Another picture

For some reason I labelled this a shotgun house. I downloaded it when i was doing research on New Orleans. Then modified it.

And Yet Another Picture

This is from a protest held a couple of months back, one I didn't use--but the lighting is quite good, I think. Made it look arty as well.

I love art. It hides a multitude of flaws.

Here's a Picture of My Dog

He's very shy and retiring (except when he hears a funny noise or sees another animal, then he flies into a murderous rage), so I don't put his picture up much, but he said I could put this one up.

Another picture

Why not? I call this one, "Ghostly Man Surveys the Ocean for no good reason."

Bias

Joshua Micah Marshall, over at Talking Points Memo, has a story that dovetails a bit into what I was saying on Thursday in relation to Ms. Coulter.

Of course I can already hear my conservative friends saying "Well, don't you think the President of the United States (Leader of the Free World) is a bit better informed than some reporter for the New York Times?"

Also, as previously discussed, here's a picture.

Picture time

Going to be putting up a lot of pictures today, mainly because I haven't done that in a while. Here's one I took in Tampa of a manta ray. I recolored it a bit, as you can tell. To make it more arty.

Countering Distortions

One of the lies that the Republicans / Conservatives are going to tell about Senator John F. Kerry is that he opposes military spending. Already President Bush has put out ads suggesting that John Kerry opposed funding weapons that have proven necessary in the war on terror.

Fortunately there are plenty of opportunities to find out the truth. The D-Bunker at John Kerry's site compares and contrasts Kerry's record with Dick Cheney's. It's a long read and a bit dry but there's a lot of interesting stuff in there.

Meanwhile, the Daily Howler, an incredible site, has done a series of articles on the ad and, more tellingly, the complete lack of interest by America's Press Corps in setting the record straight. It is yet another example of how Reality is Partisan. Accurately reporting the facts, putting the Bush ads in context, would be partisan. So it's best if America's reporters keep their mouth shut.

The Howler also reports on an appearance by John McCain on the Sean Hannity show. Apparently the future Secretary of Defense (I hope) strayed off script a bit.

"I would be accused of voting against numerous weapon systems, because I voted against defense appropriations bills, because they're loaded down with pork. And they're obscene today with all of the pork-barrel spending and multi-trillion dollar deficits. I'll probably vote against the defense appropriations bill this year."

Hmmmmmm. Still Mccain also said that President Bush was still his guy when it came to defense, so I guess that's ok.

Round the Horn Part 4b. The Undeadening

Echidne of the Snakes has a very interesting and typically well written exploration of the media and punditocracy's limited perceptions of what Lynndie England's involvement in the Abu Ghraib prison scandal means.

Respectful of Otters considers the difference between consensual and non-consensual acts in relation to the Abu Ghraib prison scandal. Turns out there is one.

Rubber Hose has an item on how the Abu Ghraib Prison Scandal might affect some prominent American Legal Cases.

Remember Lt. Gen. William ?Jerry? Boykin? Neither do I. But I wrote a pair of stories about him back when I was in New York for a week (here and here). Well blogAmY has the news that Lt. Gen. Boykin may have a connection to Abu Ghraib. So that's good news for Cal Thomas and Gary Aldrich who just have to trot out their cliches on religious persecution for another article.

Musing's Musings has an interesting account of rumblings in the House of Representatives against the Bush administration. Since the House is supposedly under Republican control, this is interesting.

edwardpig reviews those Generals and other Military leaders who have come forward anonymously to criticize the Bush Administrations handling of the Iraq War. Long story short; he's not a fan of the anonymous bit.

The Invisible Library considers how we should proceed in Iraq. Hint: it involves the United Nations.

Corrente has quite a bit on the Burg Execution, and on what Mr. Berg was doing there in the first place. Several great stories, but this one was the longest (and had a lot of good legal information). But once you get over there, look around and read the others too.

archy has an interesting discussion on the Western strategy which is apparently a political strategy somewhat connected (in name only) to the infamous Southern Strategy.

The Truth

37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.
38 Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all.
The Gospel of St. John 18:37-38

Something has been troubling about my review of Ann Coulter's article earlier in the day. Ann Coulter may very well believe what she writes. She may believe that we have found the weapons of mass destruction President Bush and Donald Rumsfeld was selling us on before the war. She may believe that there was an undeniable link between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Ladin. I've always assumed that Ms. Coulter was a political huckster who's found a good gig, but let's say she really does believe everything she says.

Well how could you really have a debate over Iraq with Ms. Coulter? Some of the most basic facts, facts that many of her collegues have conceded, she does not accept. I don't buy many of the Administrations defenders' arguments these days, but at least with many of them you can understand the argument. The terrain is the same. With Ms. Coulter, you are talking about two different worlds.

Not just in commerce but in the world of ideas too our age is putting on a veritable clearance sale. Everything can be had so dirt cheap that one begins to wander whether in the end anyone will want to make a bid. - Soren Kierkegaard

The problem with debating with Ms. Coulter is that simply stating the facts as nearly everyone accepts them ("No link between al-Queda and Saddam Hussein's Iraq has been proven." "We haven't found Weapons of Mass Destruction that could have been an immediate threat to the United States.") become Liberal Arguments. So you have two sides to a debate, one side expressing extreme right wing partisan beliefs and the other basically stating the facts of the case. Doesn't leave much room for a leftist argument does it?

Ms. Coulter is hardly alone in this phenomenon. Salon has a great article today on Karen Hughes, close friend and confidante of President Bush. In it, the author (James C. Moore) repeats an oft recounted tale involving Ms. Hughes and Tucker Carlson. Tucker Carlson wrote the famous (or infamous, depending) account of President Bush swearing in private and mocking a woman he was about to have executed. After the article, Ms. Hughes confronted Mr. Carlson.

"It was very, very hostile," Carlson said. "The reaction was: You betrayed us. Well, I was never there as a partisan to begin with. Then I heard that [on the campaign bus], Karen Hughes accused me of lying. And so I called Karen and asked her why she was saying this, and she had this almost Orwellian rap that she laid on me about how things she'd heard -- that I watched her hear -- she in fact had never heard, and she'd never heard Bush use profanity ever. It was insane. I've obviously been lied to a lot by campaign operatives, but the striking thing about the way she lied was she knew I knew she was lying, and she did it anyway. There is no word in English that captures that. It almost crosses over from bravado into mental illness."

So it turns out that reality itself is partisan. Not, all in all, a very comforting conclusion.

Delusions

You know what's nice about being a fancy pants editorialist like Ms. Ann Coulter? There's little to no need to do any research at all. Just present the world as you would like it to be, and mock anybody who disagrees with you as dangerously out of touch.

Take Ms. Couter's latest thesis, "Crazy-Like-A-Fox News Viewer." In it she reminds us of two salient facts, that you might have forgotten. There was definitely a connection between al-Queda and we have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Yep. I know some of you might have the impression that the link between al-Queda and Iraq was unproven, but Ms. Coulter has the answer to that.

"Interestingly, liberals refuse to believe Czech intelligence on the Prague meeting ... because the CIA doesn't believe it. Apparently, this is the lone, singular assertion by the CIA that liberals wholeheartedly trust."

So you see, because we have some reservations about the CIA (reservations based at least in part on their inability to see 9/11 coming and the way they totally screwed up the pre-war WMD evidence) we are required to disbelieve everything they say.

Oh wait a second, maybe that pre-war intel was good after all. I mean, according to Ann Coulter, we have found weapons of mass destruction. And Liberals are crybabys. Well, you probably would have guessed that one anyway. You see us liberals mistakenly believed that when President Bush was talking about the need to invade Iraq right away, we assumed it was because these Weapons of Mass Destruction were an immediate threat to us. What children we were. Or to quote Ms. Coulter, "By "weapons of mass destruction," what liberals mean is: missiles pointed at Washington, D.C., with their "Ready to Fire" lights blinking ominously and their warhead payloads clearly marked "Weapons of Mass Destruction! Next Stop, The Great Satan America!" -- basically what you might see on an episode of the original Batman TV series."

What fools we were. What President Bush clearly meant was that we had to invade immediately in order to stop experimentation that might one day lead to weapons of mass destruction (although even that was tricky, given the sanctions).

So, there you have it. According to Ms. Coulter, journalists are whores (I forgot to cover that earlier, but it's in there), Saddam had connections to al-Qaeda (despite the fact that pretty much everybody else on both the right and the left disagrees), and we have found Weapons of Mass Destruction (despite the fact that almost everybody on both the right and the left disagrees). Tune in next week, when we'll find that in Ann's delusions, the Iraq Occupation is smooth selling, Abu Ghraib never happened, and the United Nations declares their new Chairman, Beelezebub.

John Kerry Speaks!

John Kerry is out on the campaign trail, and on May 8, he spoke to the Democratic Leadership Conference and said the following.

"We all know: The first responsibility of the President is to keep our country safe and secure. That means honoring America's calling to be the strongest force for freedom around the world and the greatest engine of opportunity here at home. That is why I am running for President. And I will never cede the issue of strength to the other party.

Strength means working with our allies to win the war on terror, not going it alone. Strength means taking responsibility. Today, Secretary Rumsfeld apologized on Capitol Hill. But the chain of command goes all the way to the Oval Office. Harry Truman did not say “The buck stops at the Pentagon.” And after 241 Marines were killed by terrorists in Beirut, Ronald Reagan had the strength to say, “If there is to be blame, it properly rests here in this Office and with this President. And I accept responsibility for the bad as well as the good.

America does not merely need a new Secretary of Defense. We need a new President. One who is strong enough to give our brave troops the allies and the armor they need; and one who is strong enough to take responsibility and, when necessary, correct course. We need a President who knows the difference between strength – and stubbornness."

Kind of tough on old President Bush. But the truth is there is a difference between strength and stubborness.

In other Kerry news, he has apparently suggested that Senator John McCain could be approached to be his Secretary of Defense, according to MSNBC.

War and Technology

Often times when you combine the words war and technology, you get warnology. I mean you get discussions about how technology makes it easier for us to kill each other. Better weapons and so on. But that's hardly the only potential effect of technology on war.

Consider this article, from Salon, on the recent advances in information technology on war.

"Pedro Meyer, a veteran photographer who has embraced digital technology, points out that in 2005, technologists expect more than 60 billion pictures will be snapped on cellphone cameras alone. "Imagine what the number will be 10 years from now?" he asks. What will this ubiquitous documentation do to our will to fight wars? How will wars change if people can always see what's on the front? Will they become cleaner, or dirtier? Will we have fewer atrocities, or more?

. . . The lesson from Abu Ghraib, or from Nick Berg, is that you never know what technology can reap. Digital cameras were never meant as a tool for documenting torture, and the Web was not invented as a way for fanatics to broadcast pictures of their murders. But here we are. "They've become tools of war," Winslow says."

The article is well worth checking out, and the background issues are well worth thinking about.

Let's Send Ben Shapiro to Iraq

Ben Shapiro's latest article is one that he probably thinks is pretty clever (but in reality it's not nearly as clever as my article taking on the Ohio State Quarter). He starts out by quoting Presidential Candidate John Kerry's words in support of American Law Enforcement agents.

Young Ben then asks the oblivious question. If Kerry likes the U.N. so much, why not invite them in to manage America's inner cities. After all the American criminal system has clearly broken down, according to Shapiro, so why not?

He then manages to tie it back to the fact that Senator Kerry listens to Rap Music. "John Kerry does, and he wants to remind us that the criminal class has legitimate concerns. Rap is its voice, and we must listen to it. "I'm fascinated by rap and by hip-hop. I think there's a lot of poetry in it. There's a lot of anger, a lot of social energy in it. And I think you'd better listen to it pretty carefully, 'cause it's important ... I'm still listening because I know that it's a reflection of the street and it's a reflection of life, and I understand all that," Kerry told MTV."

Rap is not only black music (as Rush Limbaugh described it), but now it's the voice of the criminal class. That's a lot of work for one musical form to do. Just reading young Ben's words makes me want to go out and get the latest People Under the Stairs album.

What's great about this entire article is that it's not even remotely anchored to reality. "It's one thing to hold a middle-class person accountable for his actions, but we can't expect the same from someone in a different cultural context. John Kerry will fight for such a double standard."

Oh he will? Hmmmmmm. That doesn't sound like the John Kerry I know. In fact the John Kerry I know. On March 18, 2003, Kerry said the following.

"We need to put our faith and trust in the people on the frontlines ? and back it up with real resources. We need to make sure first defenders have the gear and support they need, and the benefits and protections they?ve earned. With new technology and ingenuity, by doing more to sustain our first defenders and calling on Americans to do more for their country, we can make our country stronger, safer, and more secure."

Sounds like, unlike young Ben, Mr. Kerry has a lot of faith in our first defenders, including local police departments.

Of course the real point of this article is to point out Kerry's supposed hypocricy in Iraq. Because, you see, Kerry treats Iraq and our inner cities as if they were distinctly different problems. Which, according to young Ben, they aren't. Except in the real world, it turns out they are.

Unprovoked Ohio Bashing

I was driving in from work today and I saw an Ohio liscence plate. Birthplace of Aviation was what it said. That's also what they chose to put on their state quarter.



Now, no offense Ohio, but I really think you are missing the boat hear. First of all, it doesn't take much brains to notice that although the Wright Brothers and Neil Armstrong might have been born in Ohio, they had to go somewhere else (North Carolina or Florida) to actually fly.

Secondly, why focus on flight, when you have something else that is frankly much more important in our daily lives. Namely cheese. I eat cheese something like 4 or 5 times a week, and I've never eaten an airplane. I only ride airplanes every so often, and I can't tell you the last time I've been on the Space Shuttle (for National Security reasons, natch).

Now I understand that it's a little annoying to be called "cheese heads" all the time, but still, Cheese is what you guys do really well. So focus on that, is all I'm saying.

I might have made this joke already; I can't remember.

Poetry Appreciation

The Death of the Ball Turret Gunner
by Randall Jarrell

From my mother's sleep I fell into the State,
And I hunched in its belly till my wet fur froze.
Six miles from earth, loosed from the dream of life,
I woke to black flak and the nightmare fighters.
When I died they washed me out of the turret with a hose.

People claiming to be Agents of Al-Queda have released a video tape of an American contractor in Iraq being executed by beheading. Dohiyi Mir has a good and succinct commentary on it. So does Tom Tomorrow.

Hang in there, I'm sure that light at the end of the tunnel isn't an oncoming train.

When the fall is all that's left

Prince Geoffrey: You fool. As if it matters how a man falls.
Prince Richard: When the fall is all that's left, it matters.
from "The Lion in Winter," 1968

David Brooks writes an unusual article today, in which he calls for the United States to lose the war in Iraq. Not that he's calling for withdrawel, precisely. Just that we permit the Iraqi people to defeat us.

"We went into Iraq with what, in retrospect, seems like a childish fantasy. We were going to topple Saddam, establish democracy and hand the country back to grateful Iraqis. We expected to be universally admired when it was all over.

We didn't understand the tragic irony that our power is also our weakness. As long as we seemed so mighty, others, even those we were aiming to assist, were bound to revolt. They would do so for their own self-respect. In taking out Saddam, we robbed the Iraqis of the honor of liberating themselves. The fact that they had no means to do so is beside the point.

Now, looking ahead, we face another irony. To earn their own freedom, the Iraqis need a victory. And since it is too late for the Iraqis to have a victory over Saddam, it is imperative that they have a victory over us."

For the record, he seems to be calling for a democratic victory over us, and, as part of this plan, for moving the elections up. That way they can have an election, denounce the American occupation, somebody can win and invite us to leave. I'd be interested to hear Rush Limbaugh respond to this idea. Perhaps he did; I'll check his website later.

I'm not sure what the quote has to do with this story; but it is a good quote and something to keep in one's mind.

Left Wing Media Bias

Just in case there's a few of you who believe that the media is biased toward the left, here's a great article by David Brock.

"A young writer for Rupert Murdoch's neoconservative Weekly Standard named Matt Labash -- whom I hired into right-wing journalism at The American Spectator -- was probably laughing, too, when he was interviewed by Columbia Journalism Review partner Web site JournalismJobs.com. The interviewer asked, "Why have conservative media outlets like The Weekly Standard and FOX News Channel become more popular in recent years?" In his answer, Labash conceded that conservatives reject in their own media the standards of fairness, accuracy, and unbiased coverage that they demand from the "liberal media." He unmasked the hypocrisy at the heart of these endeavors:

"Because they feed the rage. We bring pain to the liberal media. I say that mockingly but it's true somewhat ... While these hand-wringing Freedom Forum types talk about objectivity, the conservative media like to rap the liberal media on the knuckles for not being objective. We've created this cottage industry in which it pays to be un-objective ... It's a great way to have your cake and eat it too. Criticize other people for not being objective. Be as subjective as you want. It's a great little racket."

Just to underline that, the conservative media is determined to force liberals to be even handed and moderate and, need we say it, spineless, while they themselves are comfortable being subjective and partisan and, need we say it, dishonest.

Your Weekly Rush; More on Abu Ghraib

Well, in his flailing around for an excuse for Abu Ghraib (which included slams at the NEA and comparing torture to a frat hazing), Rush has finally hit on a convincing argument for why we as Americans should be not worry too much about what happens at Abu Ghraib Prison. And here it is (the first part is a quote from Rich Galen, a former employee of GOPAC).

"It should be pointed out that the prisoners at Abu Ghraib are not Boy Scouts rounded up for jaywalking. These are bad guys who either blew up or shot a coalition member; or were caught assembling an explosive device; or were caught in a place where the makings of explosive devices were found; or were caught with a cache of weapons. See the pattern here?

"In short they were trying to kill me and others like me. And if they succeeded in doing that, they were going to come over here and try to kill you. Ugly thought? You bet. But that is the kind of prisoner being held in the terrorist section at Abu Ghraib."

That's exactly what I was asking everybody last week. Who are these guys? They're shooting at Americans. They have attempted to kill Americans. You've got to put this stuff in perspective. It has to be put in context."

Gosh that is pretty damning isn't it? I mean if those guys really were terrorists coming to get us, well, I guess I'd be a lot more comfortable with our guys making nude pyramids of them. Not completely comfortable (I still think torture is a bad thing, no matter the circumstances). It's a pity than that the facts don't support Mr. Limbaugh and Mr. Galen's theory.

Alexander G. Higgins, of the Associated Press, unfortunately burst that bubble in a story reprinted at the Long Beach Press-Telegram (the newspaper so great it needed two names).

"Up to 90 percent of Iraqi detainees were arrested "by mistake,' according to coalition intelligence officers cited in a Red Cross report disclosed Monday. It also says U.S. officers mistreated inmates at the notorious Abu Ghraib prison by keeping them naked in dark, empty cells."

Hmmmmm. That paints a very different picture than the one that Rush paints. Fortunately for Rush, it doesn't seem like very many press outlets are that interested in pursuing the story of why people were detained in Abu Ghraib prison. Perhaps he'll get to keep on pretending they were all terrorists.

You Just Can't Trust Us

And by us I mean Liberals. David Limbaugh makes that point in his article today. This has got to be a tough time for him and other defenders of the President. Iraq seems to be falling apart, the Dow is below 10,000 again (which affects me personally, so don't think I'm happy about that), and you have the Abu Ghraib Prison abuse scandal coming to light. It's hard to pretend that we have to stick with President Bush, when he's clearly having a bad couple of months.

Of course the answer to that is not to defend President Bush (except with vague generalizations), but to slam into liberals.

"The Left is intrinsically appeasement-oriented. You have to club them over the head with evidence before they'll acknowledge the evil and threat of terrorism. September 11 was such a club, but they've already forgotten about it, with their leader John Kerry saying we're exaggerating the threat.

Their appeasing nature leads many of them to agonize over what we did to cause Osama to attack us, to prefer isolated cruise missile attacks, sanctions or endless weapons inspections to full-scale military assaults, and to ignore Saddam's multiple violations of U.N. resolutions. It deludes them into believing that terrorists can be negotiated with and mollified and that the Arab press could be won over but for our infractions."

Better President Bush's idiotic belligerance than the terrible option of actually listening to the Middle East and trying to figure out why so many Muslims are willing to kill themselves to kill us. At least according to David Limbaugh. I personally think that we ought to consider President Kerry. I remember his inspiring words, ones that I've quoted before, on fighting Terrorism.

"I do not fault George Bush for doing too much in the War on Terror; I believe he’s done too little.

Where he’s acted, his doctrine of unilateral preemption has driven away our allies and cost us the support of other nations. Iraq is in disarray, with American troops still bogged down in a deadly guerrilla war with no exit in sight. In Afghanistan, the area outside Kabul is sliding back into the hands of a resurgent Taliban and emboldened warlords.

In other areas, the Administration has done nothing or been too little and too late. The Mideast Peace process disdained for 14 months by the Bush Administration is paralyzed. North Korea and Iran continue their quest for nuclear weapons – weapons which one day could land in the hands of terrorists. And as Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld has admitted, the Administration is still searching for an effective plan to drain the swamps of terrorist recruitment."

Pay no Attention to the Atrocity behind the Curtain

Perhaps I'm being a bit cynical. I was listening to Rush while driving around at lunch a bit and caught bits and pieces of a discussion about Abu Ghraib. And he posed, indirectly, an interesting question; who should we be madder at, those who performed the torture or those who recorded it (leaving aside for a moment the fact that they were largely the same individuals).

In other words would it have been better if the torture had occurred without being revealed to the world.

That appears to be Diana West's opinion, and she throws in a little media conspiracy to back her argument up.

". . . Abu Ghraib is, more than anything else, the fulfillment of the media dream, the Vietnam they think they never had (or had a very long time ago), the aberration to obsess about, the disgrace to exult in and the opportunity -- and this is key -- to shift the political landscape. That is why 30-some instances of abuse at Abu Ghraib, which range from acts resembling extreme fraternity hazing to actual sexual assault, have sucked all the oxygen from the conflict's urgent questions of life and death, truth and falsehood, and civilization and barbarism.

But isn't Abu Ghraib just such an urgent question? No. The humiliations and assaults perpetrated by a "handful" -- and how the media hate that non-collective word -- of American servicemen and women are already against both our laws and our sense of decency. There is nothing here to settle (but please -- no more women in combat theaters). Criminals will be punished. That is why this is not a Big Story, at the top of the president's list, the focal point of the world."

Short story; there's nothing there, but the media is determined to imagine something up for themselves. In order to win the argument over Vietnam. Simple enough, if she's correct that this was a handful of monsters who were acting largely on their own. The story changes a bit once you question whether or not they thought they were supposed to be doing this. Once you wonder if they had orders that led them to believe that this was an appropriate way to act. Once you wonder about the role civilian contractors were playing in this scenario.

But if you think about that kind of stuff at all, than obviously Diana West's article hasn't had the desired effect.

It's all about the Music

Yep. I know that we here at Make me a Commentator!!! have gotten a bit of a reputation as a Political Blog, what with having done 739 Political posts in a row, but in reality there's a music component to what we do here as well. And to revitalize that music component here are five electronica albums that are worth a second look.

Propellerheads, "Drumsanddecksandrockandroll," 1998. An extremely solid album, and a fairly strong seller as well, if memory serves. You probably remember it best for "Spybreak" which appeared on the first Matrix album. It also had the driving "Take California," the driven "Bang On!" and the funky "History Repeating," guest starring Ms. Shirley Bassey. Well worth a second listen, and you can often pick it up used. In 2002 there was talk about a follow up, but haven't been able to figure out what happened. Anybody who does know, drop a line in the comments section.Standout Tracks; Spybreak * History Repeating * Bang On!

Pepe Deluxe, "Super Sound," 2000. This is an extremely funky Dutch band. The first song I heard by them was "Woman in Blue," on an e.p. called Naan Commercial Hits, given away free with the late "Revolution" magazine (which also introduced me to DJ Me DJ You (see below) and Fantastic Plastic Machine). Once I got the album I discovered a beautifully funky down tempo album which included the bluesy "Everybody Pass Me By" and the gorgeous "La Femme." Their second album, Beatitude, is also a solid workout. Standout Tracks; Woman in Blue * La Femme * Everybody Pass Me By

The Baldwin Brothers, "Cooking with Lasers," 2002. Everything about this album from the outside (The name, the goofy title, the album cover) seems to scream, "Hey, we're hip postmodernist lounge / dance musicians." The problem is that anybody who's really a hip postmodernist lounger doesn't need to advertise. Still, the Baldwin Brothers are a lot hipper than you might initially think. First of all they have a gorgeously goofy track featuring Miho Hatori with "Dream Girl." Then they have Funky workouts like "Funky Junkyard" and "Viva Kanieval." And they conclude the set with the dreamlike, "Are you there Margaret? It's me, God." So maybe the really are Loungey Post-modernist Hipsters. Standout Tracks; Funky Junkyard * Dream Girl * Are You There Margaret? It's Me God

DJ Me DJ You, "Can you see the Music?" 2003. This is an L.A. album. It just kind of has that vibe. Lot's of funk, lots of beats. You can feel the seventies hanging in the air around the songs, which are fast and funky. The album starter is called, "People Together" and it's such a laid back groove, you might expect a laid back album. But that's not what DJ Me DJ You serve up. Instead you get funky fast tracks like "Zodiac Ape," "Fresh Technology," and the ultra-cool "New You." Standout Tracks; People Together * New You * Fresh Technology"

Space Monkeys, "The Daddy of the All" 1997. The oldest album of the set. It's clear that the producers and distributors of this album expected it to be a big hit; but it wasn't. It's another one that's relatively easy to get used. I think it failed because the big single, "Sugar Cane" was a brilliantly sunny/funky anti drug song, and the rest of the album doesn't sound much like that. Instead the album opener, the nihilistic "Acid House Killed Rock & Roll" is a much better introduction to the Space Monkeys sound. Fierce beats and revved up lyrics. There are a few quieter songs "We are the Supercool" which work as well. Most tellingly, I suppose, is that this is clearly the work of a band. Space Monkeys have lyrics on every trance instead of having them on one or two tracks (sung by guest vocalists). As such this album does have a different groove, closer to Apollo Four Forty perhaps. Standout Tracks; Sugar Cane * Acid House Killed Rock & Roll * Smile America

Anyway, we'll get back to trenchant political commentary momentarily.

The City on the Hill

You may or may not have heard of this concept before; it was an inspiration to the puritans who founded New England. They believed that their colonies had to serve as an inspiration to England (and the rest of Europe, I think) so that they would repent of her sinful ways. Carried forward, it became the idea that America has a special destiny; we aren't like European nations (which for the early part of this nation was, rightly or wrongly, the only point of comparison). In one form or another the idea of American Exceptionalism has continued down to our day.

Michael Barone writing today at Townhall, puts the events at Abu Ghraib prison in this context. He discusses how apparently 83% of Bush supporters believe that America is generally fair and decent, while Democrats are split 46% in favor, 37% opposed. He doesn't reveal where he got these figures, but I assume he got them from "The Almanac of American Politics," which he edits.

At any rate he then engages in false parallelism by suggesting that support for the war in Iraq mirrors belief in American Exceptionalism. But there is no suggestion of a casual relationship; in other words, belief in American Exceptionalism doesn't lead to believing that the Iraq War is justified.

Which brings us the events in Abu Ghraib prison.

"I think we are seeing, or will see, this same pattern of response to Abu Ghraib. Most Americans, and including a large majority of Republicans and about half of Democrats, will see this as aberrant misconduct, a betrayal of the high standards we hold ourselves to and usually uphold. Other Democrats, unbelievers in American exceptionalism, will seize on Abu Ghraib as evidence that this country is not special and especially good. And so, of course, will our critics and enemies around the world."

One thing that I like about this argument is the lack of the middle ground. You either love your nation or you hated it. There's nothing in the middle. Reminds me of something Al Franken said in his last book.

"We [meaning Liberals] love America just as much as they do. But in a different way. You see, they love America the way a four-year-old loves her mommy. Liberals love America like grown-ups. To a four-year-old, everything Mommy does is wonderful and anyone who criticizes Mommy is bad. Grown-up love means actually understanding what you love, taking the good with the bad, and helping your loved one grow. Love takes attention and work and is the best thing in the world."

I think Franken simplifies a little bit too, but his overall point is pretty solid.

New Quote

And a new Quotes Page.

The "he" in "his face" refers to God--in case you haven't heard this song before. Great song.