Moose Milk

Listening to NPR. They were running a fascinating think piece on the benefits of Moose Milk. Apparently it tastes really good right out of the Moose, but it does not taste good bottled. So if you want the best Moose Milk available, remember get a fresh Moose.

Charlie's Angles

Well, for the "Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle" movie, director McG (who really should buy a vowel) decided to follow up his use of Prodigy's "Smack My Bitch Up" with the use of the other two Prodigy singles "Breath" and "Firestarter." How nice for Prodigy.

Prodigy, in 1997, were one of two big electronic acts that were vying for public acceptance (That being the year record companies had decided to push electronica). The other was The Chemical Brothers, who released "Dig Your Own Hole" early that year. Prodigy's "Fat of the Land" was arguably the bigger hit at the time.

Six years later, Chemical Brothers have released two more albums (the brilliant "Surrender," and the funky "Come With Us." Other electronica acts have appeared in the mainstream such as Groove Armada, Lo-Fidelity All Stars, Dirty Vegas, Underworld and so on. Many of these artists have been recording since before 1997, of course. And Prodigy have released one single, "Baby's Got a Temper." which sounds like an outtake from "Fat of the Land."

So I guess it's lucky that prodigy has such a good friend in McG.

Something to Consider

Paul Krugman writes a particularly scary article at the New York Times, suggesting that Republican bravado about eliminating the Democratic party may be more than bravado. There has been a concerted effort to increase Conservative influence in society, and appears that the influence is starting to flex its muscles.

Krugman states, "In "Welcome to the Machine," Nicholas Confessore draws together stories usually reported in isolation — from the drive to privatize Medicare, to the pro-tax-cut fliers General Motors and Verizon recently included with the dividend checks mailed to shareholders, to the pro-war rallies organized by Clear Channel radio stations. As he points out, these are symptoms of the emergence of an unprecedented national political machine, one that is well on track to establishing one-party rule in America."

Anyway, I'm not sure things are as bad as Mr. Krugman would like us to believe. But it is something to consider.

Edited to add the link, which I forgot yesterday for some reason.

Democracy is Inconvenient

This week poor Prime Minister Tony Blair had to face questions about his government's policy, including his handling of the economy and his support of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Well, Debra Saunders wants to point out the inherent unfairness of this situation, commenting, "How it must weigh on Blair to have helped liberate an afflicted people, to have brought down a regime that had been responsible for as many as a million Iraqi deaths, and to have worked to allay the threat that WMD would be used outside Iraq, and here he is stuck answering question after question from petty pols carping about the paperwork."

Of course, Ms. Saunders is right. What could be more undemocratic that questioning the actions of our leaders? Once our leaders are voted in, we have a patriotic duty to support the path they choose. You can't call the British Parliament's decision to question Mr. Blair's choices support can you? And deceiving the British people as to the nature and depth of the Iraqi threat, well, that's just so much paper work.

On the other hand, perhaps if informed citizens are going to get involved in the process of ruling that might have positive effects as well.

Brandy Speaks her Mind

This morning I posted a story linking to a video on the Memory Hole, and both my commentary and moreso the commentary at the Memory Hole was very harsh against President Bush. No need to take my word for it, just look at the story.

Brandy wrote me a letter this afternoon, responding to my article in her inimitable voice, saying, "Are you kidding me!!!! Are you and 'memory hole' actually spending any amount of time or thought process on this...I have many issues with Pres. Bush, but he handled 9/11 the best one could ask for...What exactly would you guys have had him do...The five minutes he sat there he showed that he was not going to let this unravel him, that we maintained a leader that could demonstrate strength, thoughtfulness and an unrash demeanor...Not only in those five minutes, but also in the days to follow...I seriously would love to hear the complainers say what 'they' would have done in this position....Run out and hid like a coward? Run out and unnecessarily show fear, or frighten those around him...Remember NO ONE knew what was going on...Rashness would have been unforgivable."

Brandy does bring up some fair points--but more to the point, it is possible that we here (and by we I mean me) at Make me a Commentator did jump a little rashly this morning. While we respect the work that The Memory Hole is doing, their commentary was perhaps a little too patently biased against President Bush. While I think there are lots of reasons to dislike President Bush, including his handling of the economy and his belligerent foreign policy stance, it is hard to know what would have been worse. If he had left the room immediately, perhaps we would be looking at footage of that today, with the question, "See how cowardly he was?"

The truth is September 11th was gut punch to America and to all Americans, and it is perhaps not out of line to be generous towards the President's actions on that day. So we apologize for our attacks this morning.

Thank you and have a pleasant tomorrow.

The Media Borg Stopped?

Great article by William Saffire on the recent attempt by media outlets to gobble up even more power over the information we receive. This is a hot button issue on both the left and the right, as it turns out. And that's as it should be. Giving the large networks more control inevitably squeezes out people who express controversial views, and that's manifestly not good for America.

However there is some good news, according to Mr. Saffire. He states "Over the protests of 750,000 viewers and readers, three appointees to the Federal Communications Commission last month voted to permit the takeover of America's local press, television and radio by a handful of mega-corporations.

If allowed to stand, this surrender to media giantism would concentrate the power to decide what we read and see in both entertainment and news in the hands of an ever-shrinking establishment elite.

To the F.C.C.'s amazement, the Senate Commerce Committee said no. A bill put forward by Ted Stevens, Republican of Alaska, president pro tem of the Senate and defender of local control, would reinstate the limit of 35 percent of market penetration by any one company. A Democratic amendment reasserted the limitation on "cross-ownership" by stations and newspapers. The rollback bill, with bipartisan support, is likely to pass the full Senate this summer.

This first step toward stopping the takeover of both content and distribution of information was taken because enough of the audience got sore and made it an issue. I'm proud of the part played by The New York Times, which not only ran my diatribes but front-paged the illuminating coverage by Stephen Labaton, including his note that the Times Company was lobbying for cross-ownership."

So good news for the little guys.

The Memory Hole

"Trapped on the other side of the country aboard Air Force One, the President has lost his cool: "If some tinhorn terrorist wants me, tell him to come and get me! I'll be at home! Waiting for the bastard!"

His Secret Service chief seems taken aback. "But Mr. President . . ."

The President brusquely interrupts him. "Try Commander-in-Chief. Whose present command is: Take the President home!"

This is from a forthcoming fall movie by Showtime, being made by Dufferin Gate Productions, Toranto Canada. It purports to be an insider look at the events of September 11th, and I believe I've mentioned it before.

I wonder if they will include the scene where President Bush is told that a second jet has flown into the World Trade Center and sits in a classroom with children for another 5 minutes, thus endangering himself and the children. Five minutes were caught on tape and are being presented at The Memory Hole.

To see the footage, click here. You will need quicktime to view it.

I Get Letters

Actually so far I've gotten two or three, but here's one of them.

"So, if we get rid of affirmative action we won't have racism in this country anymore? Ridiculous. If affirmative action stopped tomorrow, my dad still wouldn't want me nor my sisters to marry outside of our race, especially with African Americans and Hispanics. I guess your audience isn't bright enough to see past your sophostry."

I'm not sure what this is response to--but if it is my discussion of Rush Limbaugh yesterday, keep in mind I was repeating his argument. Not my own. My argument would be somewhat along the lines of the one you present, although, perhaps, with better phrasing.

Keep sending me letters though, all of you people out in radioland.

Shop Your Way to Ethnic Diversity

Interesting letter there at the New York Times in response to the decision by the Supreme Court on the Michigan case.

To the Editor:

As an African-American graduate of Michigan Law School (class of '98) who undoubtedly benefited from the law school's affirmative action policies, I was pleased with the Supreme Court's affirmative action decision (front page, June 24).

But I was more pleased with corporate America's loud support for affirmative action, as evidenced by the numerous amicus briefs filed by corporations like Kodak, General Motors and Microsoft, in support of the University of Michigan's affirmative action program.

In this age of corporate greed and scandals, it is refreshing to see businesses support a social cause that helps those who have been, and contrary to popular belief continue to be, discriminated against.

The products and services offered by such corporations are now at the top of my shopping list.

NATHAN D. WEBB
Seattle, June 24, 2003


You said it Nathan. I'm going right out to buy a car, a computer, and a camera.

The Benefits of Affirmative Action

Ben Shapiro, boy prognosticator, writes today on the value of Affirmative Action and how it has benefited him personally. ". . . once you're in, diversity programs are wonderful. Huge numbers of unqualified students walk into lecture each day. They struggle with the material. They ask ignorant questions. They stagger through assigned readings and then realize they've assimilated nothing. It makes the rest of us look like geniuses. For those who are qualified, diversity programs are a bonanza. Didn't study for a big test? No big deal -- those unqualified diversity admittees will certainly help the curve."

So I guess in Ben's experience, only Black and Hispanic students fail to do the reading. Fail to understand the questions. Ask ignorant questions. It is only the Black and Hispanic students who act like they don't give a damn about being educated.

Oh and apparently if you happen to see a white kid who doesn't care, that's because he knows that the Black and Hispanic kids will knock the curve down so that it doesn't matter.

I have to say this doesn't jibe with my personal experience. I worked as a grad student, grading papers in a number of classes, and there were days when it seemed to me that all the students were morons who didn't belong in college. But I never noticed any racial trends in idiocy. And if you want to talk about students who don't give a damn, nothing beats a white middle class girl who's daddy is paying for the classes. But possibly things are different out where young Ben is going to school.

Your Weekly Rush

OK, listening to Rush today as I'm driving back from lunch (where I had home-made potato Salad), and he put forward this argument.

If we were a racist society we would not seek to install programs such as the University of Michigan's affirmative action program. The very existence of such programs prove that we as a society are not racist. Hence such programs as the University of Michigan's affirmative action program are totally unnecessary.

Did you follow that?

Dr. Limbaugh then went on to suggest that the existence of medicine and doctors proved that we knew how to make people healthy, and since we have the ability to make people healthy, doctors and medicine are really unnecessary.

Rush then took a call from John, a 35 year old pilot, who happened to be in the air at that time. He commented that since he clearly had the ability to fly his wings were at this point probably unnecessary. After all wings allow a plane to fly, but he already was flying. So he pressed a button that unhooked his wings from his plane. Rush then went to commercial.

There was one telling Freudian slip on Rush's discussion of the Supreme Court Decision yesterday. Rush stated, "This conservative Republican administration didn't make a strong constitutional argument for abolishing this case of clear-cut discrimination - of transferring bigotry from one group [i.e. blacks] to another[i.e. whites], even though the individuals who suffer may have had nothing to do with past discrimination. "

You see Rush is comfortable with bigotry against Blacks, but doesn't want to see poor White kids afflicted by it. I'll be charitable and assume that Rush didn't mean it, and would oppose bigotry anywhere it raised its head, but it is still telling.

Just so you know the bits about the doctors and the pilot were made up. But the quote on racism is real.

Democrats Doom

Well Conservatives haven't warmed to Senator Kerry as a candidate and now, Bruce Bartlet, Conservative Commentator, has attacked Howard Dean.

Now you might be saying that Conservatives have been mocking Dean for months, ever since he suggested that this war was being taken under false pretenses and might not end up the best for the United States. You'd be right. But Bartlett, as opposed to most other attacks, takes Dean a bit more seriously.

But not too seriously. He sees Dean as a combination of McGovern and Goldwater. The McGovern analogy is obvious (he wants us all to believe that Dean cannot win), but Goldwater comparison might be a little less obvious. He states, "Republicans did the same thing in 1964, when they nominated Barry Goldwater on the slogan, "a choice, not an echo." They saw that Lyndon Johnson was unbeatable that year and preferred to lose with someone who would represent principled conservatism. However, although Goldwater lost as expected, his long-term impact on the Republican Party was profound. Never again would the party nominate a candidate for president who ran as a moderate. . . .

"Therefore, Democrats should be wary of supporting Dean as a protest against the blandness of Kerry, Gephardt, Edwards, et al. They could end up putting the Democratic Party on a course from which it will be difficult to change, one that will make it extremely difficult for an electable candidate to get the nomination in the future. "

Interesting theory by Bartlett. In other words, what turned out to be a good thing for Republicans (i.e. getting back to their core principles and ideals) would be bad for Democrats. Democrats can only win if they run as Republicans, apparently. Kind of works out well either way for Mr. Bartlett.

I also think it's fascinating that he says no Republican since Goldwater has run as a moderate. What exactly was "compassionate conservatively," if it wasn't an attempt to appeal to the moderate liberals? Of course we know that President Bush's version of Compassionate Conservatism was much more a slogan than a reality, but it's still a feint towards the middle.

Americans for Tax Reform

Tax Reform would allow wealthy people to be taxed at the same rate as impoverished people. It means that things should be harder for people making $10,000 to $20,000 a year and easier for people making $100,000 to $1,000,000 a year. Not only should those making $10,000 to $20,000 a year pay more in taxes, but they should receive fewer services.

Grover Norquist head of the organization entitled Americans for Tax Reform, and recently wrote an op-ed discussing their strategy for achieving this "reform." "The Bush administration -- wisely -- has not proposed fundamental tax reform in a single piece of legislation. But the president has been taking deliberate steps toward such reform with each tax cut. There are five steps to a single-rate tax, which taxes income one time: Abolish the death tax, abolish the capital gains tax, expand IRAs so that all savings are tax-free, move to full expensing of business investment rather than long depreciation schedules and abolish the alternative minimum tax. Put a single rate on the new tax base and you have Steve Forbes and Dick Armey's flat tax. . . .

In crafting its agenda for economic reform, the Bush administration has the luxury of being able to think and plan over a full eight years. This is because the 2002 redistricting gave Republicans a lock on the House of Representatives until 2012 and the Founding Fathers gerrymandered the Senate for Republican control."

It is pleasant to see Mr. Norquist openly admit that his party has realigned the districts to ensure a continued Republican domination of the Federal Government, but I would advise him not to count his duckies before they hatch.

Quote by Joel Mowbray; A Contest!!!

"Many people at State want to embarrass the President," explains a State Department official, a comment echoed by others at Foggy Bottom alarmed that some of their colleagues are so brazen as to openly plot against the commander-in-chief. Some of those wishing to politically harm President Bush are now in Iraq, where the President's vision of a free Iraq is being fought by State officials on a regular basis.

Anybody who can find the source for Mr. Mowbray's assertion that the State Department wants to embarrass President Bush and is willing to put that goal before the safety of the American people gets . . . Something cool. Haven't worked out the details yet. But it will be cool. I guarentee it.

Positive Note

I've decided to start a new trend of making my first article reviewed each week be a positive review, in contrast to my normal snarkiness. I expect this trend to last till about noon so enjoy it while you can.

In keeping with that strategy I'd like to point you to Robert Novak's article at Townhall.com. Novak argues persuasively that there is danger in pursuing a strategy of continually expanding the scope of American Military operations without pursuing a strategy of increasing the capability of the Army.

Novak writes, "At the heart of both men's unhappiness, the Army has been stretched thin to execute the nation's foreign policy. Shinseki and Rumsfeld were in continuous tension over how many troops were needed to pacify Afghanistan, to subdue Iraq and then occupy Iraq.

With over 370,000 soldiers or 70 percent of the Army now deployed in 120 countries, President Bush's capability to pursue his doctrine of pre-emption is constrained."

Novak makes several correct points, but I think you have to look at the logic of the Bush reliance on smaller size forces as a reflection of his desire to keep taxes down. While President Bush and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld do want the power to exercise American military might at will, they also want to cut taxes dramatically. They are apparently willing to compromise our military strength in order to keep taxes low. Speaking just for myself I might suggest a different set of priorities.