Round the Horn. An Irwin J. McIckleson Production

This is Irwin J. McIckleson bringing you information from around this strange future world, by members of the Liberal Coalition. For those of you who don't know I am a fictional 1910's plutocrat.

AND THEN . . . has a story on a sort of marvelous ticker tape invention that allows parents to monitor what there children are eating at school. Apparently children in this modern age prefer unhealthy juice rather than cool refreshing coca Cola. I understand they've taken the cocaine out of Coke in this future age so maybe it's not as good for you.

blogAmY writes about some unethical practices by some pharmaceutical companies. I don't totally understand why she is so upset by this practice; everybody knows that the medicine show people are all filthy liars and quacks. According to her, some of the vaccines put out by big companies may cause damage to the brain; but fortunately Congress has acted to see that the companies involved can keep their money anyway.

LeftyBrown's Corner has news of an enormously popular comic book artist. The future is strange in some ways; in my day Comic books are disposable and the people who write and draw them are treated little better than peasants (I assume).

Collective Sigh has a picture of a medium sized fish on his blog, although he reacts as if it were enormous. Perhaps your future fish are punier than our fish. That's probably thanks to me and my friends dumping so much stuff in the water - you should thank us. If you are afraid of sharks now; think how much more afraid you would be if we hadn't done it!

Dohiyi Mir has news of a new President of Persia (what you future people call Iran). Apparently at one time he threatened United States Citizens by taking them prisoner? And now he is President of Iran. I think what you future people forget is how much the primitives of the world respect and admire strength. He probably benefited from being able to stand up to the mighty America.

Happy Furry Puppy Story Time continues this discussion of dealing with Iran. Apparently President Bush has stretched the military to thin, and they may not have the power to force his will on Iran. Happy Furry Puppy Story Time does suggest as an alternative to human soldiers, Mechano Soldiers.

Respectful of Otters gives another reason why such Mechano Soldiers may be needed. A growing contingent of Liberal Soldiers is speaking out, letting their voices be heard. While this might be troubling that they would speak out (generally being socially lesser), even soldiers don't want to die in vain.

The Mechano Soldiers would have another advantage as well; no need to eat. Apparently, according to LEFT is RIGHT, the plutocrat in charge of feeding our troops, a Mr. Halliburton, is serving expired food (I don't know what that means, exactly, but it doesn't sound good) and double billing the Government. While normally I would applaud such money making techniques; in this case a higher principle trumps them. That is, if you are going to skim, don't get caught!

Iddybud has some comments on this war in Iraq that is currently going on, and how it may hurt the Republican Party. I have to say, the problems in Iraq remind me of a phrase from our time, the White Man's Burden. We used it to justify all sorts of foreign excursions, but I never really understood the point to it. The cost involved in pacifying and controlling a native population never equaled the amount of profit that could be extracted. Of course there were those who believed in it; that it was our duty to help the poor benighted peoples of the worlds. Bah! People have to help themselves and make their own decisions.

That said, I don't agree with Rook's Rant, which proposes impeachment for President Bush. While certainly he has his problems if people aren't interested in hearing what he has to say, there will never be a successful impeachment. The lesson of Andrew Johnson has taught us that impeachment is impossible.

Finishing our journey around the Horn we have T. Rex's Guide to life who offers a more sober look at President Bush and his Republican Allies chances for ongoing success. President Bush may not face impeachment but that doesn't mean he might not face serious challenges in the road to success.

And that is it for today. I am working on a further comment but will have to finish it up and provide it next week sometime.

Leave Bugs Bunny Alone : (

Cheery here! :) I am writing to let you know about a travesty going on in the world of Children's Cartoons! They are changing Bugs Bunny! From a cute little friendly rabbit to some angular sort of lightning bold monster! It's hideous.

And I'm not the only one who thinks so! Adam Williams, writing at Popmatters, thinks that this new Bugs is the final nail in his coffin.

Perhaps the introduction of Loonatics would be less troubling if Warner Bros. was honest with the public instead of trying to cloak its new program in a veil of forced enthusiasm and backslapping ingenuity. Let's be frank: This is not about taking beloved characters to the next level for the sake of creative evolution, but rather establishing a competitive toe-hold in the lucrative toy and video game arena. Cute and cuddly action figures do not garner significant market share as they once did, nor do they dominate the electronic shoot-'em-up circuit.

I think he's right! :-[

He does talk a bit about how they took the violence out of the Looney Tunes. Well, toned it down anyway. He thinks that was probably the beginning of the end. He might be right I guess, but then again too much violence isn't good either. So I don't know what to think about that. >:)

Anyway I do know what to think about Bugs Bunny; leave him alone!

The War and The Journalist

Tne New York Crimes has on it's editorial page today an editorial by a Mr. Bob Herbert. Herbert states authoritatively that the war in Iraq needs more troops. This is an interesting conclusion. Particularly since Herberts background seems to be pretty much entirely in the field of journalism.

Maybe I'm reading too much into this; I'll bet Mr. Herbert was just super good at Capture the Flag as a kid.

At any rate he does quote some Military leaders, possibly hoping their machismo will rub off onto him. Take this section for example.

The Times's Richard A. Oppel Jr. wrote an article recently about a tragically common occurrence in Iraq: U.S. forces fight to free cities and towns from the grip of insurgents, and then leave. With insufficient forces left behind to secure the liberated areas, the insurgents return.

"We have a finite number of troops," said Maj. Chris Kennedy of the Third Armored Cavalry Regiment. "But if you pull out of an area and don't leave security forces in it, all you're going to do is leave the door open for them to come back. This is what our lack of combat power has done to us throughout the country."

Course it's kind of hard to tell who Herbert respects more, his fellow reporter or Major Chris Kennedy. And, maybe it's just me, but wouldn't President Bush (COMMANDER in CHIEF) have a better idea of what's needed in Iraq than a Major?

It's the Liberalism, STUPID!

Just finished reading a column by Molly Ivins, in which she whines about being mischaracterized.

I am not "you liberals" or "you people on the left who always..." My name is Molly Ivins, and I can speak for myself, thank you. I don't need Rush Limbaugh or Karl Rove to tell me what I believe.

Setting up a straw man, calling it liberal and then knocking it down has become a favorite form of "argument" for those on the right. Make some ridiculous claim about what "liberals" think, and then demonstrate how silly it is. Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly and many other right-wing ravers never seem to get tired of this old game.

This would be a bit more believable, Ivins, if you occasionally didn't attack President Bush, for example. Instead, you seem to ALWAYS slam into President Bush. So why don't you say some nice things about him for a change and maybe then I'll buy that you can think for yourself.

She goes on to comment on Karl Rove's "controversial" words early this week. Controversial is DEMOCRATIC SLANG for any truthful statement that they find inconvenient. Some Liberals certainly fit Rove's words; not even you could deny that. So what EXACTLY is the problem? If you feel he didn't describe you perfectly, well, than maybe he wasn't talking about you!

Death Penalty Blues

Hi Everybody! : )

I just finished reading Emmet Tyrrell's latest article on the Death penalty. Mr. Tyrrell, like me, thinks executing people is not the best solution to that problem.

I have opposed the death penalty after being persuaded that it contributes to the culture of death that leaves many aspects of our wondrously free and prosperous society quite grim. Nihilism informs our arts. It is a large element in popular culture. It makes fugitive appearances in our discussions of the beginnings and the ends of life. By opposing capital punishment, I have hoped to highlight the glory of life and the vast possibilities for human beings to grow and develop in a civilized way.

See I agree with that. But then Mr. Tyrrell says some confusing things later on his paragraph.

On the other hand, Rader's appearance on television does unhorse one of the great myths held by many members of the intelligentsia, namely, that there is something fascinating about a murderer. For generations, certain easily bored writers have been finding "interesting" facets to crime and to criminals. The murderer was for them perhaps the most fascinating of criminals.

I don't want to be a persnickety persimmon but I just don't think the fascination with the murderer is confined to the intelligentsia. Maybe I don't know in what sense he's using the term, but it seems like many people of all types are interested in murderer. Back in school, that one book on Charles Manson was extremely popular among a lot of different types for example. The metal heads, the scary geeks, and the journalism hacks all seemed to love it. I never read it myself, cause it seemed like a downer. :'-( So I'm not sure about that part of Mr. Tyrrell's article. But the rest seems pretty good.

Helpful Harry Reid

Hi again! : ) I was just reading about the help Senator Harry Reid is giving President Bush. Certainly there is some concern on the liberal side of the fence as to what is going to happen when the next Supreme Court vacancy opens up. I'm sure that President Bush is just as worried over a possible showdown.

Well, according to the New York Times, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid has offered to help President Bush make up his mind. :-o I'm impressed!

Seeking a possible consensus nominee, Reid recommended Republican Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Mel Martinez of Florida, Mike DeWine of Ohio and Mike Crapo of Idaho.

Reid described them all as bright and able lawyers who would be strong additions to the nation's highest court.

``We have had approximately 10 members of the Supreme Court that came from the United States Senate over the years,'' Reid told reporters.

``There are people who serve in the Senate now who are Republicans who I think would be outstanding Supreme Court members,'' Reid said.

You see. This is a very constructive way to help President Bush pick people to nominate to the Supreme Court. Instead of saying No! all the time, the Democrats can lend a helping hand! : )

It's Impeachment Time!!! NOT!!!!

Just finished an interesting set of rants from Byron Williams latest article. In the first part, he tries to defend the indefensible comments of Dick Durbin (or, as Rush likes to call him, Dick Turbin). Since the comments are patently absurd and since Durbin has already apologized for them, it's kind of of a hard sale.

But it's the second part of his rant, involving the Downing Street Memo and talks of impeachment, where Williams really shines. Apparently some leftist KNUCKLEHEADS are suggesting the time might be right to impeach President Bush. What nonsense! For one thing, the Downing Street proves nothing except that President Bush thought that Iraq was a threat. What a surprise! Fortunately, Mr. Williams agrees that this does not constitute an impeachable offense.

Because a Republican-led House was irresponsible in its use of constitutional power does not beget similar acts.

Martin Luther King Jr. would not stand today as our nation's moral conscience had he called for armed resistance or random acts of violence against whites. Instead, he called upon the country to rise to the level of greatness to which it had originally aspired.

Those appalled by the possible ramifications of the Downing Street memo are burdened with the same challenge.

I wouldn't hold my breath, Williams. Today's Democrats are barely up to the challange of chewing gum and walking down the street at the same time! And anyway there's NO REASON to be troubled by the Downing Street Memo!

Welcome to Babylon

Testing Testing One Two Three.

Hi all. Some of you have come to know me through my previous comments. I helped bring to light the FALLACIOUS information that the previous writer of this blog posted. While I have a certain amount of respect for Bryant, he should have been more careful in his facts. He should also take some lessons in how to take criticism.

The management of this website invited me to participate in this new format, in which I will represent the Conservative point of view and Cheery will attempt to represent the Liberal point of view. Naturally I have a bit of an easier time of it; the Conservative point of view actually makes sense.

At any rate, along with me and Cheery, you can look for continued appearances by the Monster, once he returns from his sabbatical. I must say I admire how he stood up for truth in his post. We will also be using Irwin J. McIckleson a bit more than Bryant did. I think his views on America, coming from a point of time before it was corrupted by the New Deal, are valuable. To start with he will do the Weekly Round the Horn Feature, although he will probably contribute other columns as well.

So look forward to a great new day for this website!

A New Beginning!

Hi all this is Cheery! :)

I have been asked to take over this site for a short period, along with my co-contributor, who will post later.

I suppose I should say I have the utmost respect for the work Mr. Bryant was doing here. I hope, though, that I can represent the liberal point of view in a little bit more of an upbeat and fair manner. We liberals have to have a positive can-do message for America or we are never going to get anywhere! ;)

At any rate I don't have anything to comment on right now. I agree with Bryant that President Bush's speech was not everything it could be. :( He needs to start taking this war seriously instead of just repeating himself in every speech or press conference. I think by now we all realize that the war in Iraq is hard work! :-

Anyway here's to a big bright future for Make Me a Commentator!!! :-D

The Questions Worth Asking

Really good New York Times article on President Bush's speech last night which has this memorable phrase. "Sadly, Mr. Bush wasted his opportunity last night, giving a speech that only answered questions no one was asking."

I can understand why President Bush doesn't want to draw an exact time table with dates and times for withdrawal. That might well be counterproductive. But perhaps Mr. Bush could explain to us what victory would look like? What conditions need to be met before the United States will leave, and what steps are we taking to meet those steps?

Another question, Mr. Bush. In your speech you stated, "Is the sacrifice worth it? It is worth it, and it is vital to the future security of our country." If it is worth it, is it worth considering repealing or shrinking the enormous tax cuts you have passed in order to fund this war? Wouldn't shrinking the wealthy's pay checks a little now be better than passing on an enormous bill for the Iraq war to our children?

On that note I have a bit of sad news. I am taking a short mandatory break from working on Make Me a Commentator!!! Upper management feels I have been a bit too abrasive, apparently. And they are still miffed over the Monster in L.A. thing. So I am taking a short break. In my absence the site will be handled by a few new commentators appointed by the management. I'm not allowed to comment on who they might be, but I will say it should be an interesting time for the website.

Reality Used to be a Friend of Mine

E. J. Dionne hits it out of the park today, picking apart the parsing Conservatives have been doing over Karl Rove's comments.

In the ensuing controversy, Rove's defenders cleverly sought to pretend that there was nothing partisan about Rove's speech. "Karl didn't say 'the Democratic Party,' " insisted Ken Mehlman, the Republican national chairman. "He said 'liberals.' " It must have been purely accidental that one of the "liberals" mentioned was the Democratic national chairman and another was the Senate Democratic whip. It must also have been accidental that both of them, like most other liberals, supported the war in Afghanistan, not therapy. At the time, Durbin called the war "essential."

On Friday White House spokesman Scott McClellan narrowed the Rove attack even more. McClellan found it "puzzling" that Democrats were "coming to the defense of liberal organizations like MoveOn.org and people like Michael Moore," when in fact Democrats were coming to their own defense. McClellan also ignored what Mehlman had conceded the day before -- and what the text of Rove's remarks plainly shows: that Rove was attacking liberals generally, not just these two targets.

That's how guilt by association works. Make a charge and then -- once your attack is out there -- pretend that your words have been misinterpreted. Split your opponents. Put them on the defensive. Force them to say things like: "No, we're not soft on terrorism," or, "I'm not that kind of liberal." Once this happens, the attacker has already won.

Right on.

You see this kind of thing happening even here at Make me a Commentator!!! Management would like to see me apologize for a simple mistake made last week. But what they don't realize is that they are also asking me to apologize for being a Liberal and presenting a Liberal view. And I will never do that.

President . . .er, Senator Kerry Speaks!

From the pages of the New York Times, Senator Kerry makes some suggestions on what President Bush should say in tonight's address. It's certainly a worthwhile read.

So what should the president say tonight? The first thing he should do is tell the truth to the American people. Happy talk about the insurgency being in "the last throes" leads to frustrated expectations at home. It also encourages reluctant, sidelined nations that know better to turn their backs on their common interest in keeping Iraq from becoming a failed state.

This one is dead on. Vice President Cheney's comments were laughably unrealistic.

He also makes several other suggestions, specifically proposing we set a time-table for leaving. The Bush Administration portrays this as us telling terrorists all they have to do is hang out this period of time and they have the run of the country. I don't know if that is necessarily true - but what such a message also says is that the future of the Iraq is in the hands of the Iraqi people rather than the hands of America.

Recommended

I'd like to recommend this post over at Orcinus. It deals with the recent Rove comments and the mentality of the Right Wing that gave birth to such comments. I would disagree with his conclusion; for one thing I think that American Liberalism has a bit more tools to defend themselves than Japanese Americans had in World War 2. But it's still worth considering.

While I am busy recommending, let me also suggest you continue to give Random Goblin a whirl. Actually one of his recent posts ties right into the above comments by Orcinus.

The Muslim Menace

Here's the story, as near as I can tell. Danny Nalliah and Daniel Scot, both Australian Ministers, held some meetings on what the Koran teaches. Members of the Islamic Council in Victoria reported on what was said and brought legal action under the religious and Racial Toleration Act. The Judge found in favor of the Islamic Council.

The problem with this story is that it is a Conservative Cause Celebre. Not on the level of Terry Schaivo (yet), but still pretty far up there. And the Conservatives tell the story the same way. These two ministers were just quoting the Koran and repeating what Muslims believe; how can that be construed as an attack? And even if it is an attack, why not let free speech have it's day?

As for the first part of that, the Sydney Morning Herald has reported that the seminar may not be as innocent as conservatives are claiming.

Judge Higgins said that during the seminar Mr Scot had claimed the Koran promoted violence, killing and looting and that Muslims were liars and demons.

Mr Scot also had said Muslims had a plan to overrun Western democracy by violence and terrorism and wanted to turn Australia into an Islamic nation.

Part of the problem is that there is a core question that can't be discussed but which people have different opinions on. We are trained by society to place religions on a graduated scale. At the top is our religion (whatever it might be) and then there are religions that are like ours. And somewhere down near the bottom of the scale are what we consider Cults and Illegitimate Religions. Muslims (and many others) see Islam as a legitimate religion; Pastors Nalliah and Scot as well as many Conservatives do not seem to. They can't actually state that openly, but if their actions make it clear, what are we to assume?

Actually I think the second argument, about free speech is the better one. Rather than taking these Pastoral Punks to court, expose their nonsense for what it is.

Anyway something to keep in mind. For those interested in a conservative take on this issue, check out this article by Diana West (the article that started me down this path).

The Volunteer Army

Bob Herbert, over at the New York Times, tackles the question of Army Recruitment, and what continued failure might mean.

The all-volunteer Army is fine in peacetime, and in military routs like the first gulf war. But when the troops are locked in a prolonged war that yields high casualties, and they look over their shoulders to see if reinforcements are coming from the general population, they find -as they're finding now - that no one is there.

The article is a little scary in its implications. Maybe President Bush should have thought a little bit more before fixing the data to support a case for invading Iraq.

A Correction

Senior management here at Make Me a Commentator!!! apparently feel that my comments earlier were somewhat over the top. Hence I am offering this correction.

When I wrote "Screw you Mr. Barone," which was apparently considered a little touch, I shoud have said, "Screw you Michael Barone and anybody who likes his brand of crap, particularly boneheaded management types."

Sorry for the confusion.

A Fundamental Split

Michael Barone, in his latest article, lays out the fundamental split in the Democratic Party.

On the one hand, there are those who believe that this is a fundamentally good country and want to see success in Iraq. On the other hand, there are those who believe this is a fundamentally bad country and want more than anything else to see George W. Bush fail.

Or, let's put it another way. The Democratic party is split between weak-kneed cowards who think they can get a better deal by bending over backwords for President Bush and the Republicans and people who love their country, realize what a danger President Bush and his schemes are to it, and are willing to fight him.

I've seen a resurgence recently in the "irrational hatred of President Bush" as an explanation for Democratic policies. It's the same old Conservative trick to delegitimize liberal or leftist points of view. After all if we are motivated by nothing but hatred and antipathy than why bother paying attention to our view point at all?

Two points might be raised in response to this argument one. Well, three if you count a general "well, screw you too, Mr. Barone." But firstly, insofar as Liberals / Leftists hate President Bush it's not an "irrational" hatred. It is, rather, based on what he has done. I hate the policies he advocates. I hate that he's led us into an unnecessary and elective war. I hate that he hates me and all other Liberals (as witnessed by his lapdog Karl Rove's recent comments).

Secondly, we can see what is going on here. I know you Conservatives live in a fantasy world where the Economy is going great and the War in Iraq is a success across the board. So when mean old liberals point out that such beliefs may not exactly reflect reality, you need to puncture such arguments. Hence you argue that our assessments are based on irrational hatred of President Bush. If we were only good hearted Americans (like you), we could see clearly that things are going great.

This argument finds its most pernicious permutation when applied to the war in Iraq, because instead of just faith in our commander in chief, conservatives can also claim faith in the troops. Liberals want to believe in torture because they hate President Bush that much, while Conservatives have faith in our Commander in Chief and in the American Troops. What goes unsaid is that Liberals, in this formulation, don't have faith in American troops.

I can't speak for anybody else but I do have faith in the American Troops. It is their Commanders, particularly civilian commanders who I lack faith in. And I don't really understand anybody who looks at the Iraq war and says it's been a success.

So to sum up, screw you Mr. Barone. I already said that, but I think it's worth repeating.

New Format, New Quote!

Hey you all. New quote and new format. And I updated the Quotes Page. Enjoy.