a damn.

Today's first article is by Bret Prelutsky, which has the promising title "Why Jews Vote the Way They Do."

If I am asked one question by my readers far more frequently than any other, it’s why do so many American Jews insist on aligning themselves with the far left. Believe me, being Jewish myself, it’s the question I most frequently ask myself.

It’s certainly not because Jews are stupid, evil, unpatriotic or dependent on government handouts for their survival, four reasons that certainly explain why millions of my fellow Americans will eagerly line up to vote for any political crackpot so long as he or she is running as a Democrat.

Yep - if you are a Democrat you are probably stupid, evil, unpatriotic or dependent on the the Government, unless, and this is very important, you are Jewish. Not being Jewish myself (as far as I know) I guess I have to assume that I'm stupid, evil, unpatriotic, or dependent on government handouts. If you want to guess which, use the comments section below.

In case you are curious, Prelutsky's theory is that Jews over identify with the underdogs, so they tend to want to defend criminals, Blacks and Muslims, even though those groups aren't friendly to them. This leads them to do stuff that makes no sense.

At times, it seems as if we exist in some surrealistic universe in which, with the notable exception of Jimmy Carter, American Christians are often more devoted to Israel’s survival than American Jews are. At the same time, many Jews feel they have more to fear from fundamentalist Christians than from fundamentalist Islamics!

By devoted to Israel's survival, Prelutsky means a dedication to the most right wing approach to the Palestinian question. Many Israelis are opposed to that as well, but I guess that's due to Jews extreme devotion to helping the underdog.

And isn't that argument a more respectful way of saying Jews are Crazy?

Blog Temporarily Shut Down

Work situation has forced me to take a break here. I'll be back eventually, I don't anticipate this lasting more than a week or so.

Maps and Legends

I kind of like this story, about New York Subway Maps. I always liked the abstract maps which worked fine for me. It did give you a weird way of looking at a city, but they were clean and cool looking.

Townhall publishes an article in Praise of Plaintiff's Lawyers

It's an unusual day. The article is written by Hugh Hewitt, and is interesting.

From watching those arguments over the years, I have come to appreciate the relentlessness of the best of the plaintiffs’ bar. It can take years to bring a case to a successful conclusion, especially when a foreign company is involved and especially when that foreign company is protected by a foreign government. When the foreign government is itself the defendant, well, the trail is long and hard.

This is mostly in relation to lawyers who are suing companies for bringing in defective products from China; the villains are the Chinese. So that makes it a little more palatable to Hewitt; presumably he's still against suing American companies for, say, abusing their workers or bringing crummy products to the market. Still you have to note the good when it comes along, and it's nice that someone over at Townhall recognizes that occasionally the Plaintiff lawyers are on the sides of the angels.