Being Nice

Good morning all. Hope you are having a nice weekend!

Today's post is about an article Kathleen Parker wrote about Cindy Sheehan. Most of Ms. Parkers article is about how Cindy Sheehan doesn't speak for all families who have lost loved one's in the war in Iraq. I didn't know she had claimed to speak for them all. At any rate, her moral authority to speak out against the war is going to disappear as other parents who lost kids and still support President Bush are going to come and challenge her.

Ms. Parker seems pretty nice, but I'm not sure.

Sheehan has put a face on loss and provided an icon for dissenters. Strolling through Camp Casey, named for her son, she gets hugs and has her picture taken with new friends, prompting her to say she knows how Mickey Mouse feels at Disneyland.

Her sudden fame has also brought pain. Celebrity is often a harsh light, and Sheehan also is learning what all public people learn: The madding crowd is often vicious.

I'm not sure exactly what Ms. Parker means by the madding crowd. Does she mean her fellow republicans, who certainly can be vicious? Or does she mean other liberals?

Anyway something to think about - have a nice weekend.

Reality Used to be a Friend of Mine

Using a title of a PM Dawn song, to show you how hip and relevant this blog is.

Compare and contrast these two statements, both by Rush Limbaugh.

I mean, Cindy Sheehan is just Bill Burkett. Her story is nothing more than forged documents. There's nothing about it that's real, including the mainstream media's glomming onto it. It's not real.

That statement is from his August 15th broadcast.

Apparently, what's out there is that I said that Cindy Sheehan is no different than Bill Burkett, that Bill Burkett lied and Cindy Sheehan lied. They're actually out there, people saying that I am accusing Cindy Sheehan of making up the fact that she had a son and making up the fact that her son died in Iraq. And of course, I've never said this.

That is from his August 17th, broadcast.

So my question is, does Rush realize he's on the air? Does he realize that people are capable of remembering what he said just two days earlier? Or is he so far gone that reality, for him, is what he says it is?

Round the Horn. An Irwin J. McIckleson Production

Hello. This is Irwin J. McIckleson, fictional 1910's plutocrat. I would to comment that the fact that I am fictional does not mean that I don't feelings. Rather, the fact that I am a plutocrat means that I don't have feelings.

And now for another trip around the Liberal Coalition.

Natalie Davis' All Facts and Opinions has remembrances of what seems to be a wandering minstrel named Jerry Garcia. Apparently he had depths uncharted.

Bark Bark Woof Woof has the news that Cindy Sheehan, who was attempting to meet with President Bush, has had to return to California to care for a sick relative. The writer notes that Sheehan's enemies will try to use this against her, and I have to say his analysis of human nature is correct. Whenever there is an opportunity for someone to take base advantage of a situation, someone will eventually step in to take said advantage.

corrente has a bit more on Cindy Sheehan and the White House's reaction to her protest. Apparently they believe that fighting the enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan is better than fighting them here. That seems illogical; unless you know exactly where the enemies are. But this seems to be like a very deadly game of blindman's bluff.

Liberty Street also has some thoughts on President Bush and Cindy Sheehan. Apparently President Bush has taken steps to protect himself from criticism and from looking at those his policies have hurt. Everything I hear about President Bush makes me think he is a very weak man. I destroyed hundreds of lives in my time in my quest for plutocratic power. But I stood up to it. There's no benefit in turning away and pretending you haven't hurt people to get what you want, because you can't avoid such realizations forever. What a man does is look at the people he's hurt and says "To blazes with you! I wanted what I wanted and I got what I wanted and if I had to hurt ten times your number I'd do it all again!"

This President Bush character lacks clarity of mind.

Dodechahedron also writes about Sheehan who certainly seems very popular this week. Specifically he writes about a local landowner there who is waiting for Dove Season where in to practice his marksmanship. I must urge him to wait for Bachman's Warbler season. While these yellow birds are not as symbolically significant as the Dove, they are delicious. I mean you only get a mouthful or two of meet from each bird, but it's nice and tender with a certain piquentness. Goes wonderful in a hash with potatoes and spring onions. And there's millions of the birds. Why I can go out for half an hour and shoot down twenty or thirty Bachman's Warblers!

bloggg has some thoughts on a new televisio show about people who dance. Apparently it is some sort of competition on this show to be the best dancer. Anyway this writer handicaps the various dancers and seems to know what she is talking about.

Musing's musings has a very amusing thing you can do involving music and some sort of randomizing device. I hope Stephan Foster is still as popular as ever.

Science and Politics also has an amusing activity you might enjoy if you go to your local book emporium.

And that is it for another week. I hope you have enjoyed this look around, and have a productive weekend.

Pragmatism

The New York Times seems to never run out of ways to call President Bush dumb.

An editorial by Gideon Rose in today's paper covers the evolution of foreign policy from rational to idealistic and back again. Guess where Mr. Rose puts President Bush? Yep, he's one of those unrealistic idealists. What Mr. Rose fails to understand is that in these days idealism is the most realistic course of action.

He does seem to get it later on his article when he talks about how the Bush Administration will proceed.

BEING fully American rather than devotees of classic European realpolitik, the realists-today represented most prominently by Ms. Rice and her team at the State Department-offer not different goals but a calmer and more measured path toward the same ones. They still believe in American power and the global spread of liberal democratic capitalism. But they seek legitimate authority rather than mere material dominance, favor cost-benefit analyses rather than ideological litmus tests, and prize good results over good intentions.

So what can we expect next? A spell of calm without dramatic visionary campaigns or new wars, along with an effort to gradually wind down the current conflict while leaving Iraq reasonably stable but hardly a liberal democracy.

One thing we can be clear on; no matter what sort of government emerges in Iraq the Democrats and their allies in the mainstream media are going to declare it a failure.

After Roe Vs. Wade

I don't really know what to make of this, partly because of the source, so I'm presenting it without comment. This is from Larry Elder's latest article.

USA Today conducted a state-by-state analysis. Their analysis expects 11 "conservative states" to immediately pass laws prohibiting abortion. But those "conservative states" only had 122 abortion providers in 2000, less than 7 percent of the nation's 1,819 abortion providers. "Most of those 122 providers (65) are in Texas," writes USA Today. "If pro-choice forces can hold on to Texas (not unlikely, given the feisty Democratic minority's tendency to flee to Oklahoma to deny the Legislature a quorum when its members are miffed) we're down to 57 providers. If the Democrats controlling the Alabama and Arkansas legislatures decided to act like Democrats, not Dixiecrats, that total could fall to 36."

That leaves eight "conservative states" with only 36 abortion providers between them -- an already difficult proposition for any woman seeking an abortion in those states. In six of them -- Mississippi, Kentucky, the Dakotas, Missouri and Nebraska -- a woman cannot find an abortion provider in 97-98 percent of those states' counties. In other words, as it stands now, conservative states reduce abortion to almost non-existence, so a post-Roe world, at least in those states, changes little.

I will add one thing; I have heard that Ohio has considered an abortion law that would make it illegal to seek an abortion in Ohio, but would also make it a crime to seek an abortion elsewhere. I don't know how many of these states would consider such a law.

War Is Over, If You Want It

Good morning all!!! :-)

Apparently the war for Civil Rights is over, or at least that's what Mr. Walter E. Williams latest article suggests.

Civil rights organizations' expenditure of resources and continued focus on racial discrimination is just as intelligent as it would be for the March of Dimes to continue to expend resources fighting polio in the U.S.

So that's good news. Except, now that I think about it, it seems like a lot of black people still think there is racial discrimination in America. And wouldn't they know?

Let's Cry Again

Continuing on the theme of President Bush's perceived emotional distance from Cindy Sheehan we have a New York Times editorial by Reagan Biographer Edmund Morris.

. . . he [President Bush] is our elected president, with the business of a nation to run. Ms. Sheehan has gotten more time with him than most grieving mothers, and if she felt, during those unsatisfactory minutes, that there was a glass wall around him, it unfortunately comes with the job. A president has to protect himself from emotional predators, or he'd be sucked dry within a week of taking office.

Of course many Liberals would see the reference to "Emotional Predators" as some kind of slur, but of course it isn't. The President is surrounded by people who want something from him; if the President is going to stay on target and fulfill his goals he has to use selective hearing. Listening to those who will help him achieve his goals and ignoring those who would stand in his way.

Cindy Sheehan has made it clear that she wants to stand in his way; and so he has no choice but to, in a sense, block her out so that he can focus on accomplishing his goals.

This may seem cold to fuzzyheaded liberals, but when your goal is protecting America, I think it's a good idea to do what it takes to accomplish that goal.

Live from Fantasy Land; it's Ben Shapiro

Yes young Ben seems reality challenged this week. His article is about how wrong it is for Liberals to use the Chickenhawk epithet. Apparently.

Apparently pointing out that many Republican leaders supported the Vietnam war and yet were unwilling to fight in it is an attack on their right to speak. Pointing out that young Republicans support the Iraq war, we are suffering from not having enough troops, and yet young Republicans are unwilling to enlist is similarly wrong. Not just wrong. UnAmerican.

The "chickenhawk" argument -- which states that if you haven't served in the military, you can't have an opinion on foreign policy -- explicitly rejects basic principles of representative democracy.

No it doesn't, young Ben, any more than the hundreds of ad hominem attacks you and your kind have launched over the year mean that Democrats Liberals shouldn't be able to have an opinion on, well, anything.

His flight from reality comes in the last bit.

The "chickenhawk" argument proves only one point: The left is incapable of discussing foreign policy in a rational manner. They must resort to purely emotional, base personal attacks in order to forward their agenda. And so, unable or unwilling to counter the arguments of those like Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney and President Bush, they label them all "chickenhawks."

. . . American soldiers fight for the right of all Americans, regardless of race, class or past service, to speak out on foreign policy issues. If they fight for the right of pacifist anti-military fifth columnists like Michael Moore to denigrate their honor, they certainly fight for the right of civilian hawks to speak up in favor of the highest level of moral and material support for their heroism.

OK, a few points.

1. Liberals have lots of substantive arguments against the insane policies of the Bush Administration. To pretend that our entire counter argument consists of screaming "chickenhawk" is nonsense.

2. Fifth columnist? Denigrating their honor? Criticizing this war is not the same thing as criticizing the military forced to fight in it, and if you spent even a few moments reviewing Michael Moores statements you'd find the truth. Consider this quote from Fahrenheit 9/11, voiced and presumably written by Michael.

I've always been amazed that the very people forced to live in the worst parts of town, go to the worst schools, and who have it the hardest are always the first to step up, to defend us. They serve so that we don't have to. They offer to give up their lives so that we can be free. It is remarkably their gift to us. And all they ask for in return is that we never send them into harm's way unless it is absolutely necessary. Will they ever trust us again?

I don't know how you read that, but to me that doesn't sound like a slur against the troops.

3. And, incidentally, how is "fifth columnist" better than "chickenhawk?" I mean other than the fact that there is some truth to the phrase chickenhawk and none in the slur fifth columnist.

4. The Republicans in Congress and in the White House have consistently fought to lower veteran's benefits. The penny-pinching Donald Rumsfeld, eager to protect the Bush Tax Cuts, fought the Iraq war on the cheap. It's Democrat and Liberal Activists who have pointed out both of these facts.

Anyway I admit to being of two minds about the Chickenhawk epithet. On the one hand it isn't really a response to a conservative foreign policy argument. It would be better to point out the inconsistencies and nonsense in their arguments directly. On the other hand, chickenhawk goes to a very real attack Conservatives have made on Liberals. Conservatives like to pretend that they are the party that lives America and that Liberals are the party that doesn't love America. Chickenhawk cuts right through that, so why not use it?

Any thoughts?

A Proud Day for American Conservatism

I got this from Fox 23 (Albany New York).

A pickup truck tore through rows of white crosses last night near President Bush's ranch, where a woman has been protesting the Iraq war.

The crosses stretched along the road at the Crawford, Texas, camp, bore the names of fallen U-S soldiers. No one was hurt.

Of course I am sure that there are many conservatives who would find this action reprehensible.

If Only President Bush Cried More

There have been a lot of crocodile tears shed over the possibility that the right wing might "slime" Cindy Sheehan (by pointing out things she has said or done and letting the American people make up their own mind about her). Nobody seems to mind the sliming of President Bush that goes on unabated.

Take Robert Bryce's article on President Bush and President Johnson. In it Bryce tries to paint President Bush as a sociopath who feels nothing for dead American soldiers because he won't take the time to let Sheehan ask him insulting questions (I assume the first of these questions would be "As a draft dodging cocaine addict how does it feel to have murdered my son, Mr. President?")

Take this passage.

Bush's religiosity is the key element here. He has a total belief in the rightness of his position. But there again comes a key difference with LBJ. Like the born-again Bush, Johnson was a man of faith. But he was a man of many faiths, often attending two churches -- one Roman Catholic and one Protestant -- on a given Sunday. Raised a Baptist, he became an elder at the Disciples of Christ Church near his home in Johnson City. Johnson's intellectual curiosity led him to see that one religion, one worldview, didn't hold all the answers. As Johnson's biographer, Ronnie Dugger, put it, LBJ was "an ecumenical movement all by himself."

Bush's blind faith in his own path -- religious and military -- leaves no room for ecumenism, or doubt. And that lack of doubt, that lack of anguish over the lives being lost in Iraq, is emerging as his fatal flaw.

A very nice attack on those who actually believe in God rather than believe in what is convenient at the time. But I don't think people see President Bush's steadiness as a "fatal flaw." Sure some weak-kneed people would like to see us surrender to the Iraq Insurgency and al-Qaeda. And some of the British people would probably have preferred to see Churchill surrender to or accommodate Hitler. But most people see such capitulation for what it is; cowardiness. President Bush is not a coward and he is not weak-kneed.

So I would not hold out hope that he will meet with Sheehan and abandon his mission to protect America.

Quotes page

Barrrgh.

Monster be frustrated.

Cheery come to monster, say monster need to make quote for webpage. It Monsters Turn.

Monster say "Arrgghhhharrghhhhnmmmaggghee baggghhhhh thagggooo," which means "All Enemies Run Away!"

Cheery say that against rules. She say pick quote by someone else.

Monster say that Monster quotes better than all else quotes.

Cheery say that Space Lobster want make own quote too, but Cheery not let him.

Monster say that good because space lobster quote be stupid. But Monster quote not stupid.

Cheery say that rules have to be for all. So Monster fire Cheery. But then Cheery make crying noise and Monster feel bad, so Monster not fire Cheery after all.

And then Cheery show Monster website where all kinds of quotes are. So Monster go there and get good quote. But monster still think "Arrgghhhharrghhhhnmmmaggghee baggghhhhh thagggooo" good quote.

Oh and Cheery update Quotes page with Monster Selected quote on it.

Also Bryant say we should add Liberal "Progressive" Chrystie to blogroll. Monster look at website and monster think it pretty, and have good words, so monster say OK.

Monday Mail Bag

And away we go. By the way I am wearing a very stylish wine colored smoking jacket, specially cut to fit my unique physique. Just thought I would mention that I have taste.

I'm really a very stylish lobster.

Anyway on to this weeks mailbag. Our first comment comes in response to this post about Ben Shapiro. Incidentally we are having trouble linking to specific posts right now, Cheery tells me. The post is called "We've Got the Whole World in Our Hands," if that helps you find it. Anyway here is the comment, from Chrystie (who has a fabulous blog of her own).

Well said! Hope you don't mind if I link to your blog. Ben Shapiro dose "NOT" speak for me! Now the true majority of Americans. How dare he -- he's nuts, suicidal. Hey Shapiro, if you want to throw your weight around, head for your nearest Recuitment Office and sign-up! Do "your" tour of duty, and while your at it make sure you take all your of-age kids, grandchildren (if you have any), neices, nephews and you know, all your Republican/Neo-Con supporters with you.

Our troops could, well... "really use some help!" Ya know!

Ben Shapiro: Shut the hell-up.

Political Comment: 10 Thumbs-up!

I must say we here at Make me a Commentator!!! are in favor of people linking to us. So thank you. And anybody else reading this blog who wants to link to us, that would be ok too.

As for the specific criticisms of Ben Shapiro, frankly he reminds me a lot of Commander Bullfrog of the Venusian Vengeance Seekers. He led his armies to conquer earth (in episode 1A28, Invasion from Venus); and was successful for a while. He put lily pads in the reflecting pool at the Washington Monument, which I always thought was a nice touch. Anyway eventually the people of earth rose up and drove him off, led by Captain Starfaller. They couldn't abide extra-terrestrial domination.

Meanwhile my various schemes focused on making money have led me to a lifestyle which allows me to wear wine colored smoking jackets. The moral, Mr. Shapiro, go for the cash, not the land. People can accept the loss of money; they won't like it, but they can deal with it. But people can't deal with losing their land.

Anyway, while I think that Mr. Shapiro has a lot of growing up to do if he's going to be a successful purveyor of evil, I'm not sure if he really fits this description offered anonymously.

What a fucktard. Ben Shapiro, not you.

I've been assured that this is not a child's blog, but still that kind of logic would never have been used by me and my evil space buddies (except maybe by Princess Porcupine).

You should follow the example of Random Goblin, anonymous. There's a guy who has some very trenchant and clever things to say. Take this response, in a post about Rush Limbaugh's attack on freedom of speech, entitled "Wouldn't It be Wonderful."

No, he's right! It'd be great if we didn't have freedom of speech! Then we could shut HIM down!

I am, of course, in total agreement with Random Goblin; this Rush character needs to go. After all America is supposed to be a melting pot of ideas and ideals where evils from throughout the universe can come together, meld their visions, and get stopped by Captain Starfaller. Well hopefully not that last part, but it did seem to often work out that way.

Anyway I can't let a week go buy without discussing ongoing efforts by people from other parts of the world to get their hands on my bank account information. First of all let's go back a few weeks to the very first e-mail I responded to, from a mister Waheed Azeez. The bit I quoted read like this;

My name is Waheed Azeez a merchant in Dubai, in the U.A.E.I have been diagnosed with Esophageal cancer It has defiled all forms of medical treatment, and right now I have onlybout a few months to live, according to medical experts. I have not particularly lived my life so well, as I never really cared for anyone (not even myself) but my business. Though I am very rich, I was never generous,I was always hostile to people and only focused on my business as that was the only thing I cared for. But now I regret all this as I now know that there is more to life than just wanting to have or make all the money in the world.

Well this week I got a letter from Hasham Ahmed which reads, in part, like this.

. . . I escaped death but sustained a very serious internal injury that leads me to have been diagnosed with esophageal cancer. It has defiled all forms of medical treatment, and right now I have only about a month to live, according to medical experts.

I have not particularly lived my life so well, as I never really cared for anyone (not even myself) but my business. Though I am very rich, I was never generous, I was always hostile to people because of my closeness to Saddam Hussein first son Uday Hussein and only focused on my business as that was the only thing I cared for. But now I regret all this as I now know that there is more to life than just wanting to have or make all the money in the world. Now that Allah has called me,I want Allah to be merciful to me and accept my soul, I have decided to give alms to charity organizations, as I want this to be one of the last good deeds I do on earth.

What a coincidence! Two men, one in the U.A.E. and another in Iraq having esophagael cancer and describing their life in almost precisely the same manner. What are the odds? It's amazing.

Actually, being a highly developed space lobster, I suspect these two are the same man and he doesn't have esophagael cancer at all. He's what we call a con-man, a sort of low grade evil-doer. They can be useful (I teamed up with The Illusionist from Illidon once, in episode 1A14 "To Con a Captain"), but they aren't really all that evil.

After all have they ever "crushed Captain Starfaller in their mighty pincers?"

And with that stirring ending, that's it for another week. Keep leaving those comments and sending in e-mails!

Mistakes were Made

Good afternoon everybody. Hope you are all doing well!

I just finished reading Armstrong William's latest article, and I have to say, it will be interesting to see how his fellows in the Conservative Press will react to it.

When President George W Bush unleashed hell on Iraq he no doubt had in mind visions of global rebuilding. The administration thought that months after the invasion, the streets of Baghdad lined with Iraqi citizens waving American flags. They also thought that US inspectors would uncover weapons of mass destruction. This is why they ducked their head and plowed through the international scorn. They fully expected to supplant the horror of war with images so patriotic that they would make the strong global opposition to the war seem short sighted.

It was a grand idea. But somewhere along the way we were misled by the image of the middle east we wanted, instead of the middle east that exists. Iraqi citizens are not waving American flags. They are strapping bombs to themselves just for the opportunity to detonate a few American servicemen with them.

The deterioration of Iraq serves as an unmistakable reminder of the flawed manner in which we carried out this mission. A global democracy works only when countries trust one another.

I think that Mr. Armstrong's right in his analysis of the situation. Mr. Williams further argues that the United States needs to pull out of Iraq, and he admits that this little situation has probably hurt the way other nations look at the United States.

I wonder how other conservative commentators, like, say, Ann Coulter, will respond?

It all balances out

As it turns out there's no need to worry about the vast numbers of people who are barely hanging on in our economic system. Their kids are doing better on tests, and they are belonging to more voluntary associations.

This cheerful news comes to us via Michael Barone's latest article, in which he references a number of recent articles which suggest that Social Classes may be becoming more hardened. Mr. Barone, suprisingly, does not dispute the core premise of this article. Instead he, more or less, argues that there's nothing wrong with this. Which is, I have to admit, a refreshingly honest approach.

Meritocracy may mean less mobility, but that is bearable if, as Brooks says, "America is becoming more virtuous."

It is comforting to know that Mr. Barone and Mr. Brooks, both wealthy columnists are willing to bear a certain lack of mobility. And, I could be wrong, but isn't there something a little bit patronizing saying it's ok to have lots of people struggling to get by if we can get them to be more virtuous?

New Format!!!

Hi everybody! : )

We've updated the Format but we are trying to get the Monster to pick a quote and he's having a hard time making up his mind.

So as soon as narrows it down, we will update the quotes page and the quote. Anyway enjoy the new format till then.