Friday, March 19, 2004
Once Round the Horn
I don't know if you all know what the phrase "Round the Horn" means. It originated in Welsh Farming country, where sometimes young rowdies would go out and run around the corn fields with their arms outstretched knocking down corn and causing trouble. In the parlance of the local gentry, such youths "Ruined the Corn" and the phrase came to mean some purposeless activity.
When Magellan sailed around Africa's Cape Horn, he had with him a very cynical Welsh Sailor who commented that around the horn was as purposeless as "ruined the corn." This didn't make any gramattical sense, but it didn't matter as all the other sailors were Spanish and didn't understand what old "Welshy" was saying.
From there the phrase travelled to some of the early baseball games, back when there were fifteen bases shaped roughly in the head of a cow. Bases 6 through 12 would throw the ball along in quick rapid succession. One of the players, Jonathen "Welshy" Banks thougt the idea stupid and again compared it to "Ruining the Corn." This time, however, his fellow ball players spoke english, and so the phrase entered the english language. Today to throw the ball round the horn is for it to go from First to Second to Third to the Catcher and back to the Pitcher in quick succession. Or something like that. Anyway I use it to refer to a swing round the Liberal Coalition to see what's popping.
And Then . . . has a letter from a grad school on urban education that is well worth considering. It turns out that some of our preconceptions might be wrong.
Collective Sigh posted a reaction to the recent story on Clinton and Bush's pre-September 11th battles against Osama Bin Ladin.
I'm Listening to Tranquility Bass's "They Came in Peace," which is a great song.
Corrente has a great little bit on the infallibility of Karl Rove. Oh, read that wrong. Should be excessive fallibility.
Dohiyi Mir has a very involved but solid read on the moral and practicial implications of the deceptions surrounding Iraq.
Iddybud has a factoid about how our next target, after the election, will almost certainly be Iran.
Meanwhile, over at It's Craptastic, they have a section on Bill Maher's mocking of President Bush's outsider status. I have to say Bill Maher's dead right on this one; President Bush is no outsider.
The Invisible Library has a fascinating critique of the term "War on Terror" and how it may not be entirely accurate.
Trish Wilson highlights President Bush's apparent inability to tell a man from a woman. Or in this case a woman from a man. Or should it be the other way around. I'm confused.
|
When Magellan sailed around Africa's Cape Horn, he had with him a very cynical Welsh Sailor who commented that around the horn was as purposeless as "ruined the corn." This didn't make any gramattical sense, but it didn't matter as all the other sailors were Spanish and didn't understand what old "Welshy" was saying.
From there the phrase travelled to some of the early baseball games, back when there were fifteen bases shaped roughly in the head of a cow. Bases 6 through 12 would throw the ball along in quick rapid succession. One of the players, Jonathen "Welshy" Banks thougt the idea stupid and again compared it to "Ruining the Corn." This time, however, his fellow ball players spoke english, and so the phrase entered the english language. Today to throw the ball round the horn is for it to go from First to Second to Third to the Catcher and back to the Pitcher in quick succession. Or something like that. Anyway I use it to refer to a swing round the Liberal Coalition to see what's popping.
And Then . . . has a letter from a grad school on urban education that is well worth considering. It turns out that some of our preconceptions might be wrong.
Collective Sigh posted a reaction to the recent story on Clinton and Bush's pre-September 11th battles against Osama Bin Ladin.
I'm Listening to Tranquility Bass's "They Came in Peace," which is a great song.
Corrente has a great little bit on the infallibility of Karl Rove. Oh, read that wrong. Should be excessive fallibility.
Dohiyi Mir has a very involved but solid read on the moral and practicial implications of the deceptions surrounding Iraq.
Iddybud has a factoid about how our next target, after the election, will almost certainly be Iran.
Meanwhile, over at It's Craptastic, they have a section on Bill Maher's mocking of President Bush's outsider status. I have to say Bill Maher's dead right on this one; President Bush is no outsider.
The Invisible Library has a fascinating critique of the term "War on Terror" and how it may not be entirely accurate.
Trish Wilson highlights President Bush's apparent inability to tell a man from a woman. Or in this case a woman from a man. Or should it be the other way around. I'm confused.
|
Thursday, March 18, 2004
Something To Consider
The President and his party have decided to go on the offensive early. Don't believe me? Well then I'm going to personally punch you in the face.
Wait a minute.
Apparently I am no longer allowed to punch people in the face. In a surprisingly quick court action, every single person in the United States, Canada and Guam has, in a class action action, been protected by a restraining order against me punching them in the face. So instead of punching you in the face, I'm going to have to resort to quoting the New York Times.
"Mr. Cheney's speech was scathing and was the White House's most detailed and pointed criticism to date of Mr. Kerry. The vice president's delivery was notable, too, for the sarcasm within its measured tones. It was his first major policy speech of the campaign, which has begun direct attacks unusually early for a general election."
So let's all take a moment and consider what it means for the President to go so quickly on the attack. One thing it could mean is that the President is holding a pair of deuces (one called the Economy, one called Iraq) and he doesn't want to run on that hand. So instead of running on his own record, he's going to run against Kerry's.
There's a related story at the Times about President Bush's eagerness to begin the attack.
"He likes campaigning, and he likes combat," said Charles Black, a consultant to Mr. Bush's campaign. "He doesn't like sitting back and taking a lot of punches from anybody. It took a lot of discipline the last few months for him to do that. There were times when he wished he could respond, but you can't go fight nine people at once."
Mr. Bush, by all accounts, is relieved that he has finally engaged his opponent, and is happily making day-to-day campaign decisions as well as setting long-term strategy about defining Mr. Kerry."
If only he'd turn his energy towards doing those sorts of things that would give him something to run on, but I suppose you have to stick with what you're good at.
|
Wait a minute.
Apparently I am no longer allowed to punch people in the face. In a surprisingly quick court action, every single person in the United States, Canada and Guam has, in a class action action, been protected by a restraining order against me punching them in the face. So instead of punching you in the face, I'm going to have to resort to quoting the New York Times.
"Mr. Cheney's speech was scathing and was the White House's most detailed and pointed criticism to date of Mr. Kerry. The vice president's delivery was notable, too, for the sarcasm within its measured tones. It was his first major policy speech of the campaign, which has begun direct attacks unusually early for a general election."
So let's all take a moment and consider what it means for the President to go so quickly on the attack. One thing it could mean is that the President is holding a pair of deuces (one called the Economy, one called Iraq) and he doesn't want to run on that hand. So instead of running on his own record, he's going to run against Kerry's.
There's a related story at the Times about President Bush's eagerness to begin the attack.
"He likes campaigning, and he likes combat," said Charles Black, a consultant to Mr. Bush's campaign. "He doesn't like sitting back and taking a lot of punches from anybody. It took a lot of discipline the last few months for him to do that. There were times when he wished he could respond, but you can't go fight nine people at once."
Mr. Bush, by all accounts, is relieved that he has finally engaged his opponent, and is happily making day-to-day campaign decisions as well as setting long-term strategy about defining Mr. Kerry."
If only he'd turn his energy towards doing those sorts of things that would give him something to run on, but I suppose you have to stick with what you're good at.
|
Differing Points of View
"The New York Times called the Spanish election "an exercise in healthy democracy." And an ATM withdrawal with a gun to your head is a "routine banking transaction." Instead of vowing to fight the people who killed their fellow citizens, the Spanish decided to vote with al-Qaida on the war. A murdering terrorist organization said, "Jump!" and an entire country answered, "How high?"
One Spaniard who decided to switch his vote in reaction to the bombings told the Times: "Maybe the Socialists will get our troops out of Iraq and al-Qaida will forget about Spain so we will be less frightened." That's the fighting spirit! If the violent Basque separatist group only killed more people, Spain would surely give them what they want, too.
After his stunning upset victory, Socialist Party leader Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero vowed to withdraw Spanish troops from Iraq if the United States does not turn over Iraq to the United Nations. He also vowed that all of Spain's remaining trains will run on time.
Zapatero said the war with Iraq had "only caused violence" and "there were no reasons for it." One reason for the war, which would seem to be a sufficient reason for a more manly country, is that the people who just slaughtered 200 Spaniards didn't like it. "
- Ann Coulter
"Too many Americans too easily ignore the contributions made in blood and treasure by our European allies in the Afghan conflict. Early in 2002, Spain sent 120 peacekeepers to the International Security Assistance Force. Last May, they lost 62 of those soldiers when an airplane bringing them home crashed in Turkey. There were no mass demonstrations demanding the end of Spanish participation in that international coalition.
Neither ideological inconsistency nor moral cowardice explains why the Spanish electorate dumped the discredited conservatives. The Bush administration’s reckless drive to war in Iraq, against majority dissent in Spain and elsewhere, undermined support for the United States. Since then, people around the world have been confirmed in their worst suspicions about the purported causes of that war. Now we are discovering the destructive impact of the lies told by our own leaders and diplomats, about Baghdad’s weapons of mass destruction and cooperation with Al Qaeda."
- Joe Conason
Just something to consider. Of course putting Ms. Coulter up against Mr. Conason might not be the fairest of competitions.
|
One Spaniard who decided to switch his vote in reaction to the bombings told the Times: "Maybe the Socialists will get our troops out of Iraq and al-Qaida will forget about Spain so we will be less frightened." That's the fighting spirit! If the violent Basque separatist group only killed more people, Spain would surely give them what they want, too.
After his stunning upset victory, Socialist Party leader Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero vowed to withdraw Spanish troops from Iraq if the United States does not turn over Iraq to the United Nations. He also vowed that all of Spain's remaining trains will run on time.
Zapatero said the war with Iraq had "only caused violence" and "there were no reasons for it." One reason for the war, which would seem to be a sufficient reason for a more manly country, is that the people who just slaughtered 200 Spaniards didn't like it. "
- Ann Coulter
"Too many Americans too easily ignore the contributions made in blood and treasure by our European allies in the Afghan conflict. Early in 2002, Spain sent 120 peacekeepers to the International Security Assistance Force. Last May, they lost 62 of those soldiers when an airplane bringing them home crashed in Turkey. There were no mass demonstrations demanding the end of Spanish participation in that international coalition.
Neither ideological inconsistency nor moral cowardice explains why the Spanish electorate dumped the discredited conservatives. The Bush administration’s reckless drive to war in Iraq, against majority dissent in Spain and elsewhere, undermined support for the United States. Since then, people around the world have been confirmed in their worst suspicions about the purported causes of that war. Now we are discovering the destructive impact of the lies told by our own leaders and diplomats, about Baghdad’s weapons of mass destruction and cooperation with Al Qaeda."
- Joe Conason
Just something to consider. Of course putting Ms. Coulter up against Mr. Conason might not be the fairest of competitions.
|
Wednesday, March 17, 2004
Warning. Low Posting Ahead.
But here's a really old Tom the Dancing Bug to Cheer you up
And if you like that cartoon, go buy a Tom the Dancing Bug Book.
|
And if you like that cartoon, go buy a Tom the Dancing Bug Book.
|
Differing Opinions
"Don't give me this public airwaves business, either. The public airwaves argument vanished long ago with what they're putting on the public television airwaves.
Radio cannot compete with the smut that's on television. I don't care who on radio is out there. They don't compete with the crap that's being televised every night into everybody's home with little teeny bops watching it and so forth. Now if we sit idly by and let a federal government start to define what is okay for somebody to say on radio and what isn't -- and in this area it has to do with decency regarding obscenity and smut and so forth -- what happens if a whole bunch of John Kerry-John Edwards-Bill Clinton-Terry McAuliffe types end up running this country someday again and decide that conservative opinion is indecent, decide that that causes violence, decide that that is somehow damaging to the culture?"
Rush Limbaugh, February 26, 2004
"In the free marketplace, you're welcome to say whatever you like, but if people don't want to buy whatever you're selling, no whines. As long as the airwaves remain in the public domain, the public has a right through its government to stifle the profane rants and juvenile outbursts of our lesser-evolved brethren. Ain't democracy grand?"
Kathleen Parker, March 17, 2004
Of course Rush's comment is pretty self serving; he makes his money in radio, he doesn't want anybody messing up his meal ticket. But these two do show the essential split in the Republican Party; between those who would destroy the mechanisms of government and those, like Ms. Parker, who would use those mechanisms against viewpoints and positions and entertainment they don't like.
|
Radio cannot compete with the smut that's on television. I don't care who on radio is out there. They don't compete with the crap that's being televised every night into everybody's home with little teeny bops watching it and so forth. Now if we sit idly by and let a federal government start to define what is okay for somebody to say on radio and what isn't -- and in this area it has to do with decency regarding obscenity and smut and so forth -- what happens if a whole bunch of John Kerry-John Edwards-Bill Clinton-Terry McAuliffe types end up running this country someday again and decide that conservative opinion is indecent, decide that that causes violence, decide that that is somehow damaging to the culture?"
Rush Limbaugh, February 26, 2004
"In the free marketplace, you're welcome to say whatever you like, but if people don't want to buy whatever you're selling, no whines. As long as the airwaves remain in the public domain, the public has a right through its government to stifle the profane rants and juvenile outbursts of our lesser-evolved brethren. Ain't democracy grand?"
Kathleen Parker, March 17, 2004
Of course Rush's comment is pretty self serving; he makes his money in radio, he doesn't want anybody messing up his meal ticket. But these two do show the essential split in the Republican Party; between those who would destroy the mechanisms of government and those, like Ms. Parker, who would use those mechanisms against viewpoints and positions and entertainment they don't like.
|
Tuesday, March 16, 2004
Never Mind
Apparently there has been correction. Last week, it was reported that Senator Kerry stated ""I've met foreign leaders who can't go out and say this publicly but, boy, they look at you and say, 'You gotta win this, you gotta beat this guy, we need a new policy,' things like that."
It turns out that what he actually said was ""I've met more leaders who can't go out and say this publicly but, boy, they look at you and say, 'You gotta win this, you gotta beat this guy, we need a new policy,' things like that."
So that changes everything and we can expect a lot of articles from conservatives admitting that although this particular story turned out to be false, that's exactly the sort of thing Kerry would say.
Got pointed this way from This Modern World.
|
It turns out that what he actually said was ""I've met more leaders who can't go out and say this publicly but, boy, they look at you and say, 'You gotta win this, you gotta beat this guy, we need a new policy,' things like that."
So that changes everything and we can expect a lot of articles from conservatives admitting that although this particular story turned out to be false, that's exactly the sort of thing Kerry would say.
Got pointed this way from This Modern World.
|
A vote for the Democrats is a Vote for Al-Qaeda
"Voters in Spain pulled the lever for al Qaeda on Sunday, and it may only be a matter of months before Osama bin Laden tries to replicate the results in the U.S."
- Joel Mowbray
"When the next bomb goes off--perhaps this time in Poland--the families of the dead should blame the people in Spain who voted to run from terrorists and cower before them instead of standing strong against them.
Sound cruel? Perhaps, but it is the sad truth. The majority of Spaniards decided to follow the illogical path of blaming their President for the attack in Madrid instead of the people who actually carried out mass murder. In doing so, they handed the butchers a victory. Terrorism and murder have been handsomely rewarded this day."
- Barbara J. Stock
"From the standpoint of a political campaign, the Popular Party of Spain made one of the gravest screwups in history, one that spells nothing but trouble for Spain, the United States and the security of the world.
They let al-Qaeda decide who will lead their nation.
- Jay Bryant
Isn't Democracy terrible? I mean without Democracy we wouldn't have to worry about the opinions of the people. Think how much President Bush could accomplish if he didn't have to worry about the election in November. Think about how much more Al-Queda would fear us if they knew that President Bush would be in office for the rest of his life, coming after them. Maybe it's time we as a nation reevaluated what democracy means to our enemies. To them it is weakness. It shows how weak our society is. Perhaps if we abandoned Democracy it would show them how dangerous we really are.
"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you. - Friedrich Nietzsch
What's striking in the discussion of the tragedy of Spain is the constant repetition by the right that such things can and probably will happen here again as well. In other words, if you support President Bush because you hope there will be no more terror attacks, you have hoped in vain. He hasn't the power to stop terrorist attacks. And yet no conservative president should be held responsible for such attacks, because the alternative is capitulation.
The conservatives propose that there are two alternatives and two alternatives only; the belligerent go-it-alone policy of President Bush and his advisors or total surrender. But, here in reality, there are other alternatives.
"One year ago, I came here to say that the most basic responsibility of government is to provide for the common defense. But that thus far the Bush Administration had "provided too little support, provided too little leadership, and provided too little vision for the common defense of our homeland." One year later we gather again - and the same is true. Whether it has been providing funding and equipment for firefighters, ensuring that cargo in our ports is screened, guarding our chemical and nuclear facilities, or working with local communities across the country to give them the resources they need - this Administration has given our homeland security efforts short shrift. And you deserve better.
I do not fault George Bush for doing too much in the War on Terror; I believe he's done too little. When the focus of the War on Terror was appropriately in Afghanistan and on breaking al Qaeda, President Bush shifted his focus to Iraq and Saddam Hussein. He's pushed away our allies at a time when we need them most. He hasn't pursued a strategy to win the hearts and minds of people around the world and win the war of ideas against the radical ideology of Osama bin Laden. And time and again, George Bush has failed to give those fighting the War on Terror - whether they're overseas or over here - the weapons, equipment, and support they need.
In dangerous parts of Iraq, our helicopters are flying missions without the best available anti-missile systems. Un-armored Humvees are falling victim to road-side bombs and small-arms fire and the Bush Administration waited through month after month of ambushes to act.
And tens of thousands of other troops arrived in Iraq to find that - with danger around every corner - there wasn't enough body armor to protect them."
- John Kerry
|
- Joel Mowbray
"When the next bomb goes off--perhaps this time in Poland--the families of the dead should blame the people in Spain who voted to run from terrorists and cower before them instead of standing strong against them.
Sound cruel? Perhaps, but it is the sad truth. The majority of Spaniards decided to follow the illogical path of blaming their President for the attack in Madrid instead of the people who actually carried out mass murder. In doing so, they handed the butchers a victory. Terrorism and murder have been handsomely rewarded this day."
- Barbara J. Stock
"From the standpoint of a political campaign, the Popular Party of Spain made one of the gravest screwups in history, one that spells nothing but trouble for Spain, the United States and the security of the world.
They let al-Qaeda decide who will lead their nation.
- Jay Bryant
Isn't Democracy terrible? I mean without Democracy we wouldn't have to worry about the opinions of the people. Think how much President Bush could accomplish if he didn't have to worry about the election in November. Think about how much more Al-Queda would fear us if they knew that President Bush would be in office for the rest of his life, coming after them. Maybe it's time we as a nation reevaluated what democracy means to our enemies. To them it is weakness. It shows how weak our society is. Perhaps if we abandoned Democracy it would show them how dangerous we really are.
"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you. - Friedrich Nietzsch
What's striking in the discussion of the tragedy of Spain is the constant repetition by the right that such things can and probably will happen here again as well. In other words, if you support President Bush because you hope there will be no more terror attacks, you have hoped in vain. He hasn't the power to stop terrorist attacks. And yet no conservative president should be held responsible for such attacks, because the alternative is capitulation.
The conservatives propose that there are two alternatives and two alternatives only; the belligerent go-it-alone policy of President Bush and his advisors or total surrender. But, here in reality, there are other alternatives.
"One year ago, I came here to say that the most basic responsibility of government is to provide for the common defense. But that thus far the Bush Administration had "provided too little support, provided too little leadership, and provided too little vision for the common defense of our homeland." One year later we gather again - and the same is true. Whether it has been providing funding and equipment for firefighters, ensuring that cargo in our ports is screened, guarding our chemical and nuclear facilities, or working with local communities across the country to give them the resources they need - this Administration has given our homeland security efforts short shrift. And you deserve better.
I do not fault George Bush for doing too much in the War on Terror; I believe he's done too little. When the focus of the War on Terror was appropriately in Afghanistan and on breaking al Qaeda, President Bush shifted his focus to Iraq and Saddam Hussein. He's pushed away our allies at a time when we need them most. He hasn't pursued a strategy to win the hearts and minds of people around the world and win the war of ideas against the radical ideology of Osama bin Laden. And time and again, George Bush has failed to give those fighting the War on Terror - whether they're overseas or over here - the weapons, equipment, and support they need.
In dangerous parts of Iraq, our helicopters are flying missions without the best available anti-missile systems. Un-armored Humvees are falling victim to road-side bombs and small-arms fire and the Bush Administration waited through month after month of ambushes to act.
And tens of thousands of other troops arrived in Iraq to find that - with danger around every corner - there wasn't enough body armor to protect them."
- John Kerry
|
Monday, March 15, 2004
Rush Limbaugh Speaks
"All you have to do is look at the headlines and the news stories in their partisan media, which is, in this case, the mainstream press. They're all ecstatic and excited about this. The headlines talk about how Bush has lost an ally, Bush in trouble on war on terror, blah, blah, blah. Well, the opposite of that is, Kerry not in trouble, Kerry aided by Spanish election. And the terrorists are the ones who won that election, so what's good for Al-Qaeda is good for the Democratic Party."
Link here.
You all know this is going to be a dirty campaign, don't you?
|
Link here.
You all know this is going to be a dirty campaign, don't you?
|
Negative Ads
Hot on the heels for my somewhat humorous attempt at a Kerry Commercial, Salon has a story on Alex Castellanos, master of the negative ad who is now working for our very own President Bush. Actually, since their story came out first thing this morning, and my "ad" came out this afternoon, they beat me to the punch.
For those of you who don't know Alex Castellanos (like me before I read this story), here's a little taste of what he'll bring to the Bush Campaign.
"It was during that 1994 Florida campaign, working for Jeb Bush's first but failed bid for election, that Castellanos showed why he's considered one of the fathers of the modern attack ad.
Castellanos launched a classic October surprise. Less than two weeks before the election, with his candidate ahead in the polls, Castellanos produced a raw, emotionally charged spot featuring a Florida mother whose 10-year-old daughter had been murdered in 1980. On camera, she complained that Chiles had refused to sign the killer's death warrant, "because he's too liberal on crime." Addressing the people of Florida, the mother said, "I know Jeb Bush. He'll make criminals serve their sentences and enforce the death penalty. Lawton Chiles won't."
The accusation produced panic inside the Chiles campaign. "We had done all the research [on relevant death sentence cases] and we couldn't figure out how we missed this guy," says Krog. Aides quickly unearthed the answer: Florida courts were still hearing the killer's appeal, making it impossible for Chiles to act.
The Palm Beach Post condemned the attack ad as a "despicable lie that proves again why Jeb [Bush] is unfit to be governor." The Orlando Sun-Sentinel accused Bush of demagoguery, protesting the spot was "shamelessly false, irresponsible and tasteless," while the Miami Herald complained it had "sunk to new depths."
The ads backfired on Bush, allowing Chiles to win one of the closest gubernatorial races in Florida history."
The article is great, although it does suffer from a little too much of the horse race. The tone of the article is essentially that its ok to go negative and deceptive in your ads if they are effective. Effectiveness is the only criteria for judging political ads; and therefore the only reason to be honest is that over dishonesty might hurt the campaign (if the people catch on). I understand the view point, but still think honesty is good in and of itself.
One other thing. If Kerry wins, we are going to see the end of Campaign Finance Reform for a while. President Bush has an enormous amount of money, and if he can't parley that into an electoral win, than the argument that money buys elections will disappear.
|
For those of you who don't know Alex Castellanos (like me before I read this story), here's a little taste of what he'll bring to the Bush Campaign.
"It was during that 1994 Florida campaign, working for Jeb Bush's first but failed bid for election, that Castellanos showed why he's considered one of the fathers of the modern attack ad.
Castellanos launched a classic October surprise. Less than two weeks before the election, with his candidate ahead in the polls, Castellanos produced a raw, emotionally charged spot featuring a Florida mother whose 10-year-old daughter had been murdered in 1980. On camera, she complained that Chiles had refused to sign the killer's death warrant, "because he's too liberal on crime." Addressing the people of Florida, the mother said, "I know Jeb Bush. He'll make criminals serve their sentences and enforce the death penalty. Lawton Chiles won't."
The accusation produced panic inside the Chiles campaign. "We had done all the research [on relevant death sentence cases] and we couldn't figure out how we missed this guy," says Krog. Aides quickly unearthed the answer: Florida courts were still hearing the killer's appeal, making it impossible for Chiles to act.
The Palm Beach Post condemned the attack ad as a "despicable lie that proves again why Jeb [Bush] is unfit to be governor." The Orlando Sun-Sentinel accused Bush of demagoguery, protesting the spot was "shamelessly false, irresponsible and tasteless," while the Miami Herald complained it had "sunk to new depths."
The ads backfired on Bush, allowing Chiles to win one of the closest gubernatorial races in Florida history."
The article is great, although it does suffer from a little too much of the horse race. The tone of the article is essentially that its ok to go negative and deceptive in your ads if they are effective. Effectiveness is the only criteria for judging political ads; and therefore the only reason to be honest is that over dishonesty might hurt the campaign (if the people catch on). I understand the view point, but still think honesty is good in and of itself.
One other thing. If Kerry wins, we are going to see the end of Campaign Finance Reform for a while. President Bush has an enormous amount of money, and if he can't parley that into an electoral win, than the argument that money buys elections will disappear.
|
My Idea for a Kerry Campaign Commercial.
Fade in on a group of Al-Queda Terrorists practicing something.
Voice over - "We are all afraid of Terrorist attacks, and we all recognize the need for a tough president to deal with them."
Camera switches to clip of John Kerry who says, "these guys are the most crooked, you know, lying group of people I've ever seen."
Voice over - "Tough Words Mr. Kerry. Let's look at how the Republicans respond."
Clips of various Republicans calling on Kerry to apologize.
Extra Smarmy Voice Over - "Oh my, it seems that Mr. Kerry's tough talk has upset these Republicans. They think he should apologize."
Switch back to Al Queda shots.
Voice over - "Remember these guys? They say some pretty hurtful things too, Mr. President. If you and your buddies are so scared of a little tough talk, how can we trust you to stand up for America?"
Switch back to Kerry, flexing and looking super tough.
Voice Over - "Vote for Kerry if you want someone tough. Vote Republican if you want a bunch of crybaby apology-askers."
There it is. I'll trust the Kerry campaign to compensate me fairly for my super brilliant idea.
|
Voice over - "We are all afraid of Terrorist attacks, and we all recognize the need for a tough president to deal with them."
Camera switches to clip of John Kerry who says, "these guys are the most crooked, you know, lying group of people I've ever seen."
Voice over - "Tough Words Mr. Kerry. Let's look at how the Republicans respond."
Clips of various Republicans calling on Kerry to apologize.
Extra Smarmy Voice Over - "Oh my, it seems that Mr. Kerry's tough talk has upset these Republicans. They think he should apologize."
Switch back to Al Queda shots.
Voice over - "Remember these guys? They say some pretty hurtful things too, Mr. President. If you and your buddies are so scared of a little tough talk, how can we trust you to stand up for America?"
Switch back to Kerry, flexing and looking super tough.
Voice Over - "Vote for Kerry if you want someone tough. Vote Republican if you want a bunch of crybaby apology-askers."
There it is. I'll trust the Kerry campaign to compensate me fairly for my super brilliant idea.
|
Paul Greenberg asks the Tough Questions
Apparently France is still evil. And Greenberg assumes in his latest article that the foreign leaders that Senator Kerry was commenting on last week (when he said, "I've met foreign leaders who can't go out and say this publicly but, boy, they look at you and say, 'You gotta win this, you gotta beat this guy, we need a new policy,' things like that.") were from France. He suggests, as I did, that Kerry's use of the term leader may not mean the same thing as the head of the state.
Unlike me, however, Greenberg broadens the definition of the term leader to include newspaper editors. "Of course it doesn't have to be a government leader who's been whispering into John Kerry's ear. How about an insufferably smug editor like Jean-Marie Colombani of Le Monde, France's snootiest journal?" Hmmmmm. That doesn't make a lot of sense actually.
Greenberg then offers this touching (and by touching I mean stomach churning) historical analogy.
"Suppose, for example, that John Kerry hadn't been born in the United States but in Paris a generation or two earlier. What with all those Czech Jews in his family tree, would he have been rounded up with the other Jewish children and handed over to the Gestapo for transport to Buchenwald?
And today, would John Kerry's name and memory be as forgotten as the rest of France's collaborationist past? Instead of France's favorite candidate for president of the United States, would he be just one more part of a forgotten era? And one the French are only too happy to forget."
Well, we can suppose all sorts of things, can't we? Suppose Mr. Greenberg had been a pilot in World War II and had been stranded in France. And suppose he became one of the many pilots aided by the French Resistance to find safe escape back to England. Would he still be as critical of France as he is? Yes, of course he would. Past actions are really irrevelant; what matters is a nations ability to do whatever America (and by America I mean George W. Bush) says. If the French would just follow our lead blindly we'd let up on them. As long as they insist on acting like an independent nation that thinks for itself, well, they won't be on our Christmas Card List.
|
Unlike me, however, Greenberg broadens the definition of the term leader to include newspaper editors. "Of course it doesn't have to be a government leader who's been whispering into John Kerry's ear. How about an insufferably smug editor like Jean-Marie Colombani of Le Monde, France's snootiest journal?" Hmmmmm. That doesn't make a lot of sense actually.
Greenberg then offers this touching (and by touching I mean stomach churning) historical analogy.
"Suppose, for example, that John Kerry hadn't been born in the United States but in Paris a generation or two earlier. What with all those Czech Jews in his family tree, would he have been rounded up with the other Jewish children and handed over to the Gestapo for transport to Buchenwald?
And today, would John Kerry's name and memory be as forgotten as the rest of France's collaborationist past? Instead of France's favorite candidate for president of the United States, would he be just one more part of a forgotten era? And one the French are only too happy to forget."
Well, we can suppose all sorts of things, can't we? Suppose Mr. Greenberg had been a pilot in World War II and had been stranded in France. And suppose he became one of the many pilots aided by the French Resistance to find safe escape back to England. Would he still be as critical of France as he is? Yes, of course he would. Past actions are really irrevelant; what matters is a nations ability to do whatever America (and by America I mean George W. Bush) says. If the French would just follow our lead blindly we'd let up on them. As long as they insist on acting like an independent nation that thinks for itself, well, they won't be on our Christmas Card List.
|
Sunday, March 14, 2004
What I can see from My Window
Here's what I can see from the window in my "computer room."
So as you can see things are going great. Sort of.
|
So as you can see things are going great. Sort of.
|
New Quote
Saturday, March 13, 2004
Your Weekly Rush, Again
Rush revealed this week that he wasn't raised very well. Apparently nobody ever taught him that wasting food was wrong and stupid; on Friday he related a story about going to a restaurant and leaving so much food behind he got questions from the waitress. What about all those starving kids in Africa and China Rush? You ever think of them?
He then, in a fan pleasing gesture, revealed that he never carries anything less than a $50 dollar bill. And somep people claim that he's out of touch with the common man. He had a $58 dollar lunch and gave the waitress $120 and let her keep the change (not sure how you get to $120 with out bills less than $50, but what do I know). Just in case you are not sure what to think of that that little story, Rush explains it to us.
". . . your observation should be, "you know, we misunderstand this Limbaugh guy. We think he's a racist, bigot, sexist, homophobe because he's conservative, but look how generous and caring and thoughtful he is about somebody who's not doing as well as he is!"
Thank you for telling us what we should think, O mighty one. Please keep regalling your fans with stories about how loaded you are and how much better off you are than all the rest of us poor slobs.
No I'm serious. I want to hear about how rough it is to be a drug user in America who never carries bills smaller than a $20.
|
He then, in a fan pleasing gesture, revealed that he never carries anything less than a $50 dollar bill. And somep people claim that he's out of touch with the common man. He had a $58 dollar lunch and gave the waitress $120 and let her keep the change (not sure how you get to $120 with out bills less than $50, but what do I know). Just in case you are not sure what to think of that that little story, Rush explains it to us.
". . . your observation should be, "you know, we misunderstand this Limbaugh guy. We think he's a racist, bigot, sexist, homophobe because he's conservative, but look how generous and caring and thoughtful he is about somebody who's not doing as well as he is!"
Thank you for telling us what we should think, O mighty one. Please keep regalling your fans with stories about how loaded you are and how much better off you are than all the rest of us poor slobs.
No I'm serious. I want to hear about how rough it is to be a drug user in America who never carries bills smaller than a $20.
|
Friday, March 12, 2004
Once 'Round the Horn
Good story from Archy on corruption in Texas. I particularly like the threat "You don't want to have the freakin' president of the United States mad at you for the rest of your life." Well yeah, but really, he's not going to be President the rest of his life. Is he?
Interesting discussion over at The Yellow Doggeral Democrat involving a sonic weapon recently deployed to Iraq.
In other news there are two new bloggers in the liberal coalition (which is kind of like the Superfriends, only with better parties. One of them is Bloggg. I don't know what the extra two g's stand for. Groovy Guy Perhaps? And he has an interesting article on Granny D, who if you don't know who she is, you should.
The other is called Musing's Musings which is very allitrative. He has a great explanation of why the Bush Attack Ads crumble in the face of reasson, which, unfortunately, does not make them unique in the history of Republican Attacks.
New World Blogger and Echidne of the Snakes both have well written and touching responses to the terrorist actions in Spain.
Pen-Elayne on the Web has comments on our wise and noble President's campaign stops. Turns out cheering crowds may occasionally not know what they are cheering for.
Words on a Page has uncovered a little tidbit on how President Bush's opinions have evolved since Law School. Like most evolution, his opinions will take hundreds of thousands of years before they evolve, apparently.
Respectful of Otters reports that Lauren Slater, who I had never heard of before, is a liar. The details are interesting though, as they involve behavioral psychologist B. F. Skinner and uban legends.
Sooner Thought has an interesting article on how Republicans are controlling the terms of the debate by controlling the terms of the debate. Hmmmm. That could have been more clear. What I mean to say is that they are controlling the debate through controlling the language used.
Sometimes I worry that I'm over using the phrase "Interesting Article." But the feeling usually passes. More this afternoon. Maybe. Unless I get lazy.
|
Interesting discussion over at The Yellow Doggeral Democrat involving a sonic weapon recently deployed to Iraq.
In other news there are two new bloggers in the liberal coalition (which is kind of like the Superfriends, only with better parties. One of them is Bloggg. I don't know what the extra two g's stand for. Groovy Guy Perhaps? And he has an interesting article on Granny D, who if you don't know who she is, you should.
The other is called Musing's Musings which is very allitrative. He has a great explanation of why the Bush Attack Ads crumble in the face of reasson, which, unfortunately, does not make them unique in the history of Republican Attacks.
New World Blogger and Echidne of the Snakes both have well written and touching responses to the terrorist actions in Spain.
Pen-Elayne on the Web has comments on our wise and noble President's campaign stops. Turns out cheering crowds may occasionally not know what they are cheering for.
Words on a Page has uncovered a little tidbit on how President Bush's opinions have evolved since Law School. Like most evolution, his opinions will take hundreds of thousands of years before they evolve, apparently.
Respectful of Otters reports that Lauren Slater, who I had never heard of before, is a liar. The details are interesting though, as they involve behavioral psychologist B. F. Skinner and uban legends.
Sooner Thought has an interesting article on how Republicans are controlling the terms of the debate by controlling the terms of the debate. Hmmmm. That could have been more clear. What I mean to say is that they are controlling the debate through controlling the language used.
Sometimes I worry that I'm over using the phrase "Interesting Article." But the feeling usually passes. More this afternoon. Maybe. Unless I get lazy.
|
Blast from the Past
"We are trying to change the tones in the state capitals - and turn them toward bitter nastiness and partisanship. . . . Bipartisanship is another name for date rape." - Grover Norquist.
Something to keep in mind during this election season.
|
Something to keep in mind during this election season.
|
Thursday, March 11, 2004
Your Weekly Rush!
Apparently if the election were held tomorrow, President Bush would win.
"I'm telling you if this election were held tomorrow Bush would win this by a much bigger majority than anybody in the media and any poll is showing right now. The fact that the election isn't tomorrow means that the polls that show John Kerry is up by four, eight, 12, or down by four don't mean diddlysquat. Because these polls are nothing more than a reflection of media coverage, media propaganda, if you will. And so everybody is all hot to trot here about all this, and it's unnecessary and it's irrational, because what's happening to propel this so-called John Kerry story is irrational."
So it's a good thing the election isn't being held tomorrow. In his own way Rush seems about as delusional as Ralph Nader. There's been a number of pools talking about how President Bush is in trouble; but they are irrelevant because, in Rush's Mind, there's a vast silent majority that is just waiting to vote for President Bush. Reminds me more than a little of the idea that Nader has put out that most unregistered voters would vote for him, if he got his message to them; they aren't part of the process because they don't like either party.
In both cases what's important isn't any statistical data; neither side has very much. Rush points to a poll that says that the number one issue is Homeland Security, and apparently that's a slam dunk issue for President Bush (Personally I'm not sold on that theory myself), but that's it.
There's a famous story the right wing likes to tell about Pauline Kael, New York Film Critic, who was surprised when Nixon beat McGovern because nobody she knew was going to vote for Nixon. One wonders if Rush might be falling into a similar self delusional trap. I personally hope so.
|
"I'm telling you if this election were held tomorrow Bush would win this by a much bigger majority than anybody in the media and any poll is showing right now. The fact that the election isn't tomorrow means that the polls that show John Kerry is up by four, eight, 12, or down by four don't mean diddlysquat. Because these polls are nothing more than a reflection of media coverage, media propaganda, if you will. And so everybody is all hot to trot here about all this, and it's unnecessary and it's irrational, because what's happening to propel this so-called John Kerry story is irrational."
So it's a good thing the election isn't being held tomorrow. In his own way Rush seems about as delusional as Ralph Nader. There's been a number of pools talking about how President Bush is in trouble; but they are irrelevant because, in Rush's Mind, there's a vast silent majority that is just waiting to vote for President Bush. Reminds me more than a little of the idea that Nader has put out that most unregistered voters would vote for him, if he got his message to them; they aren't part of the process because they don't like either party.
In both cases what's important isn't any statistical data; neither side has very much. Rush points to a poll that says that the number one issue is Homeland Security, and apparently that's a slam dunk issue for President Bush (Personally I'm not sold on that theory myself), but that's it.
There's a famous story the right wing likes to tell about Pauline Kael, New York Film Critic, who was surprised when Nixon beat McGovern because nobody she knew was going to vote for Nixon. One wonders if Rush might be falling into a similar self delusional trap. I personally hope so.
|
Ann Coulter's Latest
You remember back a year ago or a year and a half when Ann Coulter was writing about how Liberals who opposed the war on Iraq were basically traitors? One question that I and many others had was what about Anti War Conservatives and Libertarians (The Cato Institute at the time was putting out a steady stream of articles attacking the plan to invade Iraq)? Are conservatives who attack the war traitors too? Unfortunately, what with her busy schedule and all, as far as I know Ann never answered that particular question.
Well, in the issue du jour, The Passion, Ms. Coulter is apparently determined not to make the same mistake twice. So she slams into William Safire for his criticisms of the movie. She makes this wonderfully ahistorical argument. "With all the subtlety of a Mack truck, Safire called Gibson's movie a version of "the medieval 'passion play,' preserved in pre-Hitler Germany at Oberammergau, a source of the hatred of all Jews as 'Christ killers.'" (Certainly every Aryan Nation skinhead murderer I've ever met was also a devoted theater buff and "passion play" aficionado.)"
What a characteristic response! Ms. Coulter, the passion plays were a phenomenon of the Hitler regime (and the middle ages of course) and were used to incite that culture to hatred. Modern Skinheads wouldn't use them, because we now have Racist music and video games and, of course, the wonderful internet to bring them together. And we have "The Passion" which if one were a Skinhead, one might find it a confirmation of one's beliefs. Not that Mel Gibson should be held responsible for what viewers of his movie might bring into the theater with them, of course.
Ms. Coulter encourages Liberals to "get over" the Spanish Inquisition, because only 30,000 people were killed and Stalin killed a lot more than that. Although to be fair, Stalin did have the advantage of modern technology to assist him in his killings. I'm sure the Spanish Inquisition did the best they could.
What's also interesting is that I see no indication that Ms. Coulter has seen the movie. Instead of taking on what Mr. Safire says about the movie, she chooses to move the conversation to a discussion of what Christianity is; a story of salvation. That's all well and good, but it doesn't really answer the question of whether Mel Gibson's movie, along with telling that Jesus died for all mankind, also tells us that Jews did it and therefore they basically deserve what ever we chose to do to them.
Ms. Coulter begins her article with this paragraph, "William Safire, the New York Times' in-house "conservative" - who endorsed Bill Clinton in 1992, like so many conservatives - was sure Mel Gibson's movie "The Passion of the Christ" would incite anti-Semitic violence. Thus far, the pogroms have failed to materialize."
Well, I guess since we haven't started rounding up Jews and executing them, that there's nothing to worry about. Unless you live in Denver, perhaps (although it should be noted that hundreds of people from Denver also turned out en masse to help clean the Synagogue).
|
Well, in the issue du jour, The Passion, Ms. Coulter is apparently determined not to make the same mistake twice. So she slams into William Safire for his criticisms of the movie. She makes this wonderfully ahistorical argument. "With all the subtlety of a Mack truck, Safire called Gibson's movie a version of "the medieval 'passion play,' preserved in pre-Hitler Germany at Oberammergau, a source of the hatred of all Jews as 'Christ killers.'" (Certainly every Aryan Nation skinhead murderer I've ever met was also a devoted theater buff and "passion play" aficionado.)"
What a characteristic response! Ms. Coulter, the passion plays were a phenomenon of the Hitler regime (and the middle ages of course) and were used to incite that culture to hatred. Modern Skinheads wouldn't use them, because we now have Racist music and video games and, of course, the wonderful internet to bring them together. And we have "The Passion" which if one were a Skinhead, one might find it a confirmation of one's beliefs. Not that Mel Gibson should be held responsible for what viewers of his movie might bring into the theater with them, of course.
Ms. Coulter encourages Liberals to "get over" the Spanish Inquisition, because only 30,000 people were killed and Stalin killed a lot more than that. Although to be fair, Stalin did have the advantage of modern technology to assist him in his killings. I'm sure the Spanish Inquisition did the best they could.
What's also interesting is that I see no indication that Ms. Coulter has seen the movie. Instead of taking on what Mr. Safire says about the movie, she chooses to move the conversation to a discussion of what Christianity is; a story of salvation. That's all well and good, but it doesn't really answer the question of whether Mel Gibson's movie, along with telling that Jesus died for all mankind, also tells us that Jews did it and therefore they basically deserve what ever we chose to do to them.
Ms. Coulter begins her article with this paragraph, "William Safire, the New York Times' in-house "conservative" - who endorsed Bill Clinton in 1992, like so many conservatives - was sure Mel Gibson's movie "The Passion of the Christ" would incite anti-Semitic violence. Thus far, the pogroms have failed to materialize."
Well, I guess since we haven't started rounding up Jews and executing them, that there's nothing to worry about. Unless you live in Denver, perhaps (although it should be noted that hundreds of people from Denver also turned out en masse to help clean the Synagogue).
|
Wednesday, March 10, 2004
More on Gary Aldrich
I began the day with Tom Tomorrow so let's end it there too. For those of you who don't know Mr. Aldrich's past, he was the subject of this cartoon by Mr. Tomorrow. It's at Salon, so you might be subject to watching an ad before you can see it.
|
|
All this and Gary Aldrich Too!
Had quite a busy day today, for me anyway, and I didn't get to a story I came across first thing.
Here's the argument. "We must remain strong and respond smartly to attacks against American interests. We cannot simply open a new FBI investigation – we tried that tactic before, and it proved a deadly failure.
Three-thousand killed should provide sufficient “DNA evidence” supporting George W. Bush’s military approach."
Hmmmmmm. I'm not sure it does. I mean it provides data that the previous approach of President Bush ignoring terrorism because he hated President Clinton so much was a failure. It doesn't necessarily prove that any specific new approach will work.
I mean turn that around. What if some kooky liberal were to say, "We tried antagonizing other countries and pushing them around, and that approach proved a deadly failure. Three thousand killed should provide sufficient "DNA evidence" supporting a new approach in which we actually try to get along with other nations." Somehow I doubt that argument would convince Mr. Aldrich.
But wait, you say, there haven't been any terrorist attacks since September 11th. Doesn't that prove that President Bush's get tough approach is working? Again, not necessarily. Allow me to let Lisa Simpson explain.
Homer: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm.
Lisa: That's spacious reasoning, Dad.
Homer: Thank you, dear.
Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: Oh, how does it work?
Lisa: It doesn't work.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: It's just a stupid rock.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you?
[Homer thinks of this, then pulls out some money]
Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.
[Lisa refuses at first, then takes the exchange]
Now who do you believe more, Gary Aldrich or Lisa Simpson?
Aldrich has more, mostly slanders on Senator Kerry's service in Vietnam, which I might get to later. Or not. We've heard it all before, so it may not sustain my interest.
|
Here's the argument. "We must remain strong and respond smartly to attacks against American interests. We cannot simply open a new FBI investigation – we tried that tactic before, and it proved a deadly failure.
Three-thousand killed should provide sufficient “DNA evidence” supporting George W. Bush’s military approach."
Hmmmmmm. I'm not sure it does. I mean it provides data that the previous approach of President Bush ignoring terrorism because he hated President Clinton so much was a failure. It doesn't necessarily prove that any specific new approach will work.
I mean turn that around. What if some kooky liberal were to say, "We tried antagonizing other countries and pushing them around, and that approach proved a deadly failure. Three thousand killed should provide sufficient "DNA evidence" supporting a new approach in which we actually try to get along with other nations." Somehow I doubt that argument would convince Mr. Aldrich.
But wait, you say, there haven't been any terrorist attacks since September 11th. Doesn't that prove that President Bush's get tough approach is working? Again, not necessarily. Allow me to let Lisa Simpson explain.
Homer: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm.
Lisa: That's spacious reasoning, Dad.
Homer: Thank you, dear.
Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: Oh, how does it work?
Lisa: It doesn't work.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: It's just a stupid rock.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you?
[Homer thinks of this, then pulls out some money]
Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.
[Lisa refuses at first, then takes the exchange]
Now who do you believe more, Gary Aldrich or Lisa Simpson?
Aldrich has more, mostly slanders on Senator Kerry's service in Vietnam, which I might get to later. Or not. We've heard it all before, so it may not sustain my interest.
|
A Quick Thought on Teaching
"To improve teaching, we must attract people of higher intellectual ability and we must make teacher salaries related to ability and effectiveness." - Walter E. Williams
In a surprising move I agree with Mr. Williams on this point. The problem comes in how you attract people of higher intellectual ability and how you make salaries related to ability and effectiveness. First of all, let's pay teachers more; that will attract people. Ambitious smart people don't go into teaching unless they are motivated by something besides money.
Basing salaries on how well they teach is a sick joke unless you raise the amount the can potentially earn well past what they currently earn. If the range is such that a dedicated hard working creative teacher can make a comfortable living; well than you will attract more people. If on the other hand you structure the system so that the best teachers make it to the lower middle class, and everybody else makes less, well, I know I wouldn't want to stick around in that system.
|
In a surprising move I agree with Mr. Williams on this point. The problem comes in how you attract people of higher intellectual ability and how you make salaries related to ability and effectiveness. First of all, let's pay teachers more; that will attract people. Ambitious smart people don't go into teaching unless they are motivated by something besides money.
Basing salaries on how well they teach is a sick joke unless you raise the amount the can potentially earn well past what they currently earn. If the range is such that a dedicated hard working creative teacher can make a comfortable living; well than you will attract more people. If on the other hand you structure the system so that the best teachers make it to the lower middle class, and everybody else makes less, well, I know I wouldn't want to stick around in that system.
|
Tony Blankley and World Opinion
Just so you know it took me four minutes and eleven seconds to find out that the Prime Minister of Belgium is Guy Verhofstadt. Remember that. Four minutes, eleven seconds. It will come up later.
Blankley informs us today in his column that apparently Senator Kerry was talking to foreign heads of state who suggested that he needed to defeat President Bush in November. Mr. Blankley then asserted that he figured this was probably a lie since after an extensive review (more on Mr. Blankley's prowess at research later) Mr. Kerry just didn't have time to meet with any foreign leaders.
I suspect that this conversation turns on what foreign leaders mean; but to Mr. Blankley they mean heads of state, apparently. I mean it is far fetched to suppose that Kerry could have slipped in a meeting with Prime Minister Chirac, or chancellor Schroeder or Prime Minister Verhofstadt. But if he met with the French Ambassador? Is that a foreign leader? Or a member of the British parliament? Well you get the idea. By narrowing his search criteria Blankley makes Kerry look like a liar.
He goes on to eliminate our allies such as Britain, and states " . . . one has to assume that he (Mr. Kerry) is referring to France's Chirac, Germany's Schroeder, Russia's Putin, Belgium's whoever, etc. Mr. Putin is far too smart to bad mouth the president. So Sen. Kerry must be referring to Chirac, Schroeder or some of their lesser Euro-running dog lackeys."
Too bad Mr. Blankley didn't have an extra four minutes and eleven seconds, he might have been able to include Prime Minister Verhofstadt's name instead of the demeaning and insulting "whatever." Of course you might wonder if this lack of time also hampered his ability to determine if Sen. Kerry met with other foreign leaders.
He also states, "The American public rarely has put a particularly high value on the opinion of foreign leaders." This is true enough I suppose. I'm not sure, however, that we Americans are interested in being known as pushy jackasses. I mean if we could justifiably say we were keeping to ourselves, I guess that'd be one thing. But we aren't. Even discounting our military actions in the Middle East, we are involved in trade agreements with half the world, and in military alliances with a large part of them as well.
Mr. Blankley concludes with this crude imagery. "I am sure that M. Chirac will be glad to continue to kiss Mr. Kerry's hand -- as long as Mr. Kerry will kiss a lower, dorsal part of M. Chirac's anatomy. But I rather doubt John Kerry will get elected president by American voters while in that posture."
Let's imagine what Tony Blankley would be like as a neighbor, using his unique diplomatic style.
You hear a banging at the door in the middle of the night. You open the door and see Tony Blankley.
Blankley: "Look whoever you are . . . "
Verhofstadt: "My name is Verhofstadt. We've been neighbors for a couple of years."
Blankley: "Yeah, whatever. Look I'm going to beat the crap out of that guy down the street. Come with me."
Verhofstadt: "Why? What has he done?"
Blankley: "You remember when my car got stolen don't you?"
Verhofstadt: "You think he had something to do with that?"
Blankley: "Just come with me, dammit. I don't have time to argue. You're either with me or against me."
Verhofstadt: "You didn't really answer my question. I don't think this sounds like a good idea."
Blankley: "I'm not going to kiss your butt, jack! When I ask for help I expect you to give it."
Verhofstadt: "Well, I appreciate you not kissing my butt, but I'm not going to kiss yours either. I'm going back inside now."
Blankly stomps off muttering under his breath about what a bad neighbor Verhofstadt is. Any resemblance to people (other than Tony Blankley) or nations, living or dead, is purely coincidental.
|
Blankley informs us today in his column that apparently Senator Kerry was talking to foreign heads of state who suggested that he needed to defeat President Bush in November. Mr. Blankley then asserted that he figured this was probably a lie since after an extensive review (more on Mr. Blankley's prowess at research later) Mr. Kerry just didn't have time to meet with any foreign leaders.
I suspect that this conversation turns on what foreign leaders mean; but to Mr. Blankley they mean heads of state, apparently. I mean it is far fetched to suppose that Kerry could have slipped in a meeting with Prime Minister Chirac, or chancellor Schroeder or Prime Minister Verhofstadt. But if he met with the French Ambassador? Is that a foreign leader? Or a member of the British parliament? Well you get the idea. By narrowing his search criteria Blankley makes Kerry look like a liar.
He goes on to eliminate our allies such as Britain, and states " . . . one has to assume that he (Mr. Kerry) is referring to France's Chirac, Germany's Schroeder, Russia's Putin, Belgium's whoever, etc. Mr. Putin is far too smart to bad mouth the president. So Sen. Kerry must be referring to Chirac, Schroeder or some of their lesser Euro-running dog lackeys."
Too bad Mr. Blankley didn't have an extra four minutes and eleven seconds, he might have been able to include Prime Minister Verhofstadt's name instead of the demeaning and insulting "whatever." Of course you might wonder if this lack of time also hampered his ability to determine if Sen. Kerry met with other foreign leaders.
He also states, "The American public rarely has put a particularly high value on the opinion of foreign leaders." This is true enough I suppose. I'm not sure, however, that we Americans are interested in being known as pushy jackasses. I mean if we could justifiably say we were keeping to ourselves, I guess that'd be one thing. But we aren't. Even discounting our military actions in the Middle East, we are involved in trade agreements with half the world, and in military alliances with a large part of them as well.
Mr. Blankley concludes with this crude imagery. "I am sure that M. Chirac will be glad to continue to kiss Mr. Kerry's hand -- as long as Mr. Kerry will kiss a lower, dorsal part of M. Chirac's anatomy. But I rather doubt John Kerry will get elected president by American voters while in that posture."
Let's imagine what Tony Blankley would be like as a neighbor, using his unique diplomatic style.
You hear a banging at the door in the middle of the night. You open the door and see Tony Blankley.
Blankley: "Look whoever you are . . . "
Verhofstadt: "My name is Verhofstadt. We've been neighbors for a couple of years."
Blankley: "Yeah, whatever. Look I'm going to beat the crap out of that guy down the street. Come with me."
Verhofstadt: "Why? What has he done?"
Blankley: "You remember when my car got stolen don't you?"
Verhofstadt: "You think he had something to do with that?"
Blankley: "Just come with me, dammit. I don't have time to argue. You're either with me or against me."
Verhofstadt: "You didn't really answer my question. I don't think this sounds like a good idea."
Blankley: "I'm not going to kiss your butt, jack! When I ask for help I expect you to give it."
Verhofstadt: "Well, I appreciate you not kissing my butt, but I'm not going to kiss yours either. I'm going back inside now."
Blankly stomps off muttering under his breath about what a bad neighbor Verhofstadt is. Any resemblance to people (other than Tony Blankley) or nations, living or dead, is purely coincidental.
|
Free Trade Madness
Well there's a sort of a feud going on between NY Times columnist Thomas Friedman and Cartoonist Tom Tomorrow, which you can read all about here.
At the heart of the conflict is the debate over Free Trade. Free Trade is a complicated issue and like many complicated issues the loudest arguments are heard from the extremes. Friedman is 100% behind Free Trade and seems to have dedicated the last several columns to proving the outsourcing is great and doesn't hurt anybody (despite the obvious fact that it does. Tom Tomorrow's position is a bit more nuanced, but I can't recall a time when he was pro-free trade.
Let me stop for a moment and admit that I am combining several issues into one under the blanket term Free Trade, and I know it. Outsourcing is the current fulcrum for Free Trade discussions, as the WTO was a couple years ago.
I think that this issue is one in which the Moderate Liberal has an occasion to shine. On a lot of issues the moderate liberal inevitably looks like a watered down version of a "real" liberal. In this issue, however, the moderate liberal can take the more viable middle path. One that accepts free trade as part of the world, but one that rejects the laissez-faire head-in-the-sand approach of the conservative. Free Trade needs government oversight to ensure that it works for everybody and not just guys with corner offices in Manhattan.
Here's a fun conversation to have with Conservative Free Traders.
Bryant: So if I understand correctly, all the poor people are poor because they are lazy and have poor family values?
CFT: Yep.
Bryant: And that therefore we need to cut welfare and food stamps and unemployment insurance and so on?
CFT: Yep.
Bryant: And you favor companies moving their operations overseas and throwing their employees out of work in mass layoffs?
CFT: Yep.
Bryant: And you don't see any conflict between these views?
CFT: Nope.
|
At the heart of the conflict is the debate over Free Trade. Free Trade is a complicated issue and like many complicated issues the loudest arguments are heard from the extremes. Friedman is 100% behind Free Trade and seems to have dedicated the last several columns to proving the outsourcing is great and doesn't hurt anybody (despite the obvious fact that it does. Tom Tomorrow's position is a bit more nuanced, but I can't recall a time when he was pro-free trade.
Let me stop for a moment and admit that I am combining several issues into one under the blanket term Free Trade, and I know it. Outsourcing is the current fulcrum for Free Trade discussions, as the WTO was a couple years ago.
I think that this issue is one in which the Moderate Liberal has an occasion to shine. On a lot of issues the moderate liberal inevitably looks like a watered down version of a "real" liberal. In this issue, however, the moderate liberal can take the more viable middle path. One that accepts free trade as part of the world, but one that rejects the laissez-faire head-in-the-sand approach of the conservative. Free Trade needs government oversight to ensure that it works for everybody and not just guys with corner offices in Manhattan.
Here's a fun conversation to have with Conservative Free Traders.
Bryant: So if I understand correctly, all the poor people are poor because they are lazy and have poor family values?
CFT: Yep.
Bryant: And that therefore we need to cut welfare and food stamps and unemployment insurance and so on?
CFT: Yep.
Bryant: And you favor companies moving their operations overseas and throwing their employees out of work in mass layoffs?
CFT: Yep.
Bryant: And you don't see any conflict between these views?
CFT: Nope.
|
Tuesday, March 09, 2004
Apparently I was wrong
Last week I posted a little story on an article by Dennis Prager that, I thought, equated Terrorists with those who support Same Sex Marriage.
Well apparently I wasn't the only one to come away from Mr. Prager's story with that impression, so this weeks article is about that article.
"So, for the record, I consider the great majority of supporters of same-sex marriage to be thoroughly decent people, and the great majority of supporters of Islamic terror to be loathsome.
But the fact that most supporters of same-sex marriage are thoroughly decent people with loving intentions, as opposed to supporters of Islamic terror who are filled with hate and love death, in no way denies my premise that both are waging war against Judeo-Christian civilization. And that was the subject of my article.
Any further insinuation that I morally equate the people who support same-sex marriage with those who engage in or support Muslim terror is either deliberate distortion or an indication of an inability to think critically."
That's convenient. He goes on, however, to divide the Pro Gay Marriage group into three groups. First you have the Secularist religion hating Liberals. Secondly, fuzzy headed dopes who have been duped by the first group with their talk of tolerance and fairness. Thirdly, Religious Liberals who are practically schizophrenic.
Of the religion hating liberals, he states, "They are animated by their fear and loathing of Bible-based Christians (and Jews) whom they regard as religious fanatics. Destroying the Judeo-Christian definition of marriage is one part of the secular Left's assault. Every vestige of Judeo-Christian America is targeted . . . " Hmmm. These sound like pretty bad guys. I wonder if Prager considers them part of the "vast majority" of Gay Marriage Supporters who are decent people? Or if he considers them the other part?
But for the record, nobody distorted you Mr. Prager. You knew how that article would read, and that's why you wrote it that way. You were clearly equating supporters of gay marriage and terrorists. You may not have consciously meant that (although that's hard to believe), and you certainly don't want people to think you meant that (which is understandable I guess). But that's what you were doing.
|
Well apparently I wasn't the only one to come away from Mr. Prager's story with that impression, so this weeks article is about that article.
"So, for the record, I consider the great majority of supporters of same-sex marriage to be thoroughly decent people, and the great majority of supporters of Islamic terror to be loathsome.
But the fact that most supporters of same-sex marriage are thoroughly decent people with loving intentions, as opposed to supporters of Islamic terror who are filled with hate and love death, in no way denies my premise that both are waging war against Judeo-Christian civilization. And that was the subject of my article.
Any further insinuation that I morally equate the people who support same-sex marriage with those who engage in or support Muslim terror is either deliberate distortion or an indication of an inability to think critically."
That's convenient. He goes on, however, to divide the Pro Gay Marriage group into three groups. First you have the Secularist religion hating Liberals. Secondly, fuzzy headed dopes who have been duped by the first group with their talk of tolerance and fairness. Thirdly, Religious Liberals who are practically schizophrenic.
Of the religion hating liberals, he states, "They are animated by their fear and loathing of Bible-based Christians (and Jews) whom they regard as religious fanatics. Destroying the Judeo-Christian definition of marriage is one part of the secular Left's assault. Every vestige of Judeo-Christian America is targeted . . . " Hmmm. These sound like pretty bad guys. I wonder if Prager considers them part of the "vast majority" of Gay Marriage Supporters who are decent people? Or if he considers them the other part?
But for the record, nobody distorted you Mr. Prager. You knew how that article would read, and that's why you wrote it that way. You were clearly equating supporters of gay marriage and terrorists. You may not have consciously meant that (although that's hard to believe), and you certainly don't want people to think you meant that (which is understandable I guess). But that's what you were doing.
|
Damned if you Do, Damned if you Don't
David Limbaugh has helpfully set the limits of dirty politics in his latest article.
"We must understand that dirty campaigning is lying about or distorting your record or your opponent's record. It is not dirty to expose the truth about your policy positions and record or that of your opponent, even when it puts him in a negative light. Such an airing of the record is not only not dirty campaigning, it is essential to inform the electorate."
Let me unpack that for you. It's Dirty Campaigning when Senator Kerry attacks President Bush; it's clean campaigning when President Bush (or his many surrogates in the right wing media) attack Senator Kerry.
Let's take a couple of examples. Is it clean politics for President Bush or his surrogates to attack Senator Kerry's votes on defense spending? Apparently it is, according to the D. Limbaugh theory of Clean Campaigning. But just to be sure let's see what Fred Kaplan of Slate Magazine says about Kerry's voting record on defense.
"In other words, Kerry was one of 16 senators (including five Republicans) to vote against a defense appropriations bill 14 years ago. He was also one of an unspecified number of senators to vote against a conference report on a defense bill nine years ago. The RNC takes these facts and extrapolates from them that he voted against a dozen weapons systems that were in those bills. The Republicans could have claimed, with equal logic, that Kerry voted to abolish the entire U.S. armed forces, but that might have raised suspicions."
Hmmmm. Now I'm no expert in Dirty Campaigning the way Limbaugh is, but to me, this seems to indicate that perhaps some Republicans are not exactly presenting Senator Kerry's record accurately. I wonder if this counts as "lying about or distorting your record or your opponent's record?"
What am I thinking, these are Republicans!
|
"We must understand that dirty campaigning is lying about or distorting your record or your opponent's record. It is not dirty to expose the truth about your policy positions and record or that of your opponent, even when it puts him in a negative light. Such an airing of the record is not only not dirty campaigning, it is essential to inform the electorate."
Let me unpack that for you. It's Dirty Campaigning when Senator Kerry attacks President Bush; it's clean campaigning when President Bush (or his many surrogates in the right wing media) attack Senator Kerry.
Let's take a couple of examples. Is it clean politics for President Bush or his surrogates to attack Senator Kerry's votes on defense spending? Apparently it is, according to the D. Limbaugh theory of Clean Campaigning. But just to be sure let's see what Fred Kaplan of Slate Magazine says about Kerry's voting record on defense.
"In other words, Kerry was one of 16 senators (including five Republicans) to vote against a defense appropriations bill 14 years ago. He was also one of an unspecified number of senators to vote against a conference report on a defense bill nine years ago. The RNC takes these facts and extrapolates from them that he voted against a dozen weapons systems that were in those bills. The Republicans could have claimed, with equal logic, that Kerry voted to abolish the entire U.S. armed forces, but that might have raised suspicions."
Hmmmm. Now I'm no expert in Dirty Campaigning the way Limbaugh is, but to me, this seems to indicate that perhaps some Republicans are not exactly presenting Senator Kerry's record accurately. I wonder if this counts as "lying about or distorting your record or your opponent's record?"
What am I thinking, these are Republicans!
|
Monday, March 08, 2004
More on the Passion
For those interested--here's an humorous article on the Passion.
Got it from the wonderful Pen-Elayne on the Web.
|
Got it from the wonderful Pen-Elayne on the Web.
|
Blasts from the Past
"Our citizenry must remain armed to protect itself against its own poor judgment in electing such tyrants as President Clinton." - David Limbaugh, April 26, 2000
"It is really rather amazing that when the left is given a choice of attributing Al Gore's historic loss either to the unpopularity of Democratic ideas or to a pervert like Bill Clinton, it's Clinton they decide to save." - Ann Coulter, January 4, 2001.
"From corruption in the White House and Wall Street fraud to phony Middle East "peace accords," the unstated but guiding principles of the Clinton Era were that truth didn't matter, wealth needn't be earned and national security wasn't important." - Oliver North, October 4, 2002.
"Clinton announced he would take an office in Harlem.
As one of my friends remarked, that should be nice: Having escaped a mugging on the way to work, Clinton's female employees will then have to face an accused rapist in the office." - Ann Coulter, February 19, 2001.
Just in case you, like Mr. Greenberg (see below), were under the impression that we Liberals had somehow invented the idea of disdaining the President. Oh, and as we are entering the electoral season, let's remember these words from David Limbaugh.
"The candidates most critical of "negative campaigning" are generally those with the most to hide." - David Limbaugh, March 14, 2000
|
"It is really rather amazing that when the left is given a choice of attributing Al Gore's historic loss either to the unpopularity of Democratic ideas or to a pervert like Bill Clinton, it's Clinton they decide to save." - Ann Coulter, January 4, 2001.
"From corruption in the White House and Wall Street fraud to phony Middle East "peace accords," the unstated but guiding principles of the Clinton Era were that truth didn't matter, wealth needn't be earned and national security wasn't important." - Oliver North, October 4, 2002.
"Clinton announced he would take an office in Harlem.
As one of my friends remarked, that should be nice: Having escaped a mugging on the way to work, Clinton's female employees will then have to face an accused rapist in the office." - Ann Coulter, February 19, 2001.
Just in case you, like Mr. Greenberg (see below), were under the impression that we Liberals had somehow invented the idea of disdaining the President. Oh, and as we are entering the electoral season, let's remember these words from David Limbaugh.
"The candidates most critical of "negative campaigning" are generally those with the most to hide." - David Limbaugh, March 14, 2000
|
Television without Pity
"In a truly, truly great line, Assorama says, "Well, Heidi speaks her mind, but what's on her mind isn't always that appealing." HA HA HA! Brilliant. Thank you, Assorama, for rather succinctly explaining to this particular kind of personality -- the "you can't criticize me for anything I say as long as it's what I really think" kind -- that you are not interesting just because you are sincere."
If you like laughing and stuff, you should check out Television without Pity. Not every recapper is hillarious, but many of them are. My personal favorites are the Recaps for The Apprentice and for Boston Public. Both are very funny.
The line above comes from the recaps of the Apprentice.
|
If you like laughing and stuff, you should check out Television without Pity. Not every recapper is hillarious, but many of them are. My personal favorites are the Recaps for The Apprentice and for Boston Public. Both are very funny.
The line above comes from the recaps of the Apprentice.
|
Irrational Hatred
Paul Greenberg, demonstrating his ability to write the same article as everybody else, uses a popular Republican meme. His article is entitled "Will Hatred Be Enough?", and it contains this paragraph.
"The glue that holds Senator Kerry's campaign together will be a visceral dislike - no, a sheer hatred - of George W. Bush, his policies, his personality, his accent, the way he walks and talks and smiles and wears his belt buckle . . . [ellipses from original]
You see what Greenberg did there? He cleverly equated our disdain for Bush's policies with our dislike for his accent, personality and so on. In that way our disdain for his policies gets equated with our hatred for his belt buckle. Well I can't speak for any of my fellow liberals but I am way more concerned about President Bush's policies than his belt buckle.
I am concerned that President Bush's economy seems to reward those at the very top while the middle class and the lower class have to be constantly in fear of losing their job.
I am unconcerned about President Bush's accent.
I am concerned that President Bush's administration has basically abandoned Diplomacy as a tactic to achieve our global goals. The only negotiating we want to do is with the bayonet at our bargaining partners throat.
I am unconcerned about President Bush's wardrobe.
I am concerned about misdeeds done by Republicans including the outing of Valerie Plame and the stealing of confidential memos from Democratic members of congress (which may or may not have ties back to the White House, it turns out).
I am unconcerned about President Bush's smiles.
But of course I understand why Mr. Greenberg is doing this. The problems with President Bush's policies are so numerous and obvious, they need desperately to keep us from looking them over. One technique is to suggest that we are irrational haters, moved by insanity. Some intemperate comments made by a few liberals have given them fuel for this argument. But of course they have to pretend ferociously that we are all irrational in our disdain for President Bush. But most of us aren't. And your attempt to keep the failures of Mr. Bush's policies off the table will not work.
But, please, keep trying.
|
"The glue that holds Senator Kerry's campaign together will be a visceral dislike - no, a sheer hatred - of George W. Bush, his policies, his personality, his accent, the way he walks and talks and smiles and wears his belt buckle . . . [ellipses from original]
You see what Greenberg did there? He cleverly equated our disdain for Bush's policies with our dislike for his accent, personality and so on. In that way our disdain for his policies gets equated with our hatred for his belt buckle. Well I can't speak for any of my fellow liberals but I am way more concerned about President Bush's policies than his belt buckle.
I am concerned that President Bush's economy seems to reward those at the very top while the middle class and the lower class have to be constantly in fear of losing their job.
I am unconcerned about President Bush's accent.
I am concerned that President Bush's administration has basically abandoned Diplomacy as a tactic to achieve our global goals. The only negotiating we want to do is with the bayonet at our bargaining partners throat.
I am unconcerned about President Bush's wardrobe.
I am concerned about misdeeds done by Republicans including the outing of Valerie Plame and the stealing of confidential memos from Democratic members of congress (which may or may not have ties back to the White House, it turns out).
I am unconcerned about President Bush's smiles.
But of course I understand why Mr. Greenberg is doing this. The problems with President Bush's policies are so numerous and obvious, they need desperately to keep us from looking them over. One technique is to suggest that we are irrational haters, moved by insanity. Some intemperate comments made by a few liberals have given them fuel for this argument. But of course they have to pretend ferociously that we are all irrational in our disdain for President Bush. But most of us aren't. And your attempt to keep the failures of Mr. Bush's policies off the table will not work.
But, please, keep trying.
|
Sunday, March 07, 2004
New Quotes
Saturday, March 06, 2004
Horse With No Name
Well I'm off for a bit, and I haven't posted anything this morning so I wanted to leave you with something. So here are the lyrics Horse with No Name by America.
Do they hold a clue as to where I am going? Only the Shadow knows.
Horse With No Name
On the first part of the journey
I was looking at all the life
There were plants and birds and rocks and things
There was sand and hills and rings
The first thing I met was a fly with a buzz
And the sky with no clouds
The heat was hot and the ground was dry
But the air was full of sound
I've been through the desert on a horse with no name
It felt good to be out of the rain
In the desert you can remember your name
'Cause there ain't no one for to give you no pain
La, la ...
After two days in the desert sun
My skin began to turn red
After three days in the desert fun
I was looking at a river bed
And the story it told of a river that flowed
Made me sad to think it was dead
You see I've been through the desert on a horse with no name
It felt good to be out of the rain
In the desert you can remember your name
'Cause there ain't no one for to give you no pain
La, la ...
After nine days I let the horse run free
'Cause the desert had turned to sea
There were plants and birds and rocks and things
there was sand and hills and rings
The ocean is a desert with it's life underground
And a perfect disguise above
Under the cities lies a heart made of ground
But the humans will give no love
You see I've been through the desert on a horse with no name
It felt good to be out of the rain
In the desert you can remember your name
'Cause there ain't no one for to give you no pain
La, la ...
|
Do they hold a clue as to where I am going? Only the Shadow knows.
Horse With No Name
On the first part of the journey
I was looking at all the life
There were plants and birds and rocks and things
There was sand and hills and rings
The first thing I met was a fly with a buzz
And the sky with no clouds
The heat was hot and the ground was dry
But the air was full of sound
I've been through the desert on a horse with no name
It felt good to be out of the rain
In the desert you can remember your name
'Cause there ain't no one for to give you no pain
La, la ...
After two days in the desert sun
My skin began to turn red
After three days in the desert fun
I was looking at a river bed
And the story it told of a river that flowed
Made me sad to think it was dead
You see I've been through the desert on a horse with no name
It felt good to be out of the rain
In the desert you can remember your name
'Cause there ain't no one for to give you no pain
La, la ...
After nine days I let the horse run free
'Cause the desert had turned to sea
There were plants and birds and rocks and things
there was sand and hills and rings
The ocean is a desert with it's life underground
And a perfect disguise above
Under the cities lies a heart made of ground
But the humans will give no love
You see I've been through the desert on a horse with no name
It felt good to be out of the rain
In the desert you can remember your name
'Cause there ain't no one for to give you no pain
La, la ...
|
Friday, March 05, 2004
New Member of Liberal Coalition
He's called New World Blogger and he has a lot of cool pictures.
Edited to add; he is a she and not a he, as was originally assumed, by me. So that sentance above should be "She's called New Orld Blogger and she has a lot of cool pictures.
|
Edited to add; he is a she and not a he, as was originally assumed, by me. So that sentance above should be "She's called New Orld Blogger and she has a lot of cool pictures.
|
I get winded just reading David Limbaugh
Let's take the first paragraph of his latest article, "Democrats unified around 'the Goal'"
"Have you noticed that Democrats don't have a vision, much less a coherent platform this election year?"
Can't say that I have noticed that, mainly cause it's not true. Although I'll take them down eventually, you can look over there the left and see that all the Democrats put forward positive ideas along with their attacks on President Bush.
"It's because they don't have serious alternative policies to offer the voters."
Well from David Limbaughs limited perspective this might be true. The clincher is "serious." If the Democratic candidates wrote their platform so it would seem "serious" to David Limbaugh, we would have something that looked exactly like the Republican Platform. So maybe placating someone who isn't going to vote for us anyway isn't the wisest course of action.
"But they are nonetheless united and motivated like never before, behind an overarching objective: defeating George Bush (the goal)."
And here we get to the route of the argument. I wonder if David Limbaugh ever feels any hypocrisy slamming Democrats for criticizing President Bush, after he and his brother and his fellow Conservative commentators have made such hey out of slamming into President Clinton. Probably not, but I like to consider it.
And that's just the first paragraph. Check out these other Gems
"Democrats are mostly against the war because they are against Bush, who is leading it. They had no objections to Clinton's interventions in Bosnia, Kosovo or, yes, Iraq."
Two things wrong with this. First many of those who protested President Bush's war in Iraq protested against these previous wars. Granted they didn't get as much news coverage, but the stakes didn't seem as high; which brings us to the second point. President Bush's invasion of Iraq was categorically different than anything Clinton did. The operations in Bosnia and Kosovo were approved by the U.N. and the international community, and President Clinton stopped short of a actually invading Iraq.
"It was never Kerry's policies or his charisma that attracted the Democratic base, because he had neither."
Here's a lie we're going to hear a lot over the next couple of months, both from Republican Firebreathers and Democrats upset that their favorite candidate didn't make it to the finish line first. Kerry is not as good a speaker as Edwards or Dean, but he's good enough. And he has policies. All you would have to do, Mr. Limbaugh, is visit his website and you could check out what they were. But I suppose then all you'd have to do is qualify your policies with the adjective "serious."
|
"Have you noticed that Democrats don't have a vision, much less a coherent platform this election year?"
Can't say that I have noticed that, mainly cause it's not true. Although I'll take them down eventually, you can look over there the left and see that all the Democrats put forward positive ideas along with their attacks on President Bush.
"It's because they don't have serious alternative policies to offer the voters."
Well from David Limbaughs limited perspective this might be true. The clincher is "serious." If the Democratic candidates wrote their platform so it would seem "serious" to David Limbaugh, we would have something that looked exactly like the Republican Platform. So maybe placating someone who isn't going to vote for us anyway isn't the wisest course of action.
"But they are nonetheless united and motivated like never before, behind an overarching objective: defeating George Bush (the goal)."
And here we get to the route of the argument. I wonder if David Limbaugh ever feels any hypocrisy slamming Democrats for criticizing President Bush, after he and his brother and his fellow Conservative commentators have made such hey out of slamming into President Clinton. Probably not, but I like to consider it.
And that's just the first paragraph. Check out these other Gems
"Democrats are mostly against the war because they are against Bush, who is leading it. They had no objections to Clinton's interventions in Bosnia, Kosovo or, yes, Iraq."
Two things wrong with this. First many of those who protested President Bush's war in Iraq protested against these previous wars. Granted they didn't get as much news coverage, but the stakes didn't seem as high; which brings us to the second point. President Bush's invasion of Iraq was categorically different than anything Clinton did. The operations in Bosnia and Kosovo were approved by the U.N. and the international community, and President Clinton stopped short of a actually invading Iraq.
"It was never Kerry's policies or his charisma that attracted the Democratic base, because he had neither."
Here's a lie we're going to hear a lot over the next couple of months, both from Republican Firebreathers and Democrats upset that their favorite candidate didn't make it to the finish line first. Kerry is not as good a speaker as Edwards or Dean, but he's good enough. And he has policies. All you would have to do, Mr. Limbaugh, is visit his website and you could check out what they were. But I suppose then all you'd have to do is qualify your policies with the adjective "serious."
|
Thursday, March 04, 2004
Well this is a Busy Day
For those who don't know it, apparently while in Canada, Oklahoma Congressman Tom Cole compared those who would vote against President Bush to voting for Hitler during World War 2. Well, apparently those comments are not exactly accurate and Mr. Joshua Michah Marshall, of Talking Points, has the whole story.
Not sure Mr. Cole comes off all that much better in this version.
Also since Kerry is the nominee at this point, and also a fellow member of Congress . . . don't Republicans have some kind of hangup about criticizing the United States while on foreign soil? Or does that just apply when Democrats do it?
A bonus quote. "When I am abroad, I always make it a rule never to criticize or attack the government of my own country. I make up for lost time when I come home - Sir Winston Churchill.
|
Not sure Mr. Cole comes off all that much better in this version.
Also since Kerry is the nominee at this point, and also a fellow member of Congress . . . don't Republicans have some kind of hangup about criticizing the United States while on foreign soil? Or does that just apply when Democrats do it?
A bonus quote. "When I am abroad, I always make it a rule never to criticize or attack the government of my own country. I make up for lost time when I come home - Sir Winston Churchill.
|
Via via via
This comes from Mercury X23's Fantabulous Blog who got it from Atrios who got it from The Los Angeles Times.
"I am a high school teacher and the daughter of Holocaust survivors. Monday morning, Period 1, a student, age 17, comes into my room. She asks me if I had seen the film "The Passion."
I answer, "No."
She continues, "It was so sad. I cried so much. I hate the Jews."
Very, very sadly, that tells the whole story, Mr. Gibson.
Anna Paikow
Los Angeles"
Other comments
"What has been lost in the debate about the film and its alleged anti-Semitism - I've seen the movie, and there isn't any . . ." - Cal Thomas
"The other complaint from the know-nothing crowd is that "The Passion" will inspire anti-Semitic violence. If nothing else comes out of this movie, at least we finally have liberals on record opposing anti-Semitic violence. - Ann Coulter
"Is the film anti-Semitic? It didn't seem so to me, but after talking to friends, maybe I underrated some of the film's touches . . . " - John Leo
"The Anti-Defamation League's Abe Foxman has charged that the film may arouse anti-Semitic feelings because of its depiction of the role the High Priest Caiaphas and the Jewish crowds played in Christ's death. In my view, nothing in the film itself is anti-Jewish, but it does reflect -- accurately -- the Gospels' narrative about the role the Sanhedrin played in urging Jesus' persecution. The critics' quarrel is with the Gospels, not Gibson." - Linda Chavez
You can choose for yourself who you believe, but Miss Paikow seems believable to me.
|
"I am a high school teacher and the daughter of Holocaust survivors. Monday morning, Period 1, a student, age 17, comes into my room. She asks me if I had seen the film "The Passion."
I answer, "No."
She continues, "It was so sad. I cried so much. I hate the Jews."
Very, very sadly, that tells the whole story, Mr. Gibson.
Anna Paikow
Los Angeles"
Other comments
"What has been lost in the debate about the film and its alleged anti-Semitism - I've seen the movie, and there isn't any . . ." - Cal Thomas
"The other complaint from the know-nothing crowd is that "The Passion" will inspire anti-Semitic violence. If nothing else comes out of this movie, at least we finally have liberals on record opposing anti-Semitic violence. - Ann Coulter
"Is the film anti-Semitic? It didn't seem so to me, but after talking to friends, maybe I underrated some of the film's touches . . . " - John Leo
"The Anti-Defamation League's Abe Foxman has charged that the film may arouse anti-Semitic feelings because of its depiction of the role the High Priest Caiaphas and the Jewish crowds played in Christ's death. In my view, nothing in the film itself is anti-Jewish, but it does reflect -- accurately -- the Gospels' narrative about the role the Sanhedrin played in urging Jesus' persecution. The critics' quarrel is with the Gospels, not Gibson." - Linda Chavez
You can choose for yourself who you believe, but Miss Paikow seems believable to me.
|
Hey! Go Look at This!
Echidne of the Snakes has written a great piece on David Brook's latest.
David Brooks is someone I would call a dope, except that I'm trying to raise the level of discourse. So instead I'm going to call him a nitwit.
|
David Brooks is someone I would call a dope, except that I'm trying to raise the level of discourse. So instead I'm going to call him a nitwit.
|
A question from Maureen Dowd
I don't regularly read Dowd, but her article today was quite good. I particularly liked this bit.
"Mr. Bush continues to imply that we should be scared because we're not safe, so we need to keep him to protect our national security. Which seems like a weird contradiction. If he's so good at protecting us, why aren't we safe?"
It's a good question.
|
"Mr. Bush continues to imply that we should be scared because we're not safe, so we need to keep him to protect our national security. Which seems like a weird contradiction. If he's so good at protecting us, why aren't we safe?"
It's a good question.
|
Lazy Parents + Evil Video Games = Negative Fun
That's not the title of Brent Bozell's latest, but it might as well be. Of course Bozell, being a conservative, doesn't put the responsibility in the hands of the parents but in the makers of evil video games. In conservative America, the only people who have to take responsibility for their actions are the poor.
Anyway back to the matter at hand; evil video games. Are some video games evil? Yes. A thousand times yes. OK, just three times (my hand is already cramping). Here's a whole article on evil video games (which benefits from having a good subject, because the writing is a bit confusing). I don't know if this is what Bozell is talking about; but these are bad games. There are also games like Grand Theft Auto and the like that glorify gangland behavior. And apparently the ratings don't tell the whole story. So what is the solution?
He doesn't propose one really. Oh he laments the rating system (as he should; it's pretty so so), but other than that he doesn't suggest a solution. Being the helpful guy I am, I do have a two-part solution. First part; look at reviews of the game. Both Gamespot and Gamespy feature reviews of video games, which will almost always give enough information to evaluate whether the game is suitable for your home. A new video game costs some $30-$60. Even without kids I follow reviews pretty closely to see if a game will be something I will like--other wise you are just throwing your money away.
Secondly, talk with your kids about games. Don't write off the gaming experience as something completely alien; particularly with your younger kids, make time to understand. I saw that as an unmarried person with no children, so I know what I'm talking about.
|
Anyway back to the matter at hand; evil video games. Are some video games evil? Yes. A thousand times yes. OK, just three times (my hand is already cramping). Here's a whole article on evil video games (which benefits from having a good subject, because the writing is a bit confusing). I don't know if this is what Bozell is talking about; but these are bad games. There are also games like Grand Theft Auto and the like that glorify gangland behavior. And apparently the ratings don't tell the whole story. So what is the solution?
He doesn't propose one really. Oh he laments the rating system (as he should; it's pretty so so), but other than that he doesn't suggest a solution. Being the helpful guy I am, I do have a two-part solution. First part; look at reviews of the game. Both Gamespot and Gamespy feature reviews of video games, which will almost always give enough information to evaluate whether the game is suitable for your home. A new video game costs some $30-$60. Even without kids I follow reviews pretty closely to see if a game will be something I will like--other wise you are just throwing your money away.
Secondly, talk with your kids about games. Don't write off the gaming experience as something completely alien; particularly with your younger kids, make time to understand. I saw that as an unmarried person with no children, so I know what I'm talking about.
|
Wednesday, March 03, 2004
Whoa
You know just when I start feeling like things are going on an even keel a story like this pops out of the woodwork.
McDonald's to dump supersize portions
I know all my loyal fans rely on me to make sense of the unsensable, and certainly a story like this fits into that category. But I don't know if I can. I don't know if there is anything I can say that will make up for the shock a story like this causes. Oh wait, I think I've got something.
McDonalds Sucks
Yeah, that's it. That's what needed to be said.
|
McDonald's to dump supersize portions
I know all my loyal fans rely on me to make sense of the unsensable, and certainly a story like this fits into that category. But I don't know if I can. I don't know if there is anything I can say that will make up for the shock a story like this causes. Oh wait, I think I've got something.
McDonalds Sucks
Yeah, that's it. That's what needed to be said.
|
Palatability to 7 Year Olds
Linda Chavez wrote on the airwaves this week, presumably in the wake of the Howard Stern / Clear Channel situation. She commented on how she gave a little radio to her niece, but then realized that because of all the filth out there (from Rap Stations and Howard Stern) it was not a good gift.
I find myself torn on this issue; but ultimately disagreeing. I do think there is a lot of crap on the airwaves. I don't listen to the radio that much. I'll usually catch a bit of Rush during the lunch hours (all in the service of you, my loyal readers), and sometimes Hannity or Glen Beck or someone. And sometimes I'll pop on NPR and the classical station on the weekends. But other than that I never listen to the radio in my home, I usually listen to CDs in the car, and at work I'll listen occasionally to a techno station from Helsinki (or some other made up place). Radio sucks. Ms. Chavez should have given her granddaughter a CD Player and the Velvet Underground's Loaded (brilliant album).
On the other hand, her solution doesn't strike me as ideal. "Sure there's an audience for trash -- and if adults want to buy this smut, the Supreme Court has ruled they have that right. But why not force those who want to buy obscene and indecent products to be the ones inconvenienced rather than the rest of us? With all the various methods of delivering images and sounds, why use the public airwaves to present the likes of Howard Stern? You've always been able to buy pornography, only it used to be sold under the counter and in brown wrapping paper, it didn't come into your home uninvited.
Maybe if we put the onus on those who want this garbage by insisting it be available only through direct purchase and not on the public airwaves, it would be safe again to give a child a simple radio."
OK. But what about the law of unintended consequences, Ms. Chavez? I mean do you really want your granddaughter listening to the liberals over at NPR or at George Soros new Liberal talk radio (which by the way has yet to call me. I'd really be great on the 3 a.m. to 6 a.m. slot. I could play Velvet Underground tracks and explain why everybody (but me) is a jerk)?
The other possibility is that once the door is open, the new liberal administration at the FCC has precedent to yank, say, G. Gordon Liddy or Cal Thomas off the air. Maybe even Rush Limbaugh. I mean if they are the public airwaves and we want to protect the children, why not protect them from the crap that Rush Limbaugh is doing (apparently two days ago he gave a seminar in how to be a Juvenile Delinquent, and spent a lot of time yesterday whining that nobody got the joke).
So my solution once again is leave the airwaves along and give every seven year old a CD Player and copies of Velvet Underground Loaded, Miles Davis Sketches of Spain, and Joy Division Closer. Everybody wins.
|
I find myself torn on this issue; but ultimately disagreeing. I do think there is a lot of crap on the airwaves. I don't listen to the radio that much. I'll usually catch a bit of Rush during the lunch hours (all in the service of you, my loyal readers), and sometimes Hannity or Glen Beck or someone. And sometimes I'll pop on NPR and the classical station on the weekends. But other than that I never listen to the radio in my home, I usually listen to CDs in the car, and at work I'll listen occasionally to a techno station from Helsinki (or some other made up place). Radio sucks. Ms. Chavez should have given her granddaughter a CD Player and the Velvet Underground's Loaded (brilliant album).
On the other hand, her solution doesn't strike me as ideal. "Sure there's an audience for trash -- and if adults want to buy this smut, the Supreme Court has ruled they have that right. But why not force those who want to buy obscene and indecent products to be the ones inconvenienced rather than the rest of us? With all the various methods of delivering images and sounds, why use the public airwaves to present the likes of Howard Stern? You've always been able to buy pornography, only it used to be sold under the counter and in brown wrapping paper, it didn't come into your home uninvited.
Maybe if we put the onus on those who want this garbage by insisting it be available only through direct purchase and not on the public airwaves, it would be safe again to give a child a simple radio."
OK. But what about the law of unintended consequences, Ms. Chavez? I mean do you really want your granddaughter listening to the liberals over at NPR or at George Soros new Liberal talk radio (which by the way has yet to call me. I'd really be great on the 3 a.m. to 6 a.m. slot. I could play Velvet Underground tracks and explain why everybody (but me) is a jerk)?
The other possibility is that once the door is open, the new liberal administration at the FCC has precedent to yank, say, G. Gordon Liddy or Cal Thomas off the air. Maybe even Rush Limbaugh. I mean if they are the public airwaves and we want to protect the children, why not protect them from the crap that Rush Limbaugh is doing (apparently two days ago he gave a seminar in how to be a Juvenile Delinquent, and spent a lot of time yesterday whining that nobody got the joke).
So my solution once again is leave the airwaves along and give every seven year old a CD Player and copies of Velvet Underground Loaded, Miles Davis Sketches of Spain, and Joy Division Closer. Everybody wins.
|
Tuesday, March 02, 2004
Molly Ivin's Latest
I like Ms. Ivin as long time readers know. Her latest article concerns our efforts to rebuild Iraq and the recent forced vacation for President Aristide of Haiti. On Haiti she writes, "And now they've gone and whacked the hornets' nest in Haiti, and they're not even willing to deal with the hornets themselves. There are no plans for nation-building in Haiti -- even bad, inadequate planning, as there was in Iraq. Near as one can tell, the administration's only plan for a post-Aristide Haiti is to send the Coast Guard to prevent anyone from fleeing the place as it descends into anarchy. This will not improve our image around the world, and our image around the world does have something to do with the terrorism we are supposed to be fighting. "
Good thing we have these culture war issues to distract us from President Bush's foriegn policy.
|
Good thing we have these culture war issues to distract us from President Bush's foriegn policy.
|
Nice Responsible Commentary
"The war over same-sex marriage and the war against Islamic totalitarianism are actually two fronts in the same war -- a war for the preservation of the unique American creation known as Judeo-Christian civilization.
One enemy is religious extremism. The other is secular extremism.
One enemy is led from abroad. The other is directed from home."
"Hmmm. I just read this article by Dennis Prager on how them liberals are ruining everything. He says that they are just as bad as Muslim Terrorists who killed 3,000 Americans on September 11th. And right now we are doing everything we can to get rid of those Islamic peoples (so long as it doesn't step on the toes of President Bush's bestest buddies, the Saudis). But nobody is trying to get rid of liberals. That don't make no sense. Maybe we as individual freedom lovers can do something. I know that dry cleaner guy is a liberal. Maybe i should . . ."
Of course if anybody actually thought this way, Dennis Prager can't be held responsbile in the slightest for equating liberalism and islamic fundamentalism.
|
One enemy is religious extremism. The other is secular extremism.
One enemy is led from abroad. The other is directed from home."
"Hmmm. I just read this article by Dennis Prager on how them liberals are ruining everything. He says that they are just as bad as Muslim Terrorists who killed 3,000 Americans on September 11th. And right now we are doing everything we can to get rid of those Islamic peoples (so long as it doesn't step on the toes of President Bush's bestest buddies, the Saudis). But nobody is trying to get rid of liberals. That don't make no sense. Maybe we as individual freedom lovers can do something. I know that dry cleaner guy is a liberal. Maybe i should . . ."
Of course if anybody actually thought this way, Dennis Prager can't be held responsbile in the slightest for equating liberalism and islamic fundamentalism.
|
Monday, March 01, 2004
Forgot to mention
Monday Monday
It's such a dull day. For those following the Passion Story, well, there's William Saffire's take over at the New York Times. Long story short; he sees some validity in the criticisms of the movie.
Let's take a gander around the Liberal Coalition. Mind you stay on on the sidewalks. Bark Bark Wolf Wolf asks us to look at what President Bush was doing 20 years ago, while we're pounding into Kerry for what he did 20 years ago. Good strategy, but many will say, "Hey we already did this back in 2000 and pronounced President Bush purer than the driven snow." If only that were true. Well the first part of that sentence, not the second.
I really like Archy, he seems very willing to speak his mind, in a sort of grumpy old man dialect. He has a story on students who would rather be taught science rather than creationism.
Chris "Lefty" Brown relates his encounter with the John Edwards campaign.
Edwardpig has a bit about Fox News advertising in the Nation. In a related matter, I note that my ad in Glass Eaters Quarterly has generated a surprisingly small amount of hits.
The Gotham City 13 has a whole section on transformers and the Bush Administration. They did make Scott the Press Secretary that goofy tape recorder transformer, who was always one of my favrotes. "Spring out of my chest, my loyal flying bird and panther and goofy little guy and attack." Yeah, always loved that.
And that's only half way down the page. Check out the Liberal Coalition. They're great.
And you might enjoy this as well--a quiz and a little insight into yours truly.
You are Schroeder!
Which Peanuts Character are You?
brought to you by Quizilla
|
Let's take a gander around the Liberal Coalition. Mind you stay on on the sidewalks. Bark Bark Wolf Wolf asks us to look at what President Bush was doing 20 years ago, while we're pounding into Kerry for what he did 20 years ago. Good strategy, but many will say, "Hey we already did this back in 2000 and pronounced President Bush purer than the driven snow." If only that were true. Well the first part of that sentence, not the second.
I really like Archy, he seems very willing to speak his mind, in a sort of grumpy old man dialect. He has a story on students who would rather be taught science rather than creationism.
Chris "Lefty" Brown relates his encounter with the John Edwards campaign.
Edwardpig has a bit about Fox News advertising in the Nation. In a related matter, I note that my ad in Glass Eaters Quarterly has generated a surprisingly small amount of hits.
The Gotham City 13 has a whole section on transformers and the Bush Administration. They did make Scott the Press Secretary that goofy tape recorder transformer, who was always one of my favrotes. "Spring out of my chest, my loyal flying bird and panther and goofy little guy and attack." Yeah, always loved that.
And that's only half way down the page. Check out the Liberal Coalition. They're great.
And you might enjoy this as well--a quiz and a little insight into yours truly.
You are Schroeder!
Which Peanuts Character are You?
brought to you by Quizilla
|
States Rights and Same Sex Marriage
Good article by Paul Greenburg (Conservative) over at Townhall about these two subjects. He explains why it's a big deal for Mass. to accept Homosexual Marriages (such marriages would, according to the Full Faith and Credit Clause, have to be accepted by all the other states). He comments that if the Full Faith and Credit Clause could be made to not apply to marriage, than we could allow states to come up with their own answers.
"But so long as Massachusetts does not force the rest of us to go along with its supreme court on this issue, surely the Union can abide this exercise of states' rights, or even a state's wrongs. If we don't have to imitate it, we ought to be able to tolerate it. It is only when such "marriages" in Massachusetts become the law in the rest of the Union that tolerance becomes tyranny.
Some states might like to follow Massachusetts, while others would deny homosexuals the covenant of marriage, and still others - the most sensible and fair, some of us would argue - will offer citizens some form of domestic partnership or civil unions. Not just homosexuals need apply. Think of elderly sisters or trusted friends who want to assure their inheritance or hospital visitation rights. The nature of civil unions could be as varied as, well, the states of the Union. It's a big country. There is no reason to make it a uniform country. That's the genius of states' rights."
The problem is that neither side seems willing to let parts of the country go their own way. Both those who support Same Sex Marriage and those who oppose it think they can win it all; why settle for half a loaf?
Edited to add; changed the title. I initially had the title Homosexual Marriage and States Rights, but thought that sounded clunky, so determined to replace Homosexual Marriage with Same Sex Marriage. I missed and so the title for the morning was Homosexual Marriage and Same Sex Marriage. Oh well.
|
"But so long as Massachusetts does not force the rest of us to go along with its supreme court on this issue, surely the Union can abide this exercise of states' rights, or even a state's wrongs. If we don't have to imitate it, we ought to be able to tolerate it. It is only when such "marriages" in Massachusetts become the law in the rest of the Union that tolerance becomes tyranny.
Some states might like to follow Massachusetts, while others would deny homosexuals the covenant of marriage, and still others - the most sensible and fair, some of us would argue - will offer citizens some form of domestic partnership or civil unions. Not just homosexuals need apply. Think of elderly sisters or trusted friends who want to assure their inheritance or hospital visitation rights. The nature of civil unions could be as varied as, well, the states of the Union. It's a big country. There is no reason to make it a uniform country. That's the genius of states' rights."
The problem is that neither side seems willing to let parts of the country go their own way. Both those who support Same Sex Marriage and those who oppose it think they can win it all; why settle for half a loaf?
Edited to add; changed the title. I initially had the title Homosexual Marriage and States Rights, but thought that sounded clunky, so determined to replace Homosexual Marriage with Same Sex Marriage. I missed and so the title for the morning was Homosexual Marriage and Same Sex Marriage. Oh well.
|
