Your Weekly Rush

Rush Limbaugh takes time out of a heavy holiday schedule to remind us all that we have no reason to be grateful to the Indians and neither did the Pilgrims. Yeah the Indians helped a little, but, according to Rush, not significantly. Instead the Pilgrims pulled themselves out of their troubles by adopting capitalism. So there's no need to feel particularly grateful fo the Indians, or, more to the point, no need to feel sorry that we took the Indians land.

Of course this particular theory may or may not be supported by evidence, but who cares?

Another Well Thought Out Scheme

Well, it's been a while since I used this title (I think it was last used for the brilliant scheme of giving the Statue of Liberty back to France).

Well the latest scheme is replacing FDR with Ronald Reagen on the Dime. According to the Fort Wayne Journal (I think), Rep. Mark Souder (R) wants to make the big switch. "This is time for us to make a statement, right now, because we feel Ronald Reagan's been unfairly trashed referring to the cancelled CBS mini series. So not only did we have to cancel that series now we need to get rid of FDR on the dime?

But of course what Mr. Souder would hope is that we, as a nation, reevaluate FDR's legacy and decide that Reagans was more important. Well, I don't agree with that interpretation, and I'm not sure how many do.

Jonah Goldberg - An Honest Federalist

Not to imply that he's the only one.

He writes again about gay marriage and his somewhat surprising opposition to the Federal Marriage amendment (FMA). "So, we have the FMA barreling down the tracks. The FMA would ban gay marriage "or the legal incidents thereof" - which many take to mean civil unions as well - in all 50 states for all time.

That may sound like a good idea if you're against gay marriage, civil unions and all the rest. But to me it sounds an awful lot like a replay of Prohibition. I can't tell you what the unforeseeable consequences of such an amendment are because, duh, they're unforeseeable. But what I can predict with almost mathematical certitude is that the FMA will not make this issue go away. Rather, it will more likely serve to radicalize the anti-FMA forces in much the same way Roe vs. Wade radicalized anti-abortion forces. . . .

You can't favor federalism for only good ideas or ideas you like. Experimentation means allowing local communities to make mistakes."

I do hope other conservatives listen to Mr. Goldberg because on this issue he's making a lot of sense. However, it seems unlikely in an election year. After all, this issue, according to some, has the potential to put President Bush back in the White House, particularly if he runs against Howard Dean, who has some history on this issue.

News

A staffer in the office of Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) has been put on administrative leave pending an investigation of his hacking onto the computer services of Senators Kennedy and Durbin (both Democrats). He or she may have been the source of damaging memos released to the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Times. Senator Hatch is shocked that such a thing could happen in his office, and he may be telling the truth. But, Senator Hatch, you and your party and your movement have been describing this as war for a couple of decades now. Certainly its embarrassing to get caught, but all is fair in love and war. And if you didn't want this war, you should have spoken out against it.

Story here.

Poem

Hard to come up with stuff for Thanksgiving, and most of the articles are either complaints about the Medicare Prescription Benefit bill or dull, dutiful articles about Thanksgiving (making sure we all know the religious and patriotic significance of this holiday).

Gathering Leaves

Spades take up leaves
No better than spoons,
And bags full of leaves
Are light as balloons.

I make a great noise
Of rustling all day
Like rabbit and deer
Running away.

But the mountains I raise
Elude my embrace,
Flowing over my arms
And into my face.

I may load and unload
Again and again
Till I fill the whole shed,
And what have I then?

Next to nothing for weight,
And since they grew duller
From contact with earth,
Next to nothing for color.

Next to nothing for use.
But a crop is a crop,
And who's to say where
The harvest shall stop?

Cal Thomas is Upset

"Smaller government and less spending? That's a joke. Eleven years ago, Newt Gingrich, who would soon become Speaker of the House, blasted Democrats for seeing "no contradiction between adding a billion and a half dollars in pork-barrel (spending) for the politicians in their big-city machines and voting for a balanced budget amendment." Now that Republicans are doing precisely what Democrats did when they were in the majority, what shall we call these overspending Republicans? Hypocrites? Liars?"

He also castigates President Bush for promising to limit spending to cover the loss of revenue due to his tax cut.

I'm tempted to agree with Cal Thomas, but our solutions for the problem would be different, as I assume he would favor cutting needed services, and I favor a sensible revenue program (such, as maybe, taxing corporations? Cracking down on off-shore bank accounts?).

I'm on the road

I'm in Southern California, which is where I grew up. I grew up in Yorba Linda but I'm in Riverside. You get the idea.

Yorba Linda was the birthplace of Richard Nixon a great man brought low by his own paranoia and stupidity. It'd be nice to say that politics surrounded me growing up, but if it did, I didn't notice it much. Oh, I had talks about racism with some co-workers, and some discussions of politics with my Dad.

Drove in from the Airport listening to Pearl Jam's latest (A collection of B-Sides and rare tracks called "Lost Dogs" that is excellent in my book). I was struck by a faint surreality, looking up at the brown sky, and down at the crowded highways. Pearl Jam seems like such a part of my life now (which I admit is a little embarrassing, but not as embarrassing as the fact that the Pet Shop Boys are a part of my life too), but they didn't release their first album until after I had left California.

Anyway look forward to lots of reminences over the next couple of days. And maybe some pictures.

Words from our President

"A peaceful Iraq and a free Iraq is part of our campaign to rid the world of terror. And that's why the thugs in Iraq still resist us, because they can't stand the thought of free societies. They understand what freedom means. See, free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don't attack each other. Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction.

So either Mr. Bush is unaware that the United States has one the largest arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in the world, or he does not believe us to be a free nation. Take your pick.

Of course there is a third answer; President Bush knows that we'll believe anything he chooses to say. I hope that's not the right answer.

Here's the link, it's a little less than half way down.

Two Points of View

"What? Where in the ad did President Bush question the Democrats' patriotism? He said nothing about that. He merely stated accurately their opposition to his policy of preemption and his decision to strike even without the approval of every nation on the planet.

Just what about those statements is wrong, Senator Daschle? If you are ashamed that President Bush is accurately characterizing your endless opposition, and if you think it makes you and your colleagues look unpatriotic, then perhaps you should consider changing your policies. But don't blame President Bush for pointing out the folly of your policies. And don't issue disingenuous preemptive political strikes against Republicans claiming they've questioned your patriotism when they haven't. But if that shoe fits and you don't like the way it looks -- that is, if you find it politically unstylish -- by all means, take it off.

These statements are from David Limbaugh's latest article. Funny how his nose, which is so finely attuned to slurs against President Bush doesn't pick up the obvious slam on Democrats. Also interesting that the only solution is for the Democrats to support President Bush's plans. Yep, the only way for Democrats to be patriotic citizens is to support President Bush. What a great message, particularly in an election year.

The irony is that the ad features the president delivering the 2003 State of the Union speech, which has turned out to be an enormous embarrassment of admitted distortions, including one claim, based on a forged document, that Iraq was a nuclear threat. It was in that speech that the president touted the imminent threat of Iraq's so-far-undiscovered weapons of mass destruction while implying that Saddam Hussein collaborated with Al Qaeda on the 9/11 attacks -- a charge that the president himself recently conceded was without foundation.

In fact, the Iraq war has proved to be a terrible test case for "preemptive self-defense" because the intelligence it was founded on is so much loose sand. If you say somebody is a threat and then it turns out they aren't, your "preemptive attack" is no longer "self-defense."

Worse, though, as Gen. Wesley Clark points out, is that the Iraq war and occupation have been a distraction from the war against Al Qaeda. "I'm not critical of President Bush because he's attacking terrorists," Clark said. "I'm critical of President Bush because he is not attacking terrorists.""

Not much to criticize in Robert Sheer's piece, but then again, I'm biased. But it is the obvious question; how is attacking Iraq protecting us from Terrorists?

It's a Beautiful World

Listening Underworlds "Cowgirl" today at work. That's the one where they keep singing about "a razor of love," and it's off their Best of which just came out, and includes big hits (for a dance band) "Cowgirl", "Born Slippy", "Jumbo", "King of Snake", and "Two Months Off." All great songs, although I'll admit the music is a bit obscure. Unlike, say, Eminem or Britney Spears it requires a little effort to find. It takes effort to find such other generally unheralded treasures as Pepe Deluxe, DJ Me DJ You, The Beautiful South, Fantastic Plastic Machine, and the Cocteau Twins.

But you can find Eminem and Britney Spears in every third car stereo.

I comment on this because Mona Charen wrote an article today entitled "I Hate Popular Culture." She spends the first part of it annoyed that much of news caters to the lowest common denominator and that the Democratic Party hasn't run Al Sharpton out of the party on a rail. She then makes this one line comment. "Popular music? Whom do you prefer: Eminem or Britney Spears?"

Well, I chose neither, Ms. Charen, and neither should you. Visit Borders and look around; you'll see hundreds of CDs that don't have either Eminem or Britney Spears performing on them.

It's interesting that she doesn't go into television (other than TV news) or books or films or the theater or anywhere really. Just the sordid quality of news and Britney Spears/Eminem. I don't know if that is because those areas don't have any problems or because they aren't worth even bringing up.

It must be Obvious

Charles Taylor, at Salon, writes about the latest ad from the RNC. You know the one that says that "Some are attacking the President for attacking the Terrrorists." Kind of a goofy sentiment right there, as going after Osama bin Ladin and the Taliban had widespread support. But perhaps the RNC is still under the illusion that there is some kind of link between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Ladin.

Mr. Taylor ends his piece saying, "This ad is not going to change anyone's mind about Bush, neither supporters nor detractors. If the RNC had played strictly to Bush's immediate post-9/11 leadership, it might have been on firmer ground. To raise the already widely rejected link between 9/11 and Iraq suggests a real blunder. The ad is a glimpse of the themes the Republicans plan to use in the election. If the Democrats can't make hay of this, then their candidate might be left like Jon Lovitz as Mike Dukakis in the "SNL" sketch saying of another Bush, "I can't believe I'm losing to this guy.""

We'll have to see what the DNC comes up with.

Mickey Mouse or Why New Coke Failed

Laura M. Holson writing at the NYTimes suggests that the Disney Corporation either retire or "improve" Mickey Mouse.

Do you all remember New Coke? Well, here's the story. New Coke was designed because Pepsi was beating Coke. So Coke monkeyed with the formula and took it on the road. In Blind Taste Tests, everybody loved New Coke. It was the mack-daddy of blind taste tests (sorry about my odd phrasing there, but I have to use the phrase Mack Daddy once every 15 months in order to remain accredited). Anyway everybody loved it.

So the Coke people realized they must have a hit on their hands. And they introduced New Coke. And it sank like a stone. Actually it sank so fast, that for a brief period the phrase "sink like a stone" was revised to "sink like New Coke."

Why? Because the people at Coke didn't realize what Coke met. Coke was part of America, an integral part. And nobody was going to monkey with it, as far as the American people were concerned. There's a world of difference between lifting one of those little plastic cups to your lips and lifting a Coke can to your lips (and don't get me started on Coke in little green bottles).

So what does this have to do with Mickey Mouse? Everything. Yeah, Mickey is square. He's a little dull, particularly compared to Daffy Duck or Goofy. He embodies values and virtues that perhaps we don't see in these days. There's not an ironic bone in his body (and frankly, we certainly don't need another irony filled cartoon charectar). But, still, he's one of us.

And woe unto the Disney Exec who follows Ms. Holson's advice. I don't think, even now, that the American people could stand to see Mickey Mouse monkeyed with, and I don't think any attempt to bring Mickey "up to date" could succeed.

President Bush and America

Suzanne fields writes a travel memoir of President Bush's recent and possibly ongoing trip to the United Kingdom (I'm not sure when he gets back). She includes snipes at the protestors as well as praise for the President. She concludes by commenting on how the Queen and the President got on. "Queen Elizabeth, like Tony Blair, toasted the special relationship. America and Britain, she said, are like close friends who have their spats, and can disagree with each other. But they know how to make up quickly.

She might have been reading Churchill, too. "No people respond more spontaneously to fair play," said the man whose eloquence and common sense was one of the super weapons of that earlier war to save the West. "If you treat Americans well, they always want to treat you better."

Well, I'm not sure that the Queen was as friendly to President Bush as you might think. Apparently she wasn't a big fan of his decision to bring along his own cooks, for example (story here, about halfway down the page).

I'm also not sure that President Bush, despite his best efforts (and those of Karl Rove) is all that Churchillian. Nor do I have the idea that he has that expansive a spirit. Despite what Churchill says, if the United Kingdom isn't with us for Gulf War Three (Iraq and/or Syria), than Newsmax and Rush Limbaugh will add them to the Axis of Traitors, muttering something about contracts, and President Bush will say nothing. He might even take a few subtle digs at the UK.

But, of course, I could be wrong.

New Quotes Page

Updated the Quotes Page, as you might have expected. Plus the quote up top is different.