Gravity Flows on the Power Lines

The difference between Liberals and Limbaugh Conservatives is this. Liberals think that they're right. Limbaugh Conservatives know that they're right.

This is not an insignificant difference. If you only think you are right, but you admit the possibility of error, well, than it makes sense to pay attention to people who disagree with you, doesn't it? I mean you could be wrong. So why not listen to their arguments.

On the other hand if you know you are right what's the point to listening to anybody but yourself? Well the one value is to use other sources to convince people who don't agree with you to agree with you. But of course that's a very different exercise than reading other sources to see if they have a good argument. I admit it's an exercise I sway into at times, given the nature of this site.

That's why Tony Blankley can speak quite comfortably about sedition laws. He knows the country isn't ready for him, but that doesn't change his opinion that they would be a good idea. I mean if there is one right answer, and he has it, why bother allowing people to express opinions that are only going to hurt our war effort. I mean if it is, to borrow the Kantian Term, a categorical imperative to continue to support the President, than anybody who expresses disagreement with the President or the course of action he's taken is, by definition, a traitor.

Which brings us to Rush Limbaugh yesterday.

"And I'm going to tell you something, folks, I don't watch mainstream media anymore. And I can't tell you, I don't watch them at night. I got them on in here now, but this is work. The only part of this job that's work is, you know, glancing up as these TV monitors now and then to find out what the hell they're saying when I'm engaged in getting the truth out. When I get home at night I so rarely turn this stuff on. I can't tell you the last time I've watched one of the big three networks and I am not kidding, and I haven't read the New York Times in a long time, and I haven't read the Washington Post in a long time, and I haven't read Time or Newsweek or U.S. Snooze. It isn't necessary anymore. You can cherry pick things from those publications; do a key word search on the Internet. You don't need to go through all the gibberish and garbage that's there. You can find what's relevant that might be interesting or whatever."

Great news eh? Now there's no reason to listen to stories and facts that contradict your opinion. All you have to do is listen to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Cal Thomas and Glen Beck, watch Fox News, read the Washington Times, the Wall Street Journal Editorial Page, and you don't run much of a risk of hearing an opinion you don't already agree with. Now to me, because I know I might be wrong, this seems like a somewhat horrifying prospect. I mean once you admit the possibility of error, well, you want to hear what the other side is saying.

But the Limbaugh Conservative admits no possibility of error.

"Let me tell you what is happening here. And I know this because I am living it. You have the red and blue states where the country is supposedly more divided than ever, and more partisan than ever. Well, guess what? You have a red and blue media now."

Rush Limbaugh paints a happy picture of the future victory of conservatism over liberalism, which is nice I suppose.

He might be right, but I don't necessarily think it's going to be his brand of conservatism. Let's face it Rush has been telling his audience that the economy has turned around since 5 minutes after Bush was Elected. He sold them on the idea that to fight terrorism we had to invade Iraq, and now that that's going south, he's trying to sell them on the idea that things there are going great.

The Limbaugh Conservatives have never had a better chance to implement their agenda. President Bush is as close to an extreme right wing president as we've had. They have control over Congress, they have the Supreme Court, they have new and better ways to get their message out, and so on and so forth. It's hard for them to pull of that oppressed minority gambit they used to love so much.

And yet with all this opportunity to win over the American people, the race in November is still neck and neck. I suspect that the Limbaugh conservatives are going to be over taken by the traditionalist conservatives and by libertarian conservatives who are frustrated at the arrogant foreign policy of the Bush Administration. But who knows?

Look into the Stars

Another Lamp Picture, but then we have a long post coming later on. Assuming I don't get disheartened writing it.

Trying to Look Like You Don't Try

It's another lamp. Or it's the same lamp, but different.



Hey remember to check the other people in the liberal coalition; many of them are more articulate and witty and knowledgable than I am. Very few of them, however, have photoshopped pictures of lamps.

You ever have one of those days where you wonder if it would really be all that different if you were to go crazy?

Anyway I did a mini blog around earlier, or you can look at those links on the side.

It's only going to get worse

Great post by Joshua Micah Marshall over at Talking Points Memo.

A selection;

"How'd we get into this? After 50 years of pretty consistently prudential foreign policy, managed mostly on a consensus of bipartisan agreement (yes, there are exceptions, but by and large, true), they decided to bet the national ranch on an idea. Actually it was a series of ideas, wrapped together in an odd tangle that could look like an odd jumble when viewed from outside. The key, however, was betting the national ranch on steep odds.

Only, they weren't confident the country would get behind such a riverboat gamble. So they lied about what they were doing. They didn't trust the people -- which might be an epitaph we should return to.

Now, what do we expect of people who make reckless gambles with other people's money? Of people who can't discipline themselves enough to distinguish between their hopes and reality? What do you expect of that ne'er-do-well relative who's always hitting you up for a loan because he's come up with a sure thing?"

Of course it's possible that things will improve in Iraq and everyone will settle down. Who knows what the future holds? But I'm afraid that I don't think that's very likely. The more likely future is that things get worse and conservatives continue to blame people who didn't want to invade Iraq in the first place for their failures.

Around the Horn

And Then . . . has the somewhat shocking revelation that there might be a bit of corruption in the Bush Administration. This case specifically involves a pro Bush Press release presented as actual news.

Bark Bark Woof Woof has a piece on the new Kerry Campaign Slogan "Let America be America Again."

It's Craptastic! has a bluesy little riff involving Diebold's Voting Machines and the movie High Fidelity.

Trish Wilson's Blog has a philosophical exploration of the concepts of envy and jealousy, coupled with Jante's Laws and the intractable nature of human nature.

Speedkill has an article on Kerry's supposed Flip-Flops and how they are not really anything of the sort.

The Fulcrum has a story about how the Abu Ghraib Prison story and the perceived lack of forthrightness on the part of the American Press might taint other stories in the middle east (such as the reported attack on a wedding party).

Steve Gilliard's News Blog has a piece on the aforementioned attack on a wedding party.

Collective Sigh suggests another parallel between Iraq and Vietnam.

Iddybud has a treatise on Michael Savage. I don't deal much with Michael Savage because he kind of freaks me out, but he is just as much a part of the right wing hate machine as Ann Coulter, and important in his own way.

And check out the rest of the Liberal Coalition, as well as our new main page.

Lamp Picture Number 9

I call this one, Nightvision Lamp. Which of course, begs the question. If you have night vision, why do you need a lamp? It's Irony. And that's what makes it art!

The Honey Moon is Over

"The U.S. command in Baghdad raided Ahmed Chalabi's home and headquarters in Baghdad at dawn today. U.S. soldiers put a gun to his head, according to his nephew Salem Chalabi, the Associated Press reports. Chalabi aides blame the CIA and Paul Bremer, head of the Coalition Provisional Authority.

Why did the Bush administration turn against its former favorite Iraqi? Almost certainly because it realized that Chalabi, maddened by the realization that he was being excluded from the post-June 30 hand-over arrangements, was putting together a sectarian Shiite faction to destabilize and destroy the new Iraqi government. "This all started since [U.N. envoy Lakhdar] Brahimi announced that Chalabi would be kept out of the new arrangement," says an Iraqi political observer who is not only long familiar with Chalabi himself but also in close touch with key actors, including U.S. officials at the CPA and Iraqi politicians."
- Andrew Cockburn, "Ahmed Chalabi's failed coup"

"Reporters who entered the office compound after the departure of the Americans and Iraqi officers found a scene of destruction. Computers had been ripped out of the walls, furniture had been overturned, doors broken down and framed photographs of Mr. Chalabi smashed. Aides to Mr. Chalabi said members of the raiding party had helped themselves to food and beverages from the refrigerator.

According to Mr. Chalabi's aides, the Americans are looking for two men close to the Iraqi politician, one of whom is Mr. Chalabi's security chief and presides over a vast intelligence network.

American occupation authorities declined to comment this morning on the raids.

"This is politically motivated intimidation," said an aide to Mr. Chalabi as he wandered through the debris-strewn offices of the Iraqi National Congress, Mr. Chalabi's political organization. He blamed L. Paul Bremer III, the top American adminstrator here, for the raids.

"Bremer," he said, "has lost his mind."
- Dexter Filkins and Kirk Semple, "G.I.'s and Iraqis Raid Offices and Home of Former Exile Leader."

Of course Ahmed Chabili was a key source of intel during the run-up to the Iraqi War. In particular he helped craft "the roses and candy scenario" under which grateful Iraqis would prove easy to govern. Of course this scenario is partially responsible for several logistical failures including the well known lack of armored vests.

Still I'm sure they'll have this all cleaned up by June 20th, so we can turn control of Iraq over.

How To Save Star Wars?

Christopher Bahn wrote an article (for MSNBC.COM) today about how the last movie in the Star Wars Line (Episode 3) could be saved.

Among the more tongue in cheek suggestions are hiring Ed Wood as director and ripping of Kurosawa again (as Lucas did (although he denies it) for A New Hope). But obviously the key suggestion is getting rid of George Lucas.

It is frustrating as a fan of the series to consider that Mr. Lucas is not producing the movies one would really enjoy. I mean you could find more inventiveness and genuine fun in 15 minutes of A New Hope or The Empire Strikes Back, than you could in the whole of A Phantom Menace. Attack of the Clones was saddled with a terribly lame romantic subplot involving one of the most unappealing actors I've ever seen (Christopher Hayden). But if you buy the DVD, skip past those scenes and just watch the Obi Wan stuff, it's not too bad. But certainly could have been better.

The problem with all this is that, at the end of the day, it's Lucas's franchis. I mean he created Star Wars, so as much as we might wish it otherwise, he'll create Star Wars III (Title to be named later). That's part of the price we paid for the enjoyment of the first trilogy. In the same sense that the thrills of the Matrix also contained the disappointments of the Matrix Revolutions.

But I still think they ought to recast Anniken Skywalker.

Hey! It's a Lamp!

Yep, another picture of a lamp. I just can't get enough of this theme I've selected.

Can't We All Just Get Along?

Ms. Kathleen Parker isn't happy with the current state of affairs.

"When I was a kid, we were taught a few rules, among which was never talk about religion or politics in polite company.

Rarely have such quaint rules felt more timely. The heat of recent months amid increasingly bad news from Iraq has divided Americans as never before.

. . . These days I'd rather spend a night in Abu Ghraib, preferably absent Lynndie England, than talk politics at a dinner party. Friends report crossing streets unnecessarily to avoid a Rumsfeld debate. Longtime acquaintances take a silent measure of one another: Are you one of "them" or one of "us"?"

I don't get the chance to go to many dinner parties, but I take Parker's point. I mean you read the articles of Ann Coulter or David Limbaugh or Tony Blankley, you listen to Rush Limbaugh or Michael Savage, and it's clear that there's a large segment of the conservative punditocracy that hates liberals and wants to see us eliminated.

But of course that's not what Parker is talking about is it? Instead she's mad that Senator Edward Kennedy is still around and able to criticize President Bush for the abuses at Abu Ghraib Prison (Senator Kennedy's line was deliberately shocking, and may have surpassed the bounds of good taste). She concludes her essay with this line.

"When public discourse degenerates to hate speech, when friends cross streets to avoid one another, when Americans can't tell the difference between Bush and Saddam, the terrorists may well be winning."

So the upshot of this is, that liberals should shut up and stop trying to get John Kerry (or anybody else elected). If we liberals would just give it up and become conservatives, than all the bickering would end.

You see if she was in favor of actually getting along and improving the discourse she would discuss the excesses of Ann Coulter or Michael Savage (to pick two). But she's not. All this talk about getting along boils down to one simple truth; conservatives know they don't have much of a leg to stand on right now and they don't want liberals to point that out.

Still, maybe Mr. Blankley's sedition laws will take care of this for her.

Cheery News from Tony Blankley

Tony Blankley's picture always makes me think he'd be happier if he could just punch people who disagreed with him rather than trying to argue with them. And I might be right. Today's article has a curious little statement.

"It is heartbreaking, though no longer perplexing, that the president's political and media opposition want the president's defeat more than America's victory. But that is the price we must pay for living in a free country. (Sedition laws almost surely would be found unconstitutional, currently -- although things may change after the next terrorist attack in America.)"

We can only hope, eh Mr. Blankley?

It's all Clinton's Fault

Bill Clinton, not George Clinton. I wondered how soon we'd see Abu Ghraib blamed on Bill Clinton, and John McCaslin doesn't disappoint.

"Just how deep into bureaucracy will the Iraqi prisoner abuse probe reach?

That's what a concerned higher-up at the Department of Interior wants to know. The official noted at a recent Interior meeting that the department's National Business Center (NBC) developed the contract for the Pentagon's hiring of interrogators in Iraq.

NBC, a branch within Interior's office of the secretary, provides various services for a fee to other federal agencies.

"The NBC was formed during the Clinton administration as a government business venture," says our source, among other services running a "lucrative" drug-testing program for several federal agencies."

Yep--see it's all Clinton's fault. I admit this argument is a bit esoteric, but the key point is clear enough. It's all Clinton's fault.

Brown Vs. Board of Education

As you know the fiftieth anniversary of the Brown Vs. Board of Education decision was Monday. Democratic Presidential Candidate, John F. Kerry, gave a pretty good speech.

". . . how do we honor the legacy of Brown? That question was answered some 20 years before that decision by a son of Lawrence, Kansas and one of America’s greatest poets – Langston Hughes. In one of his most soul wrenching poems, Hughes challenged the nation to “Let America Be America Again.” He called that generation to fulfill the unmet promise of America:

O’ let my land be a land where liberty
Is crowned with no false patriotic wreath
But opportunity is real, and life is free,
Equality is in the air we breathe.

And so we honor the legacy of Brown by letting America be America – by reaffirming the value of inclusion, equality, and diversity in our schools and across the life of our nation. By opening the doors of opportunity, so that more of our young people can stay in school and out of prison. By lifting more of our people out of poverty, expanding the middle class, providing health care, and bringing jobs, hope and opportunity to all the neighborhoods of the forgotten America.

We must let America be America again.

Inspiring words; I hope that Mr. Kerry lives up to his promises.

More Art! Sort of

Actually here's the second in a series of pictures of lamps. Enjoy.

I get Letters

For example, I got this advertising for a new high speed internet service yesterday. It's a slide out sort of thing, almost like a childrens book. Here it is, unslided. I took off the name of the company, for various reasons.



Pure internet exhilaration, eh? You can imagine the excitement with which I chucked it onto the passangers seat of my car, only to pick it up again and fiddle with it at a stop light. I pulled the tab and this is what I saw.



So the obvious question is, how many of these people are looking at porn?

How Can I Apply?

Media Matters for America is a new website that has a very similar schtick to what we do here. In other words they react to conservative media, pointing out flaws and inconsistancies with their arguments. However, they have the name David Brock and considerably more money than I do. They have poor souls listening to Rush Limbaugh and other radio hosts (Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Glen Beck) to name a few. Worth checking out.

Flailing around

It's interesting watching continued conservatives response to the Abu Ghraib Prison Scandal. I mean the liberal position is pretty straightforward; that abuse was unacceptable, and should be investigated to ensure that it doesn't happen again.

The conservative response is that of course the abuse was wrong, but let's not pay too much attention to it. Oh, and apparently it's now time to get all the woman out of the military (or at least most of them).

That's Cal Thomas's argument today.

"The one dirty little secret that no one appears interested in discussing as a contributing factor to the whorehouse behavior at Abu Ghraib is coed basic training and what it has done to upset order and discipline."

Actually plenty of people have discussed it, but it's hard to talk about coed training causing this problem without analyzing exactly what happened. Several of the soldiers have claimed they were under orders to do some of the things they did. There is a New Yorker article that suggests that Rumsfeld might have written a memo approving of the abuse.

Such abuse might arise from another systematic problem; Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld's disdain for the CIA and, apparently, caution. Prior the war for Iraq, the CIA and the State Department made some wild predictions. Something about conquering the country with ease, but finding it difficult to hold on to? Rumsfeld believed instead what we might call the flowers and candy theory, which is that the Iraqis would be so grateful to us that they would give us flowers and candy.

Seems like the CIA and State Department were a bit more right than Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld.

But getting back to the matter at hand; did woman serving in the military cause the Abu Ghraib Prison Abuses? No. Was it Former President Clinton's misbehaver with Monica Lewinsky that taught our soldiers that a little hanky panky was ok? No. Was it the constant negative news reports by the liberal media that disheartened our troops so that they would misbehave? No. Was it Cartoon Shows like Family Guy or The Simpsons that portray an anarchic and post modern world that caused abuse? No.

In fact we don't know for sure what caused the prison abuse scandal; although there are some indications that the rot may have climbed a little bit higher on the chain of command than Mr. Thomas would like us to consider. At any rate, certainly seems like it's worth investigation.

Of course it's hard to investigate and ignore at the same time, but I guess that's the price you pay.

Wandering Around

Hmmmm. I haven't checked in with PABAAH (Patriotic Americans Boycotting Anti American Hollywood) in a while. Let's see what they've got.

Well, apparently all good conservatives should avoid seeing "Raising Helen," "Baadassss!" "The Day After Tomorrow," and any film from Miramax. Oh, and look, some commentary on the tragic Daniel Berg slaying.

"Well, here's the appropriate response to beheading an American: For every town where an American contractor or soldier is abducted or harmed, we should enact a roadblock to prevent any militants from departing said town. After a 24 hour grace period for women and children to leave said town, the United States military will drop a MOAB or tactical nuke on said town. In other words, it's time to begin systematically destroying the havens of these madmen and send a strong message to all of the world. . . .

We will never win this war if we wage it as a politically-correct war. Dust off the nukes, it's time for some BBQ."

Yeah, I'm not sure what I could add to that.

Good news

Many of you may be worried that an uniformed dope like me could affect the election coming up. Well not to worry. A recent New York Times story says that most people still get their news the old fashioned way; from paid political advertising.

Of course there's a downside to that as well.

"Even people who say they learn nothing from the advertisements believe the claims made in them, the University of Pennsylvania's National Annenberg Election Survey shows. At the same time, people are remarkably unfamiliar with the candidates' true positions — the stuff that hasn't been advertised much.

The Annenberg survey recently interviewed 1,026 adults in the 18 battleground states where the campaigns have been showing commercials since March. In those states, 61 percent of respondents believe Mr. Bush "favors sending American jobs overseas" and 56 percent believe Mr. Kerry "voted for higher taxes 350 times." Both of those statements have been repeated countless times in commercials — but neither is accurate."

I will say that Kerry voting for tax cuts 350 times is probably closer to a lie than President Bush favoring sending jobs over seas. After all the Bush ad makes a very specific claim; that Kerry voted for spending increases 350 times. The Kerry ad's claim is more general, and we certainly haven't seen much action on the part of the administration to stem the movement of American jobs overseas.

Still the fact that most Americans get their political facts from advertising has to put a smile on Karl Rove's face.

Did you Hear the One About Repression?

Last night's Simpsons was a decidedly strange affair.

Here's a synopsis, via TV Tome.

It's shot day and Bart tries to evade the needle. Dr. Hibbert manages to get the job done but Bart suffers a side effect of temporary hearing loss from the shot and he takes advantage of it for all it's worth. At Springfield Elementary the annual Donkey basketball tournament is being held. During the playing of The Star Spangled Banner Bart has his shorts eaten by a donkey, leaving his bare ass exposed towards the flag. Martin snaps a picture and everyone present is outraged at this behavior. As a result the Simpson family becomes very unpopular. They go on a cable news channel and only manage to dig themselves into a deeper hole when the host manages to twist Marge's words into saying that Springfield hates America. The negative publicity causes Mayor Quimby to change the name of the town to Liberty-Ville and they make everything patriotic. The family is arrested under violation of the "government knows best act" and they are brought to a reeducation center. The last registered Democrat tells them how they can escape. During their musical number they escape through a tunnel but find they were on Alcatraz. They are rescued by a passing French freighter and taken to France. After being there a while they decide they miss their life in America and go back as illegal immigrants.

OK. A couple of thoughts.

1. This episode is not anti-Bush Administration, as it appears at first. Anti-War celebrates haven't been rounded up and sent to education camps. Bill Clinton is still a free man. The repression of dissent hasn't reached the comically absurd levels demonstrated in "Libertyville." So that leaves us with two options. Either the writers are warning that things could get that bad, or they are underlining the fact that things aren't that bad. I think the second answer is far more likely; the show reminded us that things aren't that bad.

2. France Bashing is of course popular, as the French rescue the Simpsons only because they too hate America, despite our having saved them from Germany twice.

3. Stereotypical Arab Street loving the Simpsons. No shades of grey here, folks, Arabs hate America too.

4. The actual disagreement is pretty inane. Bart moons the flag, but not on purpose (the way that they set that up, Rube Goldberge style, is pretty funny, though). The family is innocent of hating America. The closest they get to a saying something is Marge saying that if everybody in America is a loud mouthed talk show host, than she hates Americans (or something like that anyway). Not that controversial, although of course it can be edited for television.

On the other hand the episode does underline the idea that one can disagree with one's country and still be patriotic. So I guess that's a good message--just a weird episode. One that I wish had been stretched to an hour, actually. I get the sense that we might have gotten a better resolution in that case.

Another review is here. Argueably better than mine.

Lamp Picture

Here's a picture of a lamp. It's not three feet away from where I am sitting.

Of course it's been artified.



Of course there is an argument to made that messing around with Paint Shop Pro isn't art. To those people who would make that argument I say, "Beware or I will unleash my Chaos Tiger Kung Fu on you!"

New Quote

A very succinct quote today. And, of course, a new Quotes Page.