This Thing of Ours

Mr. Tom Tomorrow wrote a post a day or so ago on the blogging phenomenon. I've found Mr. Tomorrow's position on blogging interesting because he is both a blogger and a strong critic of blogging. I think it boils down to he's in favor of himself and a few other select bloggers blogging, and lukewarm (at best) towards most other bloggers.

I think it has to do with the devaluing of opinion. Anybody can start a blog (as I'm sure you've noticed). There's little peer review and even less editorial control. It has the effect of making every bloggist's opinion pretty cheap. It's a real problem.

Still I thought part of his comments went a bit too far.

I guess you have to have a fairly high opinion of yourself to keep one of these little weblogs, but you also need to keep things in perspective. A little bit of attention and a few small victories do not change the fact that you are still, for the most part, a novelty act, like a horse that can count by stomping its hooves. People may be amused and interested by the horse, but they aren't going to give him tenure in the math department at a prestigious university.

The difference between a blogger, however, and a horse who can stamp his feet, is that bloggers trade in ideas. And good ideas, well expressed, can move far beyond their initial humble venue.

Madness

It's all madness. I have it on good authority that all us liberal commentators are off our collective rockers. And that good authority is old David Limbuagh, Rush Limbaugh's spite-filled brother.

The liberal chattering class has literally gone off its collective rocker. Little negative has occurred since the election -- cabinet shakeups are routine and traditional, and our guys routed the bad guys in Fallujah -- but the way the Left is carrying on you'd think President Bush had issued a string of corrupt pardons, or something.

By the way, I'm pretty sure that I'm part of the liberal chattering class, for all that I type rather than chatter.

The bitter Limbaugh is just upset that his candidate won. His party has control of the Presidency, the Senate, the House, and the Supreme Court, so naturally he's in a funk. How can he be expected to be satisfied when a few liberals have criticized his Presidency? Fortunately old sourpuss has a way to cheer himself. He can take a cheap shot at former President Clinton.

Round The Horn and the Law of Averages

You know that if you play a game of solitaire and not one card moves through the entire game, that is pretty unlikely. I don't know if that's more or less unlikely than actually winning a solitaire game, but it's still a low-probability event. Still sucks, though.

Anyway let's get right to it.

All Facts And Opinion apparently had to make sudden changes in her appearance, and we wish her good luck in her new location. She also has some thoughts on the changes in the Bush Administration (as, I suppose, we all do).

Dohiyi Mir has both the scoop on what sort of guy Tom Delay is and a cool picture.

Gamer's Nook reveals a very plausible explanation of the Bush Administrations secret plans.

Happy Furry Puppy Story Time has an uplifting story about Texas Justice or the lack thereof.

LEFT is RIGHT has a few lines on our current operations in Fallujah responding to Jaun Cole's take on the subject.

Rick's Cafe Americaine has a nice slice of life post that also talks about the Vichy French (seems like they showed up on a famous film or two).

T. Rex's Guide to Life has a reaction to the death of Yassar Arafat.

Edwardpig, who I am really glad to have back, has some thoughts on the CIA purge.

And that's it for this week--tune in next time when we will be replacing words with other words.

Conservative Triumphalism

If you are a conservative please read the following paragraph and then skip the rest of the article.

As you know, President Bush won a slim victory over Senator Kerry in the recent presidential election. This means that America has completely accepted whatever conservative programs you think are important now. Conservatism is in the ascendancy forever! Liberals will soon be gone, so there is no need to even soften your beliefs. Also all the Republicans who disagree with your particular point of view are filthy dogs who you should denounce loudly.

OK, now that that's taken care of, I want to talk about conservative triumphalism. Many conservatives think they have won for the long term and that the Democrats are gone, possibly forever. I'm happy with them thinking that. The truth is that there are a number of societal trends that are favoring Democrats.

The other truth is that it seems clear that President Bush won this election on Gay Marriage and Abortion. Were it not for those issues a number of people who voted for President Bush might very well have stayed home or voted for Senator Kerry. This says something about the popularity of Conservative Economics, Neo-Conservative Foreign Policy and so on. Some Republicans have twigged to the negative implications of having won on so narrow a basis, and are loudly denying it, claiming with little evidence that President Bush won on a wide variety of issues. Others like the opportunity to tell the Blue States and Democrats that they are depraved monsters and that the American people are really very religious, and so support this interpretation.

I would have assumed Rich Lowry to be in the former category, but apparently he's in the second, at least in regards to Black Americans. His article this week is about how Black America is becoming Conservative (a whopping 11% voted for President Bush, up from 9% in 2000, so you can see that Blacks are now as Red as can be). The point of his article is that, after years of championing blacks, liberals will now attack them as bigots.

If a significant number of blacks now join their fellow moral traditionalists in Red America in voting for the GOP, they will experience the sort of elite scorn heaped on all other opponents of social liberalism. Blacks will be the new "bigots." Their consolation will be having a seat at the table of the nation's new majority party.

One wonders exactly what kind of seat they will get. I don't think they will get the sort of seat that lets them suggest that more taxpayer money might help out black communities. I'm guessing they will have the kind of seat that lets them agree with conservatives on Gay Marriage and Abortion, and lets them keep their mouth shut the rest of the time.

I Condemn Myself

As many of you probably know, I am a fairly regular poster over at Democratic Underground (I am guessing you know it, since nearly two thirds of my hits are directed here from DU). I enjoy discussing ideas and strategies with other Democrats, despite occasionally seeing opinions that I find reprehensible. But never did I realize that by posting at Democratic Underground I was really acting as a traitor.

Thank goodness a new blog has arisen to show me the light. Here is a quote from that blog, which posted its first post on Monday and has yet to post a second (industrious folks over there).

The Mission of the Wolverines is to Savage DU in retribution for the treasonous activities in regards to soldiers in combat. They are providing direct aid and comfort to the enemy in the tradition of Hanoi Traitor John Kerry. Their comments degrading soldiers have gone beyond acceptable levels and have now reached the level of treason. We join http://www.hundredpercenter.com in calling for an investigation by the Federal Government and prosecution where applicable. We also call for the shutting down of DU as a Terrorist Supporting web site. Soldiers are dying and DU is helping the enemy and mocking the soldiers. This cannot be tolerated. You are with us or against us in the War on Terror - and they are against us.

Yes some posters at Democratic Underground have made comments that go a little beyond the pale. When you get a large group of people together to discuss issues, you are going to get some extremists. However when posts are actually made attacking the troops, there are also numerous responses attacking such posts.

Incidently by this same logic, Free Republic is a racist and bigoted site. I'm guessing, however, this sort of logic doesn't apply to Free Republic.

Fortunately, however, DU Wolverines has a solution. They will post disruptive posts at Democrat Underground to bring them down. Under the various types of infiltration they encourage is the Suicide Mission.

This is the most basic mission of charging in and getting yourself banned after letting the bastards know how you feel. Make sure you take screen shots or note the post in some other ways and post it at CU so we can all enjoy your brave assualt on these traitorous cowards. Your post will surely be deleted and you quickly tombstoned... so documentation is a must for full effect.

Yes it's so brave to post a hateful message on messenger board. That definitely qualifies as a "brave assault." I personally would put it right behind the charge of the light brigade.

Charging Democratic Underground with treason, however, is a bit more serious matter. I don't seriously think it will go anywhere, but it is indicative of the mentality of many Republicans.

New Comments Policy

I've decided to take a page from the Bush Administration and their handling of the CIA and institute a new policy. From now on in the comments section I only want to read positive comments about my posts. Things like "Way to go!" or "Boy you said it" or "You sure are right there." I don't want to hear see any comments that dissent from my opinions in the slightest, nor do I want any facts presented that might contradict my opinions. I'm pretty sure if I have an opinion, I'm right, so there is no need to examine other views.

President Bush has placed Peter Goss in as the new CIA Director with a very similar mandate. Tell me what I want to know, don't tell me things that contradict what I already know. Like me, President Bush and his advisors already know what policies to follow, and if the facts don't support their policies, the facts are probably wrong. Of course this might make Goss's tenure at the CIA somewhat rocky, as an article at Salon by Spencer Ackerman suggests.

The widespread animosity toward Goss is likely to mark his entire tenure. Effective, long-lasting DCIs typically owe their success to an ability to balance three constituencies: the White House, Capitol Hill and Langley. DCIs who neglect their CIA power base don't often survive or implement much. Goss seems to be predicating his career on deliberately antagonizing the agency and forcing it into submission. But without the support of the agency he runs, Goss will be forced to rely on the warm wishes of the president for his continued service, which will only escalate the bitterness between Goss and the CIA.

The director has already shunned those who've pleaded for conciliation. Four former deputy directors of operations attempted to "tell him to stop what he was doing the way he was doing it," an ex-senior official told the Washington Post, but Goss refused to meet with them. As tensions rise between Goss and the agency, they risk becoming mutually reinforcing -- and difficult to defuse. If Goss thought the CIA was dysfunctional before, he has guaranteed that it is now.

Fortunately I don't have any staff so I am free to delude myself into thinking I am always right. It also helps that my website has an approximately 0% chance of affecting your life. With the CIA, the chance their recommendations could impact your life is somewhat greater.

Oh and in case you are wondering, of course I'm joking. Go ahead and critique me all you want. I think reading well reasoned critiques helps me understand my positions better and improves my ability to comment well.

Talkin' Gay Marriage Blues

Interestingly disjointed commentary by Edwin J. Feulner today. That's not a name I recognized, but apparently he's the President of the Heritage Foundation.

Basically he starts out ripping the New York Times for supporting Kerry, and then moves into Gay Marriage. He tells the sad story of Rocco Buttiglione, nominated for a job in the European Union as a Commissioner for Justice, Freedom and Security. He got shot down (according to Feulner) because he's a devout Catholic. He believes Homosexuality to be a sin, but doesn't think government should interfere. He apparently stated, "The state has no right to stick its nose into these things and nobody can be discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation... this stands in the Charter of Human Rights, this stands in the Constitution and I have pledged to defend this constitution." This got him kicked off the committee. Here in America, on the other hand, freedom of religion reigns.

Meanwhile, freedom of religion is thriving in the U.S. This year's presidential election featured a well-known Protestant against a self-proclaimed Catholic. Four years ago, Joe Lieberman became the first Jewish man to run for national office. And we've already heard talk that Barak Obama, just elected to the Senate, may seek higher office in 2008. Obama's grandfather was Muslim.

So good for us, I guess. Nice that Mr. David Limbaugh's book about the persecution of Christians is already obsolete. Of course let's jam the knife into John Kerry once more for pretending to be a Catholic.

But let's not mince words. There is no way that America's Conservative Christians would be satisfied with Mr. Buttiglione's position (as Feulner defines it). The whole point to their efforts are that they do want the American Government to be able to tell Homosexuals they can be discriminated against and they should be discriminated against. This isn't really a case of intellectual freedom. People have the right to believe that Homosexuality is a sin as much as much as other people have the right to believe it isn't a sin. The problem comes when some Christian conservatives seek to use the mechanisms of the government to impose their beliefs on society.

Incidently, Mr. Buttiglione's position is a bit more nuanced than Mr. Feulner defines it. Apparently he has pushed for an amendment that would have allowed discrimination based on sexual preference. He also opposes civil unions and gay marriages.

This is as good a time as any to repeat my view on Gay Marriage which is stated by Hamlet in Act 3 Scene 1. "Go to, I'll no more on't; it hath made me mad. I say, we will have no more marriages." Ironically this view was expressed (somewhat satircally) on the West Wing last week. Allow me to quote from Television Without Pity's recaps.

The Congressman says that he is aware of the political situation, and then tells Josh that he wants to introduce a bill to ban marriage. Josh thinks he's talking about a strategic move to introduce a bill to ban same-sex marriage, thereby putting opponents on the record. But Congressman Gay (for indeed he is) tells Josh that he wants to ban all marriage: "If the government can't make it available to everyone, I want us out of the business entirely. Leave it to churches and synagogues. And of course, um, casinos and department stores." Josh asks him if the Republicans put him up to this. Congressman Gay: "They don't condone my lifestyle, and I don't condone theirs." Well said, Congressman Gay. Well said.

I believe in a separation of Church and State, and the fact that so many people are up in arms about Gay Marriage tells me that Marriage, whether performed in a church or a courthouse or a department store, is still intrinsically a religious ceremony. So why have the Government in the business at all? Shift the legal protections and rights to a new form, which we may as well call Civil Union, and mandate them for everybody. Fix the problems with Civil Unions (which will be fixed quickly if everybody has a stake in fixing them, and will never be fixed if only homosexual couples have a stake in fixing them). That's my proposal, and I'm standing by it.

The FCC

For those who are interested in encroaching Government Regulation, you might look at recent actions by the FCC. Apparently they are claiming the widest possible mandate to regulate how any information that goes over interstate radio and wire communication. Which includes, for example, this very website.

Worth checking out, although I'm not sure I understand the implications entirely. The issue at hands revolves around HDTV, which I know little about.

That Lying David Limbaugh

I just had to see the title of David Limbaugh's latest, "The Never-Ending Clinton Factor," to know that I'd be writing on it. Because for all their phony baloney hand wringing, the Conservatives love having the Clintons around. Now that the election is over and they don't have John Kerry to kick around any more, they are going to need the Clintons in order to deflect attention away from President Bush's failures.

The article is pretty much what you'd expect. The Democratic party is trying to figure out what they want. David Limbaugh encourages them to consider Hillary while gently trashing her.

Whether or not the Democrats are in steady decline, the fact remains that Clinton represents their only recent presidential success. So they need to determine whether his victories are attributable to his ostensibly centrist policies or his cult of personality, or both.

If Clinton's victories were a result of the Clinton mystique, this could arguably work in Hillary's favor.

By the way, Democrats are not in steady decline, just so you know. But I guess I applaud your positive thinking.

Anyway you get the point. Limbaugh can't praise the Clintons or they will throw him out of the He-Man Liberal-Haters Club. But he certainly wants Hillary to be a viable candidate in 2008. So he does this round the belt thing.

But just so nobody gets the wrong idea, he then offers a completely fallacious but conservative pleasing account of President Clinton's presidency. Basically he lies and says that Clinton was a far leftist, then he lies and says that all the more moderate or conservative moves on Clinton's were due to Newt Gingrich forcing Clinton to do them. In case you are wondering these are deceptive statements, and I have no doubt that David Limbaugh knows the actual facts of the matter, so I feel no hesitation in calling them lies.

The Man Who Has Everything

By the way if you are still down about the Republican ascendancy you might consider picking up "The Name of This Band is Talking Heads." Really great live album from a band who pretty much knew the score. Songs like "Born Under Punches (The Heat Goes On)" or "Cities" or "Don't Worry About the Government" may pick you up a bit.

Anyway Bruce Bartlett takes on the question of what President Bush should focus on in his second term and makes some surprisingly good points. First of all, President Bush doesn't have a specific mandate to accomplish any specific reforms in the areas of Social Security or Taxation.

Comments by Bush and his aides indicate their belief that he has a "mandate" to act on tax and Social Security reform. However, long experience shows that unless a president has campaigned on something fairly specific, Congress can easily ignore his mandate, chalking it up to personal popularity or some other factor unrelated to policy.

A mean-spirited person (such as myself) might point out that President Bush's lack of a specific mandate stems from his apparently successful decision to run against President Kerry rather than to put forward specific plans of his own.

Not surprisingly, Bartlett proposes that President Bush focus on fixing up Taxes and ignore Social Security. On the more surprising side, it turns out Bruce Bartlett has heard of the deficit.

. . . the tax system is under severe pressure. Expiring provisions need to either be made permanent or excised from the code, the Alternative Minimum Tax demands a permanent fix, and something desperately needs to be done to help the Internal Revenue Service administer a tax system that is increasingly incomprehensible and too easy evaded.

I also believe that sooner or later Bush is going to be forced to deal meaningfully with the budget deficit and that higher revenues will necessarily have to be part of a budget agreement. Although he has stated publicly that he sees no need for higher revenues, I believe that financial markets will force Bush to act, as they did for Reagan.

President Reagan was smart enough to adjust his tax policies. We'll have to see if President Bush is that smart.

Troubling Times

Glen: Outsiders have kidnapped some of our property. We must respond with our deadliest weapon.
Jane: [Sinister] The lawyers.

The Simpsons, Episode 5F23, "The Joy of Sect."

Marvel comics is suing the online computer game City of Heroes, according to Gamespot. Apparently players of that game have created characters that bear a striking resemblance to Marvel properties Wolverine and the Hulk. Said one Prominent Marvel Spokesman. "I have one word for those punks over at City of Heroes. It's Clobbering Time." Which is three words, but since I made that statement up, it's ok.

Seriously though this is bad news. If Marvel can pull this off, how can online roleplaying games survive? How much money could the Tolkien estate get if they sued everybody who created character that were reminiscent of the characters in the Lord of the Rings?

Anyway it's a troubling action on the part of a company that also gives us 18 X-Men related comics a month. Still they did finally give old Chuck Austin the ax, so I guess they aren't all bad.

Back to the Old Format

Well I'm back doing the old thing of finding conservative commentators and doing what I can to pick them apart. And for a start I've decided to take on one of the most painful commentators around, Rush Limbaugh.

And what does Rush Limbaugh have for us? Well he commented on why he's not going to slam into governor McGreevy for his personal life. Way to take the high road Rush.

He also commented on the death of Yassar Arafat and the opportunities his death opens up for the Palestinians. Namely none.

Are they [the Palestinians] going to have somebody running the show here who is actually interested in some accommodation and getting along with and side-by-ide peaceful coexistence? I just don't see it. They can have a leader that stands for it and this guy's going to get shot or AIDS or poisoned or whatever, because the militants, you know, are just not going to go for this.

Whoever transcribed this for Rush wasn't at his or her best, but I'm particularly confused by the AIDS reference. Are Palestinian Militants going to sneak into the new leader's compound and inject him with AIDS? Is this a particularly crass and stupid way for Rush to suggest that the Palestinian Militants are gay? The shameful truth is that Rush isn't all that comfortable on the high road.

Of course Rush also takes time to repeat the Limbaugh Doctrine, which is, "The only way to get peace is through victory." I've never understood how this isn't, in part, a call for the elimination of the Palesinian people. How could the Palestinian people be any more defeated and still living? They don't have their own land nor do they have control over their destinies. How much more defeated could they be? And the answer presents itself; they could no longer be living.

But wait a second, Rush might respond, who cares if a bunch of terrorists die? The problem is that the terrorists seem willing to believe that they are representing the will of the Palestinian people and most of the right wing seems willing to take them at their word. I'm pretty sure that, in Rush Limbaugh's eyes, to be Palestinian is to be a terrorist.

Of course that may not be true. There might be plenty of Palestinians who aren't murderous terrorists, but who are just normal people living their own lives as best they can.

Find Myself a City to Live in

I've been reading and thinking about an article at the Stranger entitled The Urban Archipelago. The basic argument of the article is that the blue areas of America are in the cities. Even those states traditionally thought of as Blue are generally blue in the cities and red elsewhere.

It's time to state something that we've felt for a long time but have been too polite to say out loud: Liberals, progressives, and Democrats do not live in a country that stretches from the Atlantic to the Pacific, from Canada to Mexico. We live on a chain of islands. We are citizens of the Urban Archipelago, the United Cities of America. We live on islands of sanity, liberalism, and compassion--New York City, Chicago, Philadelphia, Seattle, St. Louis, Minneapolis, San Francisco, and on and on. And we live on islands in red states too--a fact obscured by that state-by-state map. Denver and Boulder are our islands in Colorado; Austin is our island in Texas; Las Vegas is our island in Nevada; Miami and Fort Lauderdale are our islands in Florida.

. So what does this mean for a long term Democratic strategy? Well their suggestion is that we focus our energies on improving the cities.

We're going to demand that the Democrats focus on building their party in the cities while at the same time advancing a smart urban-growth agenda that builds the cities themselves. The more attractive we make the cities--politically, aesthetically, socially--the more residents and voters cities will attract, gradually increasing the electoral clout of liberals and progressives. For Democrats, party building and city building is the same thing. We will strive to turn red states blue one city at a time.

. . . You've made your choice, red America, and we urban Americans are going to make a different choice. We are going to make Seattle--and New York, Chicago, and the rest--a great place to live, a progressive place. Again, we'll quote Ronald Reagan: We will make each of our cities--each and every one--a shining city on a hill.

The authors have some specific ideas on how to improve the cities, as well as plenty of abuse for the red counties in America.

I can certainly empathize with the anger. For decades if not longer we've been telling ourselves that people who love in the country are good honest hardworking loyal Americans, and people who live in the cities are ethnic cheats and liars and bad people. So turning the tables a little, well, I can understand it. But I'm not certain such hostility towards other Americans is good for America in the long run. I don't like it when it is the red states telling me I'm not American because I'm urban, and so I have to say it's not the best when such attacks go the other way.

The strategy is good but problematic. Certainly for the most productive parts of our nation, American cities do get dumped on a lot. Both Rhetorically and in other ways as well. How much money flows out of our cities to help those parts of the country who despise them? Quite a bit.

This strategy won't do much for short term. The electoral college will see to that. Long term, I agree strongly with the goal. The best strategy might be a combination one. Building up the cities while also pursuing a national strategy. As I implied above, I don't think Rural America is a lost cause.

This may be naive of me, but I don't think any part of America is a lost cause.

New Quote, New Format!

But back to the old title. I've taken a long enough break. Also of course a new quote and a new Quotes Page.