Protest against the War

Watching the protest against the war in DC on C-Span. All I can say is I'm really really depressed. Other than a cool song by Patti Smith, all I heard was largely nonsense. There is a good case against the war, but these people aren't making it. Their intellectural blinders condition them to look at the US a certain way, such that no war America involves itself in can be positive.

Good song by Patti Smith though, who probably wouldn't agree with my assessment. I'll write more on this later on.

Your Weekly Rush

"This keeps being raised as a red flag - and don't sidetrack me here by pointing out that Blix hasn't found the Scuds ABC mentions. Even if he did find them, he'd call Saddam and tell him to cover them up."

It's hard to listen to Rush these days. Let's face it, he's bloodthirsty. He's furious that we haven't already started this war. So he's reduced to telling his listeners that Hans Blix would actually purposefully cover up evidence of illegal weaponry. Does anybody find this claim credible?

There are those who will point out the London Times story that claimed a cover up by Hans Blix. Apparently Iraq has a model airplane.



See--that's the kind of technology we have to fear facing Iraq. Of course it sounds a lot scarier when you call it an "Unarmed Drone." So that's what the right has scrupulously done, in an effort to discredit Hans Blix and the inspection process so we can go to war sooner.

Answering Questions

TERRY MORAN: May I ask, what went wrong that so many governments and people around the world now not only disagree with you very strongly, but see the U.S. under your leadership as an arrogant power?

THE PRESIDENT: I think if you remember back prior to the resolution coming out of the United Nations last fall, I suspect you might have asked a question along those lines -- how come you can't get anybody to support your resolution. If I remember correctly, there was a lot of doubt as to whether or not we were even going to get any votes, much -- well, we'd get our own, of course. And the vote came out 15 to nothing, Terry. And I think you'll see when it's all said and done, if we have to use force, a lot of nations will be with us.

From last weeks press conference we see this exchange. Since then Terry Moran apparently commented that all the white house press corps were like zombies, in that they loved eating brains. No, actually he meant that they were like Zombies in that they sat there stupefied, and asked the president really dopey questions.

Well, Brent Bozell stepped up to argue that a All Zombie Press Corps would be a good thing. He is offended that President Bush is getting such difficult questions. It's not like back when we had President Clinton, who, I think we all agree, got asked questions about his sexual life for two years. Yep, just because are about to go to war, this is no time for the press corps to do their jobs.

Still Life

Got a really cool book on Political Cartoons yesterday from a friend of the site (A distinctively very cool person). The book is called Attitude: The New Subversive Political Cartoonists and is edited by Ted Rall, who autographed the book. So it's very cool. Here's a Ted Rall cartoon.



This one isn't in the book--too recent, but it is funny. So check it out--it's cool.

We All Shine On!

Noel Gallagher, half of the brothers Gallagher who make up the group Oasis (that group that used to put out good songs, but then, for reasons unknown, decided to put out a lot of crap (although I haven't heard the latest album, so maybe i'm wrong (still nothing they've done has matched their first album))) stated to the Berlin Press, as reported in NME "Whenever there is a conservative, bible waving half-wit ruling in the White House – whether it's Bush, his father or Reagan – there is war. . . . Protests are a bloody waste of time, the war will go ahead anyway."

So there you have it.

Sail on, O Ship of State

Not much posting today because the system was not doing very well. But I promise to be brilliant later on.

The Further Adventures of Ben Shapiro, Boy Prognosticator

The latest issue just hit the streets, and it's red hot! In it, Ben, our hero, takes on Pat Buchannan. It turns out that Pat Buchannan has made some anti-Semitic comments in the past. Oh No!!

Wait a second, everybody knows that. But Shapiro isn't done. It turns out that Buchannan is opposed to free trade. See Buchannan has the ludicrous notion that if you take factories and move them overseas or south of the border, it might be bad for American Workers. With that kind of bizarre thinking, Shapiro is willing to classify him as as a dinosaur.

Buchannan also expresses an un-American concern over the large number of immigrants in the US. Well, Ben has an answer to that. "In his book, "The Death of the West," Buchanan writes that Mexican immigrants are problematic because they are "not only from another culture, but of another race," and that "different races are far more difficult to assimilate than different cultures." This is plain un-American. The color of your skin or the racial background of your parents should never disqualify you from becoming a true American. This is the most diverse nation on Earth, even if Buchanan would prefer that it not be." Stirring words from young Ben. Maybe he should share those thoughts with Michelle Malkin, David Limbaugh, and Paul Craig Roberts.

Buchannan is a particularly dangerous foe for Young Ben because he appears to have shape shifting powers. One moment he's a conservative dinosaur who doesn't represent modern
conservatives and the next he's a wily liberal cleverly teaming up with Socialist Lenora Fulani in order to run a political campaign into the ground.

Thank goodness Shapiro is out there fighting for justice.

Safety First

The New York Times has a story today about the city of Baghdad as it prepares for invasion. Next to the story, they run this picture of a guy standing happily in a sea of gas canisters.



In the first 48 hours of the war, the Pentagon, following the Shock and Awe battle theory plans to drop 3,000 precision guided bombs and missiles in the first 48 hours.

All I'm saying is I hope that happy looking guy finds some other place to stand, once the war starts.

A Clarification

We revealed yesterday that the Adjective Freedom was to replace the Adjective French in most cases (as in the case of Freedom Fries for example). We have been requested to clarifiy that in the phrase "French Bastards," the adjective French will remain. Please do not begin replacing it with Freedom (or even worse, Republican).

Good News, Everybody

In an effort to simplify American Life, the adjective French is to be replaced with the Adjective Freedom. Anything positive with the adjective french will be replaced with freedom. Our own United States Congress has led the way, changing French Fries to Freedom Fries and French Toast to Freedom Toast.

French Dressing will further be called Freedom Dressing, and French Kissing will be called Freedom Kissing. French Vanilla will be called Freedom Vanilla.

High schools will now offer Spanish, German, Latin and Freedom.

This will show our feelings towards Iraq, and will bring all Americans together.

Reality TV On the Way Out

According to Matt Towery, Reality TV is on the way out. Towery also says that Survivor is the first reality TV show, so maybe you can't take his words at face value. Before Survivor there was both the Real World and Road Rules on MTV, as well as other shows.

You see it all goes back to the Gong Show. The Gong Show revealed that people would happily humiliate themselves for the chance to be on TV. It also revealed that such shows eliminated a lot of the overhead. No writers for example. No Actors. They are very cheap. I think even if their ratings slip, reality tv is here to stay because of it's cheapness.

Towery does bring up the forthcoming real "Beverly Hillbillies" show. "One show that's still in the planning stages has already earned a tongue-lashing on the floor of the U.S. Senate. Georgia Democratic Sen. Zell Miller gave an impassioned speech to his colleagues deploring a proposed show that would move a family of real "hillbillies" out to Beverly -- Hills, that is, in California. You know, swimming pools, movie stars. Miller, proud of his own mountain heritage, correctly pointed out the denigrating and pitiful quality of such drivel." Towery's right on this one--I can't believe they are even considering it.

I don't know. Reality shows don't interest me truth to tell. But even if they did, I wouldn't watch them, for about the same reason I wouldn't have gone to the Roman Coliseum to see Christians torn apart by Lions.

Empty Wallet Economics Spreading

Yesterday, for those who missed it, we unveiled a new economic theory--Empty Wallet Economics. Read down to get a full explanation. But already we see the influence of this theory spreading. Look at today's article by Cal Thomas.

"The point has been made - and not just by his critics - that the president has not sufficiently rallied the public to his cause. President Lyndon Johnson thought he could provide "guns" to win the ill-conceived Vietnam War and "butter" - a sound economy. President Bush has yet to call for sacrifice or any type of investment by the people - other than military forces - for his grand undertaking."

It is a concern that I suppose all American's have. So perhaps Mr. Thomas is questioning whether we should reconsider enacting a tax cut program that will cost the Government $674 billion over the next 10 years, particularly when nearly half of it is his plan to make dividend income tax free?

No. Don't be silly. If we don't give the wealthiest American's huge tax cuts, then haven't the terrorists really won?

Mr. Thomas proposes, instead, that all Americans bear the burden for this war by buying savings bonds. Although he is concerned that the revenue generated by our purchases will go to "wasteful and unneeded programs," he does think that buying war bonds will forge a unity between the American People and their president that will help us stay the course. It's not that I'm opposed to buying war bonds; I just think it's foolish to ignore some of the larger issues. After all, as Empty Wallet Economics predicts, "Once you spend the money, you have less money."

For those interested in buying a bond to support the war, click here.

The United Nations

Some thoughts on the United Nations.

"One is that the Bush administration has, without understanding what it was doing, created a situation in which the majority of nations see the UN as the only institution that has the possibility of checking American power and limiting the consequences of American unilateralism.

In the future, shifting coalitions of the willing are likely to work through the UN and other major international institutions and use the unprecedented means the Internet provides for mass mobilization to counterbalance or contain the United States on many economic and politico-military issues."
William Pfaff, Boston Globe

"Remember when we were told that the war would have to start by February, to get it over with before the desert turned too hot? Then, as diplomatic resistance to war mounted, nature's deadline was put off until later in the spring.

On March 7, facing a French and Russian veto in the Security Council, the U.S. did another backpedal. It amended its supposedly "final" resolution to include a deadline of March 17. All the amendment says is that Iraq must show it is disarming in good faith by the 17th. But most Security Council members, including the French and Russians, say Iraq is already disarming in good faith. So come the 17th, the Security Council will remain as paralyzed as ever. The amended resolution has no real teeth. It is another U.S. surrender.

But every time the Bush administration caves in to diplomatic pressure, the White House puts out the story that it's more determined than ever to go to war. And the U.S. media dutifully buy it. The media heralded the March 17 date as a drop-dead deadline, an absolute proof that Bush will indeed have his heavenly war, come hell, high water, or UN veto. Of course, they may be right. But if you look at what the administration does, not what it says, the evidence points in the opposite direction."
Ira Chernus, Common Dreams

Nice to note that the United Nations may not be as useless as the Conservatives often portray it.

Brandy Chooses a Side!!!

So I have chosen a side!!!

The truth is, for me, it comes down to do I trust my President. This is a republic (as much as NPR wants to say we're a democracy...we are not, we elect officials and then THEY do the governing), so do I trust Pres. Bush to handle the position of safety of this nation? I closely listened to his press conference last night, and it comes down to -I DO trust him. I think he is handling this soberly, I think he is giving Iraq EVERY opportunity to disarm. I think he knows things we don't as to why he feels Saddam is a 'threat to our nation'.

As logical as I try to be, it comes down to a 'feeling' (kind of like you 'feeling/believing' that [President] Hickey is a prophet...there is no proof of that, you simply watch, listen, pray and then belive). Well, I've watched and listened and I 'belive' Bush takes it seriously when he says 'my job is to protect this nation, I take that seriously'.

So, if at the end of this Bush says we go to war -I back him.

For those unaware, President Gordon B. Hinckley is the Prophet and President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (commonly known as the Mormons), which church both Brandy and your humble narrator belong to.

New Economic Theory

Yes, a first for us here at "Make me a Commentator!!!" We are presenting an actual Economic theory.

I've been doing some research on Supply Side Economics, and came across this passage, "So where did the supply-side ideas actually come from? From Laffer and Bartley, developed over a series of dinner conversations at Michael 1, a famous restaurant near Wall Street. It was here, scribbling on napkins, that Wanniski showed Bartley the magical effects of tax cuts."

So I decided I would put this method into action. I gathered a supply of dinner napkins and headed to a local restaurant, where they informed me they had dinner napkins and I was not allowed to bring mine in. Temporarily foiled I went in and enjoyed a nice dinner. After getting home from the restaurant I discovered something very interesting. I had less money than I had had before paying for my dinner. The money in my wallet had significantly decreased.

Well I was so intrigued by this discovery I determined to immediately put it to the test. So I got in my car and drove to a different restaurant to see if the principle would hold. After enjoying a very nice expensive dinner (involving truffles I think), I went out to my car and checked my wallet. Once again it was substantially emptier than it had been before dinner. Thus I postulated what I call "Empty Wallet Economics." The first postulate of Empty Wallet Economics is that "If you spend money, you will have less money."

I tested my theory in a variety of ways, buying expensive products, and books and CD's and so on, as well as eating out regularly, and I determined that my first postulate was entirely correct. I also developed a secondary postulate of my theory, which is "If you don't pay your electricity bill, you will be in the dark." More on this later.

But getting back to my key postulate, "If you spend money, you will have less money," I graphed it to get a general feel for how this principle would apply. I took as my base a wallet with $10.00 in it, and went out and bought various objects. I graphed the results below, in what I am sure will take it's place alongside the famous "Laffer Curve."



As you can see the more money I spent the less money I had, until I had spent the entire $10.00. This clearly has micro-economic applications; if you like paying rent, make sure not to spend too much money.

How does "Empty Wallet Economics" apply to national policy? Well it would suggest that if the United States Government has a limited amount of money to spend accomplishing it's tasks, then it needs to balance that money carefully. If the United States, for example, were to continue spending a lot of money domestically while engaging in an ongoing war against terrorism, while simultaneously giving away it's income in the form of tax breaks, well, it might not have enough money at the end of the day to accomplish its goals.

One way around this is to borrow money. We all know about credit cards and how they can extend the spending power of an empty wallet. Well the Government has similar mechanisms, but like credit cards they are problematic.

Another possibility is to cut social spending dramatically. Let's be blunt--President Bush and other conservatives would love to see this. They know, as we all do, that shutting down school lunch programs, or Head Start, or the Environmental Protection Agency (to name three programs that receive federal money) would be horribly unpopular. On the other hand lowering taxes is very popular. So instead of openly admitting their plans to shut down these programs, they have adopted a "fait accompli" strategy. They lower taxes and slowly starve those programs to death. Easy, efficient, and largely fool proof. What Democratic candidate for anything is going to talk openly about raising taxes?

Not very many.

Anyway later on today we will hear from Brandy--and possibly some other updates as well--stay tuned.