Defenders Saturday

The Sub-Mariner 35

OK, the last issue had the Hulk and the Silver Surfer as guest stars. Well that was a nice start, but it was only the beginning. Now we have some avengers too (Thor, Iron-Man, ol’ high-pockets himself, Goliath). As we open, the Hulk, Sub-Mariner and Silver Surfer are flying in outer space, when the Hulk says, “Tell Hulk AGAIN - - Why we’re all three here!” Of course you know the Hulk threw that three in there to show off his intellectual skills. Apparently the plan is to talk the United Nations scientists (who are creating the evil weather machine) and talk them out of it from a position of strength. So the Hulk has to serve as a sort of diplomat. Let’s see how that works out for the Sub-Mariner.

They land in front of a scientist who boasts that not even a hurricane can prevent their testing of this device. Hulk decides to teach this person a lesson on the curveballs life throws us at times, by landing in front of him and saying “Maybe a BIG WIND can’t stop you - - but the HULK can!!” He holds a boulder over his head to emphasize his point, but the Sub-Mariner smashes it. They remind Hulk of his role as a diplomat, but he doesn’t seem completely happy about it. The General in charge gives them five seconds to explain themselves. It’s kind of too bad I used General Stupid and Unlucky in the last recap. They explain that the weather machine is dangerous. The General seems unmoved so the Silver Surfer destroys their weapons. The General, showing himself not to be as stupid as General Stupid and Unlucky, flees the island and he contacts the Secretary General of the United Nation.

The scene switches to an establishing shot of the United Nations where the Secretary General says, “This is the GRAVEST crisis in the HISTORY of the United Nations!” So he calls in the Avengers. Scene change to Avengers Mansion where Captain America says, “Then It’s AGREED! Five of us dash of to make that charity TV spot - - the other three remain HERE on call to the U.N. as we promised!” Yeah everything Captain America says warrants exlamation points (I should not that in this issue, they have Clint Barton, former Hawkeye, serving as Goliath) and they aren’t very happy about it. Fortunately they soon get the call to journey to the island, which prompts some remembrances of thrashings past, particularly about the Hulk and the Silver Surfer.

Meanwhile back on the island, the Atlantean scientist from last episode shows up, along with Lady Dorma (Namor’s lady love). They also see the Avengers coming – and spring into action. They meet the Avengers some distance away. Namor and Thor agree to talk over Namor’s reasons for taking these actions. But then the Hulk (and who could have predicted this) says “Bah! It’s all a Trick! Is Hulk the only one who can see it. . . . Time to fight! Time to SMASH!” Goliath and Iron Man quickly attack Namor and the Silver Surfer respectively. They fight for a couple of pages. There’s the old gimmick where even the Hulk can’t pick up Thor’s Hammer.

The Soldiers return to the island and take this moment to attack the Atlantean scientists. Fortunately the site of Lady Dorma causes them to not attack (because they are gentlemen, apparently). This, coupled with Namor’s rescue of a drowning Goliath, ends the fight. Ikthon shows what the smallest amount of radioactivity could do to the weather machine (namely cause a huge explosion). This convinces the Avengers and General Not That Stupid that the three were in the right. The Sub-Mariner, in his statesmanlike way, calls for more study before the device is finished. Hulk has a different idea. “MORE STUDY? BAH! Machine is BAD, that’s all! But, Hulk will turn it into - - SCRAP METAL!” Namor and the Silver Surfer have to restrain him, which he doesn’t like. So he hurls them away and leaves without destroying the machine. And then the Surfer flies away, angry that humans don’t seem very good at getting along, leaving Namor alone with his lady love and the Avengers. He bids the Avengers fare well and takes a panel to remind us that the next issue involves his wedding.

The Loneliness of the Silver Surfer – “I could not endure another MOMENT among a race of MADMEN - - who rail at each other in name of PROGRESS”

The Ears of the Sub-Mariner (to Goliath) - "Your frail human ears are more delicate than mine, Avenger!"

The Simple Honesty of the Hulk - "Let the HUMANS fear - 'cause Hulk will SMASH them - them and the thing the BUILD!"

Good morning all. : )

I made another slight adjustment to the format. We made it a little narrower so it will work better.

Your Weekly Rush - In Defense of Gouging

Listening to Rush while driving around today; he was talking about gas prices. Apparently some of his fans and some of his staff feel that gas prices are too high. Rush Limbaugh disagrees. He spent some time on this yesterday and he's spending time on it today. Trying to convince people that gas problems are no problem. It is admittedly a hard sell.

Fortunately he has statistics from the American Petroleum Institute. I mean if anybody knows what's going on in the Petroleum industry, well, it would be the Petroleum institute. And certainly they would have no reason to hide such gouging from the American people. I mean if you can't trust industry spokespeople, who can you trust?

But my main curiosity is why Rush is focusing on this right now. He has to know, going into the winter months, that his fan base isn't going to be too enthusiastic about arguments that they have to shell out more money for Gas and there's nothing that can be done about it (except scrap environmentalism). Plus there's plenty of other news going on. Maybe Rush has gotten a phone call of sorts; and feels he has to zero on in this issue. Hard to say.

Round the Horn. An Irwin J. McIckleson Production

Greetings. This is Irwin J. McIckleson commenting on the various members of the Liberal Coalition. Last week, with all the confusion, I ended up not doing one; I apologize. But three of my plants went on strike at the same time, and coordinating that number of pinkertons and hired goons is quite taxing.

blogAmy has a picture of a ghost having a political discussion. I personally discourage political conversations with Ghosts; they tend to get hung up on stuff that they don't understand.

Say whatever happened with the Gold Standard question?

BLOGG has the news that the people of Pennsylania through grassroots action vetoed a pay raise for their public servants. The people, when they are united, have the power. A scary thought for an old time Plutocrat like myself.

LeftyBrown's Corner has nominations for a new awards including Music, Comical Books, and Movies, as well as some new thing-a-ma-bob called television.

Dohiyi Mir has the shocking suggestion that the President might be talking up an avian infection because he wants to distract people from his other missteps. That's one of the smarter moves I've seen from this president. Get people scared and they will automatically pay less attention.

Like whenever there was a little bit of union rumbling I would take Mr. Chao, a local restaurant owner for a tour of the plant. None of the men knew who he was, of course. This would scare them into working more efficiently; so as to fend of my plans to sell the plant to the dreaded Chinaman. It was very efficacious; and well worth having to spend time with a Chinaman.

Apparently this burst of intelligence isn't helping President Bush. According to Collective Sigh, his popularity has dropped significantly. Only 41 percent approve of how he is performing his job, which can't be good for a politician.

Mercury X23's Fantabulous Blog has a discussion of the seminal work by Thomas Moore; Utopia. I think it is an interesting read, but totally unsuited to the actual nature of man.

Happy Furry Puppy Story Time has a discussion of several films which involve gangsters and criminals of various shades.

AND THEN . . . has a collection of grammerphone records they think are the best of the past year.

Pen-Elayne on the Web has some very attractive pictures of the changing of the seasons and the fall colors.

The First Draft has comments by a leader in the Indiana National Guard, in which he disagrees with how his men are being used.

And that is it for another week. Enjoy the fall foliage and drink seasonal soups.

Amazing News from El Paso

Hey they've cracked the Coulter "quip." I can't believe it either. Apparently the young lady I mentioned earlier, Medea, after leaving the institute in despair walked around El Paso and found herself back at her old school.

There she met a young man by the name of Tex giving noogies to one of his classmates. Then she saw the young man grab a handful of dirt and shove it in his victims pants. The bully then said "Don't you like having sand in your pants?" and laughed loudly.

Medea felt a shock of recognition at the disparity between the Actual Humor Quotient (AHQ) of the bullies statement and the perceived Humor Quotient (PHQ) of the bully. She realized that the bullies laughter wasn't because of any humor or wit in his statement; it was a simple enjoyment of the pain his actions caused his young victim.

She returned to the Humor Institute of El Paso and met with Dr. Rodriguez. After explaining her findings to Dr. Rodriguez, they pulled back up Ann Coulter's "joke." For those who have forgotten it, or who have blocked it out of their memory, here it is. Once again we are shading it purple so as to protect those who wish to remain unscarred.

It was going to be Fitzmas Day! (Which is much like Christmas except instead of having her baby in a manger, the woman has a late-term abortion.)

Once again they felt the sickening feeling of Anti-Humor; but this time they were able to understand it. Ms. Coulter's "humor" was contextual not in the words themselves. What she and her kind find amusing about that kind of statement isn't the statement itself; rather it's the anger and pain her words are going to cause liberals!

Dr. Rodriguez said that Medea is to be promoted to Joculator (2nd Class), but that they will not be pursuing this particular form of humor. "The truth is, getting laughs this way might make you feel good for a little bit; but it would make you feel bad in the long run." I have to say I largely agree.

Statistical Report, BY 2004-2005

Sorry about this, but once a year we have to provide basic statistical information for the previous Blogging Year (BY), which for us is November 2004 through October 2005.

The Top Ten Cities Viewing this Blog

1. Tallahassee, Florida (United States) - 3,256 (12.77%)
2. Toronto, Ontario (Canada) - 408 (1.60%)
3. New York, New York (United States) - 323 (1.27 %)
4. Washington D.C. (United States) - 279 (1.09%)
5. Los Angeles, California (United States) - 270 (1.06%)
6. Brooklyn, New York (United States) - 267 (1.05%)
7. Atlanta, Georgia (United States) - 256 (1.00%)
8. Chicago, Illinois (United States) - 234 (0.92%)
9. Houston, Texas (United States) - 217 (0.85%)
10. Crawfordville, Florida (United States) - 209 (0.82%)

Just like to note that Crawfordville Florida has a population of 18,970. The population of Houston Texas, which looked at my site only 8 more times than Crawfordville, is 2,012,626. I think Houston might be underachieving.

The Top Ten United States States or Canadian Provinces Viewing this Blog

1. Florida, United States - 4,224 (16.62%)
2. California, United States - 2,342 (9.22%)
3. New York, United States - 1,641 (6.46%)
4. Texas, United States - 1,191 (4.69%)
5. Ontario, Canada - 815 (3.21%)
6. Pennsylvania, United States - 734 (2.89%)
7. Illinois, United States - 724 (2.85%)
8. Virginia, United States - 607 (2.39%)
9. North Carolina, United States - 588 (2.31%)
10. Ohio, United States - 559 (2.20%)

Make me a Commentator has visited all of the top three areas recently, but we have not yet visited Texas or Ontario to show the love. And we probably aren't going to.

The Top 10 Nations Viewing this Blog

1. United States - 22,366 (82.06%)
2. Canada - 1,615 (5.93%)
3. Great Britain (UK) - 693 (2.54%)
4. Germany - 244 (0.90%)
5. Australia - 209 (0.77%)
6. France - 187 (0.69%)
7. Netherlands - 154 (0.56%)
8. Mexico - 102 (0.37%)
9. Brazil - 100 (0.37%)
10. Japan - 91 (0.33%)

Monetary Value of this Blog (as measured in dollars as estimated by Technocrati) - $0.00
Emotional Value of this Blog (as measured in hugs (per annum) as estimated by Cheery) - 7.5.

So there is our report. We appreciate Cheery for helping me prepare it - and rest assured she is taking steps to turn this raw data into a winning marketing strategy. We'll have to see what happens, but I'm sure she'll do great.

Campus Diversity

I've written on political correctness and campus diversity before; quite extensively one week, actually. I ought to combine all those posts into a website for those interested.

That said, Edward J. Fuelnar's latest article brings up some of the standard Republican complaints about professorial diversity.

Professor Stanley Rothman of Smith College examined the politics of more than 1,600 college faculty at almost 200 schools. He found that in "all faculty departments, including business and engineering, academics were over five times as likely to be liberals as conservatives." In fact, he determined that a leftist political viewpoint was almost as important a factor in hiring decisions as tangible academic achievements, such as publications and awards.

I need to review this study; on the surface it sounds fishy. The real question is how do they know that someone is rejected for being openly conservative? Is their evidence anecdotal or is it based on number? And if it based on numbers are those numbers massaged (by over emphtasizing some numbers while deemphasizing others)? I'm going to look around and see if I can find the study.

I did find a website called The Lettrist which has a good article on Stanley Rothman and his study.

More News from the Institute of Humor at El Paso

This isn't good.

Apparently their Senior Laugher, a Mr. Hibbert, has had a nervous breakdown and has left the facility possibly forever. He was trying to find a reason to laugh at the Ann Coulter "humor" reprinted below when he just snapped. I'm not exactly clear what happened; only that it involved a Dairy Queen Blizzard and a stapler, but he is fine now (more or less) and is under supervision to see that he makes a total recovery.

Dr. Rodriguez took a moment to berate me for calling Mr. Rodriguez in my last post, which I apologize for. It is Dr. Rodriguez, and she is, according to her, a very attractive and very female person. So I apologize.

I have urged her to halt all research on this "joke," and destroy the remaining copies. She has agreed with my assessment; and I'm afraid we may not be able to ascertain what, exactly, is supposed to be funny about Ann Coulter's statement reprinted below (you'll have to select the words if you want to see them; it's only fair).

Anyway I'm sorry that there will apparently be no resolution to this mystery; but sometimes the price of science is too high.

News from the Humor Institute of El Paso

I just got a call from Mr. Rodriguez, head of the Humor Institute of El Paso (referenced earlier today). Apparently the "joke" gleaned from Ms. Coulter's article today is proving a particularly tough nut to crack.

They've already head two Humor Specialist and a Professional Joculator threaten to quick. Three of their Funnyologists - Third Class - have disappeared. Now they might have gone to lunch, but it's still a bit early for lunch in El Paso. At any rate, one of the three, a vivacious young woman named Medea (apparently), was heard to say "Nothing will ever be funny again."

For those interested in the text of the "joke" I am going to print it below. Given it's anti-humor possibilities I am going to make the text the same color as the background - to read it simply select it using your mouse.

It was going to be Fitzmas Day! (Which is much like Christmas except instead of having her baby in a manger, the woman has a late-term abortion.)

Anyway they are going to continue work in it. Dr. Rodriguez assures me that she and her team are not the sort to give up just because of a little emotional scarring.

Warning! Low Snark!

Really none. This is a good article by Larry Beinhart on issues facing the nomination of Judge Alito to the Supreme Court. I like it because it gets beyond the admittadly important issue of Roe v. Wade to ask a few other questions. Such as the questions surrounding the 2000 Presidential election and the Supreme Court Case at that time.

Ignoring the fact that the man with fewer votes got to be president, what is most notable about the decision was that Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, Rehnquist and Sandra Day O'Conner did not vote according to what they believed the law to be. They voted for Bush because they wanted a Republican president.

We can say that because they have a track record and their votes in Bush v. Gore went against their own established principles. If Gore had been ahead and he asked them to stop the recount, on the very same grounds, it is a virtual certainty that those same five judges would have voted the other way.

I'm not one who wantso to refight 2000 at the drop of a hat, but the I am one who thinks that the same problems that made 2000 so interesting are still around. At any rate the articles is good; go read it!

The Humor Institute of El Paso

Hey all.

In reading Ann Coulter's latest article I came across a sentence that just bumfoozled my mind. Check it out (Note: because of the potential psychological damage this joke might inflict (which has been revealed since I made this post), we are making it the same color as the background. If you wish to read it you will have to select it with your mouse. You have been warned.)

It was going to be Fitzmas Day! (Which is much like Christmas except instead of having her baby in a manger, the woman has a late-term abortion.)

Now in analyzing the form, it's clear that this is intended to be some kind of joke. But it strikes me as totally lacking in humor. Frankly it's so lacking in actual humor, it feels like we've punched a hole into some weird alternate dimension of Anti-Humor. So I have shipped this phrase on to the Humor Institute of El Paso for analysis.

If you have any ideas on where the humor is supposed to come in, please post them; every little bit of help helps.

Get on Board!

As you presumably know, Harry Reid and Congressional Democrats shut down the business of the senate earlier this week, in order to move forward the Senate Investigation into the intelligence that lead us into Iraq. Said Harry Reid (according to Salon), "After months and months and months of begging, cajoling and writing letters, we're finally going to have Phase II of the investigation into how the intelligence was used to lead us into this intractable war in Iraq."

In a shocking turn of events, Conservatives don't approve of this tactic. In his latest article, Matt Towery argues that this sort of stunt makes Democrats look like obstructinists and opportunists.

The stunt achieved nothing. If anything, it may one day be looked back on as the day the American public started to take a more positive view of President Bush and the Republicans again.

Yes, a White House indictment and a withdrawn Supreme Court nominee have Republicans on the run.

Even so, the public often senses when opportunistic politicians are trying to reach too far to score partisan blows.

This is the paradoxical difficulty of being the minority party. You can't actually enact your program except in tiny bits and pieces. The best you can hope for is to slow down the other sides program, and bring to light the other sides missteps and wrong doing.

But if you do that you are open to charges of obstructionism, opportunism, and not having a program of your own. Particularly by a party and a movement that realizes the American people's frustration with them. A party and a movement that would very much like to change the subject.

A Catalogue of Commentators - Issue 1. Ben Shapiro

Howdy all! My name is Durango and I've been selected to help this here blog review the various commentators out there and give you the skinny on them. I should say that the Doc thinks I'm touched in the head; he says I'm part squintin' cowboy and part singin' cowboy. I think he's loco.

Anyways, the first polecat out of the shoot is a young feller by the name of Ben Shapiro.

Apparently young Ben was a student up at UCLA where he riled people up with his tough talk about affirmative action and liberals. Apparently young Ben feels like young white republican males ain't treated fairly.

I been treated unfairly. Zeke Hardinger tried to steal my mule once. I shot the mule dead and gave Zeke my squint while he scrambled around. He let him stammer out his apology then I plugged him too. I reckon a man should have the chance to apologize 'fore he goes on.

Anyway Shapiro writes columns. He's one of the youngest columnisters ever, apparently. He's also a fiddle player so I reckon he's not totally useless.

Anybody who can play the fiddle is ok with me. I loves the sound of a fiddle wafting on the country air; makes a person feel good. Anyway he's written a lot of columns. Here's one of his more famous quotes.

I am getting really sick of people who whine about "civilian casualties." Maybe I'm a hard-hearted guy, but when I see in the newspapers that civilians in Afghanistan or the West Bank were killed by American or Israeli troops, I don't really care. In fact, I would rather that the good guys use the Air Force to kill the bad guys, even if that means some civilians get killed along the way. One American soldier is worth far more than an Afghan civilian.

I reckon young Ben needs to play his fiddle more; that quote makes him sound mean and black-hearted. A little bit more fiddle playing will make him feel better.

Here's another one.

You say that Israel's "occupation" has fostered despair in the "Palestinian people" and that Israel must foster hope in order to bring peace. This is backward. It is Palestinian hope, not despair, that causes terrorism.

I been beat up a lot and betrayed by my friends and locked up and shot and all manner of calamity and it didn't make me any more peaceful. Just made me meaner. Still maybe what Shapiro saying is that the only type of enemy he wants Israel to have is the kind what's six feet under. I reckon I can understand that.

He's written two books. One is called "Brainwashed: How Universities Indoctrinate America's Youth." Yeah that's why I always plugs men of learnin' as soon as I see 'em. Saves time later. The other is called "Porn Generation: How Social Liberalism is Corrupting our Future." I reckon he means them dirty postcards you see sometimes. I always plug anybody I see carrying 'em. Makes it easier to collect 'em. I don't think they have corrupted me any.

Here's what Bryant has to say about this rattlesnake.

Ben's got a one big issue he bangs on a lot about; the blight of the poor white male Republican on our campuses. I think you can tell how much stock I put in his complaints. Beyond that he pretty much takes on whatever anybody else takes on. He doesn't have much unique in the way of content; but he is willing to go a bit further than some of his fellow conservatives. The quote above about not giving a damn about Afghanistan Civilians is something many of his colleagues undoubtedly think; but he was the only one willing to say it.

O.K. Now let me look at this here checklist. We covered his bio, his books, and his bull droppings (by which I mean his quotes). And we got Bryant in. One last thing; a few of our favorite posts on Shapiro's columns.

The first one is from December 4, 2002, and it's about Shapiros ability to tell the future. Sometimes this here website calls him Boy Prognisticator; this link will tell you why.

On June 12, 2003, Young Ben compared the President to some form of cooking oil. Turns out he meant it as a compliment. I don't reckon that sounds like a compliment, but not worth kicking about.

On August 17, 2005, Ben wrote an article about how people was calling him a chicken. I ain't never been called a chicken. Leastwise I ain't never been called a chicken twice.

Well I reckon that's all we got time for. I'll be back in two weeks with another installment of this feature; next week that Post-Modernist fellow gets his shot at it.

The Alito Files IV

Ben Shapiro writes today on the wonderful nomination of Judge Alito. Apparently this is a great day for us all. It's interesting that Shapiro, in listing off the cases he thinks shows Alito's good side, starts with one that his opponents are bringing up as well.

He was the lone dissenting voice on the Third Circuit in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1991), the case concerning a Pennsylvania state requirement that husbands be notified before wives received abortions. Alito, still an appellate court judge bound by Supreme Court precedent, criticized the majority opinion's conclusion that spousal notification created an "undue burden" on pregnant women seeking an abortion. Wrote Alito: "The Pennsylvania legislature could have rationally believed that some married women are initially inclined to obtain an abortion without their husbands' knowledge because of perceived problems -- such as economic constraints, future plans, or the husbands' previously expressed opposition -- that may be obviated by discussion prior to the abortion."

A few points

1. This ruling does place wives in the same category as children. A child should be required to tell her parents before getting an abortion, because she isn't able to make the decision on her own (or so the argument goes). She needs the counsel of someone more mature and responsible than her who knows her; hence she needs to consult her parents. Requiring wives to consult with their husbands puts them in exactly the same position.

Echidne of the Snakes wrote a good post on this the other day, discussing this ruling and another in which he argued that a wife could be strip searched if her husband had a search warrent against him (hey if you can search his car why can't you search his wife?)

While I can understand opposition to abortion, I don't countenance opposition to abortion that places women in the same category as children or property.

2. Ben Shapiro did underline something else that you are all well aware of. Let's go back to this phrase "Alito, still an appellate court judge bound by Supreme Court precedent, criticized the majority opinion's conclusion . . ." Obviously if Alito is on the Supreme Court his relation to Supreme Court precedent changes quiet a bit, doesn't it?

Anyway we aren't done with Ben Shapiro yet, as our new feature (A Catalogue of Commentators) debuts this afternoon, and young Ben is first up.

For the Children

Consider the first paragraph of Walter E. Williams latest article, "Do we really care about children?"

I cringe with disgust when I hear politicians say, "We're doing it for the children." What's worse is so many Americans mindlessly fall hook, line and sinker for the hype. Judging by our actions, Americans could not care less for future generations, and future generations will curse us for it. Let's look at it.

Now given that title and that opening paragraph, what do you think Mr. William's article is about. Education maybe? School lunches? After School Programs? The Environment?

Nope. It's about Social Security. The fact that very few politicians pitch Social Security (with a minimum entry age of 65, if memory serves) as a program for the children seems to have escaped Mr. Williams. On the other hand, perhaps he is of the opinion that we are all children at heart (I'm not, as it turns out, but many are).

In fact, most people who bring children into the Social Security debate are on William's side. "We need to destroy Social Security now so as to save future generations the trouble of having to destroy it." In fact that is largely Mr. William's argument.

He plays the usual tricks. He takes the amount due in future generations and presents it to our generation as a lump sum (without, I note, providing footnotes so we could check out his figures). This is a little akin to summing up a house mortgage, imagining you would have to pay it as a lump sum, and saying that since you can't swing that much money you shouldn't own a house.

He does recommend raising the age of eligibility for Social Security to 80 on the theory that most of us would be dead by then. Nice when they put their cards on the table like that. He could take the next step and explain that regardless of whether Social Security is solvent till the end of time or not, he thinks its a bad program and one we shouldn't have.

The Alito Files III - Huffington Posts

There's a couple of interesting posts over at the Huffington Post. First of all is this tidbit from Cenk Uygur.

We interviewed Senator Ken Salazar (D-Colorado) Monday night on The Young Turks. Sen. Salazar is one of the Gang of 14, the group of Senators who saved the filibuster. He indicated in the interview that the filibuster was still a viable option in these upcoming Supreme Court confirmation proceedings for Judge Alito . . .

You can listen to clips of the show at the post.

I do think it's clear that the Alito nomination means the end of the Gang of 14. Some of the Republicans feel that Alito doesn't live up to the Extraordinary Circumstances clause in their contract. And at least one of the Democrats thinks that it does. The more extremist Limbaugh Republicans want the Nuclear Option invoked anyway so this is good news for them.

Byron Williams thinks that Alito is, in the short term, very good for the Bush Presidency.

On the heels of the administration’s worst week—American military death toll passed the 2,000 plateau, the Harriet Miers withdrawal, and the indictment of “Scooter” Libby---the president simply changed the conversation by nominating U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court.

By nominating Alito, the president has discovered that the left as well as the right can be unwitting allies in his overarching political need to alter the current conversation.

I don't know how to take that last line. Certainly I see plenty in Alito's background that concerns me, even if it does take the focus off of Libby and Plame and Rove. That said I think we can focus on two things at once (or three counting Iraq).

A few more humerous comments. Paul Krassner reports on a reporter asking an obvious question.

And Bark Bark Woof Woof (who doesn't post at the Huffington Post but is quite good anyway) comments on how to refute an upcoming Republican talking point.

Fear and Loathing

Bill O'Rielly recently threatened those who called into his show and expressed views he disagrees with.

CALLER: . . . I got one point about the media. If you want true, no-spin facts about this case, you can't do better than mediamatters.com.

O'REILLY: Ah! All right. Anyway, we get another nut on the air. That's the worst part of doing this. Ninety percent of the callers are good, and then you get nuts. Now, we should go to their house. We should all go because I can get their addresses when they call in. We can trace them back, and we should all go over and surprise them.

So what exactly would you do at peoples homes Mr. O'Rielly. You and your fans, you come to my home, what are you going to do? Beat the shit out of me (which would be quite a task as I am full of it)? What exactly are you planning, Mr. O'Rielly?

Mr. O'Rielly has it in for Media Matters for America as we all know. Media Matters commentary isn't the best around, but what they are quite good at is documenting what the right says. If you go the website you can listen to O'Rielly threatening those who call in as plain as day.

And of course that's what really gets under their skins.

The Alito Files II

Another look at some of Alito's cases is found at ThinkProgress, which does consistently bang up work.

I see a theme through Alito's work. He is in favor of putting obstacles in the way of justice; so long as those obstacles aren't technically impossible to cross, they are ok. For example, in suing on racial discrimination counts, Alito would place the bar so high that companies could, in effect, discriminate all the time. He would allow them to circumvent the spirit of the law if not the letter of it.

Rush Limbaugh is overjoyed at the Alito nomination, as you might expect. And you might also guess why he's so happy.

They're going to say it; what I'm telling you is I don't want to hear any complaints about it, because, my friends, this is what we wanted. This is what we wanted. We want the Democrats to be who they are. The president's made a great pick here. Chuck Schumer, we need to give him his full-time, 24/7 cable service called the All Schumer Service, or ASS. Let Chuck Schumer be out there all the time saying what he's saying, let Ted Kennedy, the swimmer, come up for air and say what he wants to say. Let Dingy Harry say it. Let them all talk about it.

To put it another way, it pissed the Democrats off, so Rush is happy with it.

America is the Best!

American exceptionalism is the belief that America gets to tell the rest of the world what to do. Don't believe me? Check out Dennis Prager's latest article.

What is American exceptionalism? The belief that America often knows better than the world what is right and wrong.

Yep. We know what is right and wrong so the rest of the world can do what we say.

Why do we know what is right and wrong? Dennis Prager (who is cheering for a future civil war) has an answer to that as well.

And from where does this belief in American exceptionalism derive? Mostly from the religious beliefs that underlie American values.

What's interesting is how regularly the holy works underline the fact that those who consider themselves the most religious are often really out of harmony with God. Take the Pharisees vs. Jesus in the New testament. The Pharisees were pretty sure that they were exceptional and that they had the right to tell everybody what to do. That didn't seem to be Jesus's way, but possibly I don't have the same understanding of holy writ that Dennis Prager does.

He then goes on to explain how the Secular Left (who doesn't believe that America has the right to do whatever it wants in the world) and the Religious Right differs on the principle of law vs. morality. He types this astonishing bit.

This difference is easily observed in the way the two sides view the war in Iraq. For the opponents of American exceptionalism, generally the secular Left here and abroad, the greatest sin of the war is that it allegedly violates international law. Had it been authorized by the United Nations Security Council, as was the first war against Saddam Hussein's Iraq, it would have been considered legal and not have elicited nearly as much opposition as it has. But because the U.N. Security Council did not authorize this war, it is deemed illegal and therefore deemed wrong.

Yeah, in Mr. Pragers mind, the main reason to oppose the Iraq war was that the UN didn't sign off on it. This is partially true and largely false. Getting UN approval would have been difficult and would have required the Bush administration to make a real case for invading Iraq. They couldn't do this, obviously. So the war would have been prevented.

But the real reason liberals are pissed off about the Iraq war is that a lot of people have died unnecessarily. Let me repeat that; a lot of people (both American Soldiers and Iraqis) have died unnecessarily. That is what pisses us off. And if your morality doesn't lead you to get pissed off when people are killed unnecessarily, well than your morality isn't worth a bucket of warm spit.

Imagine if you will a Prager court of law. A defendant is brought in; the judge sizes him up, and condemns him to death. Very efficient. The Judge knows right and wrong. The judge knows and believes in Judeo Christian values. So why shouldn't he do what he knows to be right? So defendant X heads off for the gas chamber.

A secular liberal (or even a religious liberal) might say, wait a moment, what if the Judge has made an error? But to Dennis Prager and all modern day Pharisees the possibility of error does not enter into it. Condemning a man to death or invading a nation; the right answer is clear and anybody who doesn't support it is getting hung up on "the law."

I guess I'm hung up on the law.

format adjustment

Just made a slight format adjustment.

Made a second format adjustment because I screwed up the blog doing my first format adjustment.

Monday Mail Bag (and gossip)

Hi everybody.

Cheery's announcement was pretty sparse yesterday so I thought I would fill you in on why Grumbly Muffin is no longer with us. We had our third year anniversary party on Friday (the date of our anniversary). Cheery had arranged for it to be at Chao's Dynasty, which is really quite a good Chinese Place. She requested no Lobster be served (which was a nice tough) and she arranged for Gazelle to be provided. Have you ever had General Tso's Gazelle?

You probably don't want to.

Anyway, she also arranged for plenty of champagne. Bryant ended up slipping out early. He's not really a party person, and he doesn't drink (he's Mormon, I think). So after he left, Grumbly started getting chatty. Among other things, she started with "Bryant has run this website into the ground and is addicted to failure," before moving onto "Cheery is a useless crybaby," and "Space Lobster makes no sense" (I suppose in retrospect I should have been upset as well, but I was kind of marinated at that point, and didn't really understand what Grumbly was saying.), before getting to "The Monster smells funny and doesn't give a damn about the website."

Well that didn't go over very well with the Monster.

The Monster said that he did care about the website and roared. Incidentally the Chinese spices improved his breath slightly, which gives you some indication of how his breath usually is. Anyway The Monster fired Grumbly on the spot unless Grumbly wanted to challenge his dominance through combat. Grumbly laughed in the Monsters face and said that she quit and she stomped out.

incidentally, Grumbly was dressed hideously. She had like a blue blouse and tight red slacks. I think it was supposed to be patriotic. But the blouse was almost a teal? And in the yellow restaurant lights she just looked, well, she didn't look good.

Anyway in the silence that followed, Cheery said that Grumbly had a point; the Monster was gone for months at a time. So The Monster fired Cheery, but took it back when she started crying. Shortly after that I passed out, so can't really tell you what else happened. I do know that Saturday afternoon Bryant, Cheery, and The Monster sat down and started talking. Cheery is being moved to promotions and website design. I don't know exactly what Cheery is going to do as far as promotions go, but hopefully something. Bryant will be the only regular commentator. Me and McIckleson (who failed to attend the party, being fictional and all) will continue to fulfill our duties. The Monster is going to write a weekly travel column (yeah, we'll see how that goes). And we are going to have a new member of the staff in a few days. Well two actually. But I'm not allowed to say what happened.

I can note that Puke got a job at a real estate agency right down the street from where we are. I can also tell you her real name is Ashley. So if you ever see her, call her Ashley. It really torques her off. And Jean-Louis Crowley has accepted an offer to tour in the Ukraine and the Baltic States. He's also working on a remake of the classic song "Transylvania 6500." So that might give you a clue.

Anyway on to the mail bag and comments contents.

The first comment comes from A Christian Prophet, who has a website. He was responding to a post by Bryant on the Miers nomination.

It seems that Harriet Miers has already been defeated. See The Christian Prophet blog.

This was predicted well before Miers withdrew, so point for accuracy. On the other hand the Christian Prophet's blog is pink, so seems less reputable. I don't know much about Christianity but I do know they favor manly colors like Blue and Brown and Black. Pink? Not so much.

In the mail bag we have a letter from Mrs. Kathy Olds of South Africa.

As a widow, I am saddled with the responsibility of seeking a genuine and an honest person who will assist us in investing this money in a highly profit yeilding ventures without the knowledge of my country(Zimbabwe)government who are bent on taking everything my late husband had afterconfiscating all his farmlands and investments in Zimbabwe

Have I got an highly profit yielding investment for you. Evil. Yes investing in evil can pay off in the short term and in the long term. Take my plan to conquer the world and crush my enemies in my mighty pincers? Now on the face of it that sounds like a bad thing. But I would have a positive impact on the economy. All the unemployed could be busy making statues of me. Think of it. Thousands of hands, no idle, making wonderful lobster statues.

But, as previously discussed, I have no bank account.

Anyway that's it for another week - hope you all enjoy yourselves.

The Alito Files

Going to start gathering as much information on Alito as I can over the next few days. My initial impression of him is that he is a right wing extremist; but I want to look at all the information first.

Salon's War Room has two stories on cases he was involved in.

* In 2001 there were four first degree murder cases, including James William Riley, in Kent County, Deleware. The Prosecution ensured that not one juror in these four trials was black. Riley challenged this on appeal. The majority on the appeals court felt that he was in the right (saying ". . . is it really necessary to have a sophisticated analysis by a statistician to conclude that there is little chance of randomly selecting four consecutive all white juries?"); Alito dissenting.

* In 1991, Alito argued that the state (Pennsylvania) could prevent a woman from having an abortion without notifying her husband.

That's a start.

The Ideologues vs. The Brainiacs

There are two reasons to dislike the Harriet Miers nomination.

1. Harriet Miers did not have sufficient legal background to sit in the highest court of the land.

2. Harriet Miers is a stealth candidate and there is no reason not to nominate a lifelong well-known conservative who will annoy the left wing.

The first is the brainiac reason not to like Miers; the second is the ideological reason to reject her.
Novak is a brainiac (the phrase does not actually refer to the mental ability of Mr. Novak on which we have no comment). His latest article, "Bush's Judicial Test," expresses dismay that President Bush seems to relay on relative non-entities for his support.

Bush's blunder on Miers reflects his genuine disdain for Washington and the national government, still intense after nearly five years in office. That is basically why he reaches back to longtime friends and associates (cronies, say his critics) whom he trusts.

A synonym for Braniac might be Washingtonian, actually. They don't share Bush's negative feelings towards the government; rather they want someone who is a known quality, someone who knows how the game is played.

Of course on the other side you have the idealogues like, say, Ann Coulter. Responding to the Mier's withdrawal, Ms. Coulter said the following on CNN.

Well, I think I've said it, he's -- the right-wing base has just shown its power. And as I say, and it's unfortunate circumstances. But what got Bush in trouble was listening to Democrats in the first place.

For the idealogue this Supreme Court Nomination is a chance to both educate the American people about what Conservativism is all about and to stick it to the Democrats. That may be the most important factor in their determining if President Bush's next candidate is acceptable; how mad does he or she make us Liberals?

This provides President Bush with a tricky needle to thread. If he satisfies the Ann Coutlers in his party, well, it might anger the mainstream Republicans and the American people. One thing the Miers nomination has done is that it is put ideology back on the table. Since the Coutler Republicans objected to Miers on ideological grounds, and the Bush White House defended her on the same grounds (Religion playing a role as well), the next candidate will have his ideological leanings discussed as well.

Should be interesting.

Of course since writing that above; I went to an hour long security meeting and in the mean time President Bush has announced his next candidate, Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. According to the New York Times, this will provoke a battle with the Democrats, and Gary Bauer, a prominent Religious Conservative, has already ok'd the nomination. And he's another white male, so it's nice that President Bush didn't give into political correctness (from the Coulter Republican point of view). I guess the idealogues have won for now.

New Format, new Quote

Hi all. We have a new quote and a new format and a new Quotes Page.

Also we want to inform you that Grumbly Muffin is no longer associated or affiliated with Make Me a Commentator!!!