Sunday, June 13, 2004

Once upon a DreamCon Pt. 4

Well yesterday was the costume contest; a nice little affair. Here's some of the costumes; according to a more constant attender of Games, costumes were not that incredible. They looked pretty good to me, but what do I know?





Also played a game of Deliria last night, and it was a lot of fun. Deliria is apparently a game of modern horror and fantasy, somewhat like Mage and Changeling if you are familiar with those games. Here's the website if it sounds interesting; I can tell you the rules were easy enough and the set up was interesting.

Saturday, June 12, 2004

Once upon a DreamCon Pt. 3

Well I'm here at Dream Con still. Attended panels this morning without annoying any of the panel members. I'm losing my touch. But went to panel on H.P. Lovecraft which was not the most exciting. And walked past the line of people waiting to get autographs from Ron Perlman.



Those musicians to the left sounded pretty good actually. Soothing.

Anyway back at it.

Once upon a DreamCon Pt. 2

Well yesterday was interesting. Went to a panal discussion with Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle, which was a bit depressing. Like all writers they stood up and said "Well, nobody makes any money in the writing game (except us of course), so you might as well give up right now."



Interesting to note the dynamic between the two; Pournelle is obviously a bit more of a businessman than Larry Niven.

Then I went to a room on where comics are going where I got under the panelists skin by mentioning CrossGen. What are you going to do?

Then I played a five hour game of Vampire the Resurrection which was annoying. There was a lot of good stuff, but it turns out little annoying kids come to these science fiction conventions as well, and one of them played with us.

They are also having some sort of boating convention here in town. So I took a picture of a boat. Here it is.

Friday, June 11, 2004

Once upon a DreamCon Pt. 1

Well I have arrived at Dream Con, got my room, parked (more difficult than it signs) signed in at the Dream Con, and now I'm up in my room writing to you, my loyal fans.

Also I've seen the truth, as emphasized by this sign.



In other news it's pretty quiet so far; although we have hopes that it will pick up. Caleb, who is providing libertarian commentary, stated, "As long as they are providing a service that people are willing to pay for, it will be a great event. I realize that's a stupid statement, but I had nothing."

Here's a picture of the creepy eye they make you walk past to get in.



More to come!

Around the Horn, Vol. XVI of XXVII; The Rise of the Hamburger

Quick blogaround today; for reasons I will explain at the end of my post.

Echidne of the Snakes has a very thought provoking article on the Mummy Wars and the expectations that are placed upon women.

It's Craptastic is doing a series on Medicare and Medicaid, of which the latest post is here. Interesting political ramifications.

Trish Wilson reveals that there are some sharp tacks out there who don't want women to have the vote.

Respectful of Otters has some typically well thought out comments on the memos which laid the "intellectual" ground work for Abu Ghraib.

musing's musings has a bit on a very scary bit of information coming out of the White House. Unsure how accurate this is, but it is definitely scary.

Bark Bark Wolf Wolf has a review of some recent poll numbers that look good for Kerry and bad for President Bush; although he also cautions against being to optimistic.

bloggg has a picture of a wombat. Not a very flattering picture.

Corrente has a section on President Bush's mental health. Such as it is.

Anyway I'm off. I am on the road to DreamCon which is a science fiction type convention. I will be doing reports from the convention, complete with pictures and additional commentary. Look forward to it. And yes, I am kind of a geek. Why do you ask?

Thursday, June 10, 2004

Meet Michael Badnarik

Apparently the Libertarian Party has selected their candidate in Michael Badnarik. According to the Economist (which I purchased this very day, and so can't link to), he was kind of a dark house candidate, but won over the convention.

Did he think al-Qaeda was behind the September 11th attacks? He was not sure; "I know I don't necessarily believe everything the federal government tells me." From a Libertarian's point of view, an excellent answer. Elsewhere Mr. Badnarik has promised, if elected, to wear his handgun during state-of-the-union addresses, blow up empty United Nations buildings and require violent criminals to lie in bed all day for the first month of their incarceration.

Sounds like an interesting guy, and I wish them all the best.

Does Torture Work?

One of the arguments in favor of torture is the practical one; if we need the information to save lives, why not torture to get it? Donald P. Gregg, Former National Security Advisor (to George H. W. Bush) and Ambassador to Korea has an interesting answer to that question.

"In 1951, as a young paramilitary officer trainee in the C.I.A., I heard my instructors say that to win the cold war, "fighting fire with fire" would be required. I remember asking, how, if we did that, we could maintain any distinction between what we stood for, and what our communist opponents represented. I was told to sit down and shut up.

But the agency, I am gratified to say, took a strong stand against the use of torture in Vietnam. Under William Colby's direction, interrogation centers were set up, under American control, and coercive techniques were forbidden. I learned from my experiences in Vietnam from 1970 to 1972 that by treating prisoners humanely we frequently (though not always) gained valuable intelligence from them. This was particularly true of battered prisoners who had held out against prolonged South Vietnamese torture, but responded to being treated with compassion by Americans.
"

Something to consider.

President Reagan and President Bush

Interesting article by Arianna Huffington on the difference between the vision of America presented by President Reagan and the vision presented by President Bush.

"Reagan built his legacy on hope; Bush has built his on fear. And no matter how hard Karl Rove tries, he'll never be able to cloak Bush in Reagan's mantle. It just doesn't fit."

Good article all the way through; she also covers hedgehogs and fox's. I'm a fox who wants to pretend to be a hedgehog. But I'm really a fox.

Wednesday, June 09, 2004

A Note

I'm kind of out of it for various reasons today; hopefully I'll be back up to full speed tomorrow.

A Poem by Emily Dickinson

’T WAS just this time last year I died.
I know I heard the corn,
When I was carried by the farms,—
It had the tassels on.

I thought how yellow it would look
When Richard went to mill;
And then I wanted to get out,
But something held my will.

I thought just how red apples wedged
The stubble’s joints between;
And carts went stooping round the fields
To take the pumpkins in.

I wondered which would miss me least,
And when Thanksgiving came,
If father ’d multiply the plates
To make an even sum.

And if my stocking hung too high,
Would it blur the Christmas glee,
That not a Santa Claus could reach
The altitude of me?

But this sort grieved myself, and so
I thought how it would be
When just this time, some perfect year,
Themselves should come to me.

- 1924

Life and How to Live It

This is the rule I care about today. Do not buy puppies from a chain Pet Store without doing some research.

Most puppies in chain Pet Stores (PetSmart being an exception) come from what are called puppy mills. Here is PETA's description of a puppy mill.

"Recently, PETA found dogs at one puppy mill living on hard wire with no bedding, little protection from the searing hot summers or the frigid winters, and little to no veterinary care. Crusted, oozing eyes, raging ear infections, mange that turned skin into a mass of red scabs, abscessed feet from the unforgiving wire floors—all were ignored or inadequately treated. Some dogs injured their feet by catching them in the wire of their cages, and they hobbled painfully around their small space, trying to keep their balance. The collar on one Labrador retriever had not been adjusted as the dog grew and had become embedded in his flesh. Even though the gangrenous skin fell away as the collar was removed, his neck was treated with nothing but a worm-repellant spray.

Timid dogs were terrorized by their more aggressive cagemates, who often prevented them from eating and drinking. Sadly, many of the old mother dogs had gone mad from confinement and loneliness. They circled frantically in their small cages and paced ceaselessly back and forth—their only way of coping with their despair.

These conditions are typical at hundreds of puppy mills across the country. Laws offer little protection and are poorly enforced by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
"

Since the government is apparently powerless to affect this situation; it is up to us as consumers to remove the demand for Puppy Mills. Instead of getting a puppy that way, why not contact your local vets or animal shelters. Consider adopting an older dog; I can speak from experience that they are often very good companions. PetSmart (who I am not affiliated with in anyway) has a program whereby you can adopt an older dog. I plan on availing myself of it in the next couple of weeks.

Anyway you all probably know this already; but I thought I would remind anybody who didn't know.

Tuesday, June 08, 2004

Danger! Danger!

There was an article in yesterday's Wall Street Journal on a new memo that has come forth in which the Bush Administration explored the legal jungle created by the administrations willingness to consider using torture as a tool in the war in terror. Bad enough already, but one part of the article is particularly frightening

To protect subordinates should they be charged with torture, the memo advised that Mr. Bush issue a "presidential directive or other writing" that could serve as evidence, since authority to set aside the laws is "inherent in the president."

You'll see this discussed around the blogosphere today. The phrase is pretty chilling, but thankfully, the Wall Street Journal buried it pretty deep in the article.

Still the implications are clear enough. The Bush administration, or parts of it, consider the President above the law.

Talking Points Memo (from which I lifted the quote, although I do have the paper and could have typed it out myself (if I weren't so darn lazy)) has a great discussion of this, tying it back to Jefferson.

The press needs to ask President Bush or his press secretary what this means and if the President himself believes it. I suspect the answer will be something like "I will do everything I can to protect the American people." Which is an answer, more or less. Still, the odds are, he'll never have to answer the question.

Even Better than the Real Thing

Paul Krugman has an article today on Reagan (as does everybody else). In it he looks at the Mantra that Reagan lowered taxes and therefore we had an enormous boom. As it turns out the facts don't exactly bear that out, and the true story is a bit more complicated than that.

". . . Ronald Reagan does hold a special place in the annals of tax policy, and not just as the patron saint of tax cuts. To his credit, he was more pragmatic and responsible than that; he followed his huge 1981 tax cut with two large tax increases. In fact, no peacetime president has raised taxes so much on so many people. This is not a criticism: the tale of those increases tells you a lot about what was right with President Reagan's leadership, and what's wrong with the leadership of George W. Bush.

The first Reagan tax increase came in 1982. By then it was clear that the budget projections used to justify the 1981 tax cut were wildly optimistic. In response, Mr. Reagan agreed to a sharp rollback of corporate tax cuts, and a smaller rollback of individual income tax cuts. Over all, the 1982 tax increase undid about a third of the 1981 cut; as a share of G.D.P., the increase was substantially larger than Mr. Clinton's 1993 tax increase.

The contrast with President Bush is obvious. President Reagan, confronted with evidence that his tax cuts were fiscally irresponsible, changed course. President Bush, confronted with similar evidence, has pushed for even more tax cuts.
"

The world is almost always more complicated than it first appears. But I guess you knew that.

Monday, June 07, 2004

A Poem By E. E. Cummings



Had to make this a picture so as to get the spacing right. Plus makes it stand out. Enjoy.

Not that this wasn't Predictable

But Media Matters has a bit on how the right wing is trying desperately to connect Ronald Reagan and President Bush in our minds.

You can kind of see why; I mean I'd rather run on Reagan's record than President George W. Bush's. No Contest.

History

"History is the witness that testifies to the passing of time; it illumines reality, vitalizes memory, provides guidance in daily life and brings us tidings of antiquity." - Cicero

"History is more or less bunk. It's tradition. We don't want tradition. We want to live in the present and the only history that is worth a tinker's damn is the history we made today." - Henry Ford

I just want to say that the true evaluation of Ronald Reagan's life will not happen for a couple of months at best, and more likely it will take a couple of years. A lot of people are going to try; some are even going to try hard. But right now there's too much emotion invested in his passing for anybody to think straight.

Right now a lot of the discussion is centered on a childish black and white level. Reagan was either totally great or terribly terrible. It should be obvious that those two options can't really contain the fullness of even a normal life, let along one like Reagans.

Plus you have politics thrown into the mix. If you thought that Democrats politicized the Paul Wellstone memorial, you haven't seen anything yet. For the Republican party and their media buddies (like, say, Fox News) this week is going to be about reminding us that President Reagan was one of the two great presidents of the 20th century and that President Bush is a lot like him. So watch for that.

The difference being, of course, that President Bush's and the media's enthusiasm for Reagan is genuine and heartfelt; what happened at the Wellstone Memorial was a cynically staged political rally (for a good dissection of this, check out "Lies and the Lying Liars who tell them" by Al Franken.

Anyway I guess I agree with John W. Gardner (as quoted by Bill Moyers).

"History never looks like history when you are living through it."

Sunday, June 06, 2004

New Quote

For those who don't know, Ronald Reagan died yesterday. Should make for an interesting week. I am still collecting my thoughts on him. But in the meantime, this weaks quote is from him and, of course, there's a new Quotes Page.

Saturday, June 05, 2004

The Liberal Coalition

Also revising some things on the Liberal Coalition. I should have the cool owl picture there over my list. Here, check it out.



Of course something like this I can't help photoshopping a little, even if it is just to mess with the colors.



Or I could mess with the colors and make it a water color.



OK that's enough.

Continued Improvements

Making some changes to the website. In particular I am consolidating the Candidate Reviews. There will be a new webpage dedicated to John Kerry's statements, which will have links to the complete Candidate Reviews. Enjoy.

Your Weekly Rush

Rush chose to respond to a comment by Teresa Heinz Kerry on Friday. Rush began with this unusual statement. "Well, we haven't talked about Teresa Heinz Kerry recently. I've been trying to deal with this in a kid-glove, hands-off kind of way, you know? Because you're not supposed to "hit" the girl. You're not supposed to "attack" the girl, still no matter what the girl does, you can't."

I'm sure that will come as some comfort to Hillary Clinton. Rush goes on to use the old Conservative technique of making words mean whatever you want them to mean.

"Her most direct attack came on the subject of patriotism. 'One of the saddest things about this administration is its cynical attempt to equate patriotism with singing in the president's amen chorus,' she said. 'The Americans I have met are tired of being told it is unpatriotic to question this president and his administration's policies.'"

Teresa, nobody is saying that about them. It's their own guilt. It's their own guilt giving voice to that. Nobody is accusing them of that. You guys are trying to redefine "patriotism" so that's what it means. Let's be honest here. The left is trying to redefine "patriotism" as criticizing the president.
"

See? It's my own guilty conscience that's causing me to remember Rush saying that the goals of the Democratic Party and the goals of al-Qaeda are the same in the November Election. It's my own guilty conscience that's causing me to remember Rush suggesting that if I were a terrorist supporter I'd be doing exactly what I am doing.

But see that's the game we are playing, because pretty often Rush will preface one of these clear attacks on Democrats / Liberals patriotism by saying "Now I'm not questioning anybody's patriotism." See how that works?

"Now I'm not questioning President Bush's Patriotism, but I think he puts the needs of big business over the needs of the country."

"Now I'm not questioning Rush Limbaugh's Patriotism, but I think he doesn't give a damn about the damage he's inflicting on this country and only cares about having his nice townhouse in New York City and his mansion in Palm Beach, FL."

See? But of course for grown-ups I have, in fact, questioned their patriotism. What is patriotism? According to Websters, some definitions might be "Love of country; devotion to the welfare of one's country" Have I questioned Mr. Limbuaghs and President Bush's love of their country, or devotion to the welfare of the country? Clearly I have.

Reminds me of a Simpsons bit.

Lawyer: Will you tell the court your whereabouts at the time of the
carjacking?
Willie: I was alone in me Unabomber-style shack; I had nothing to do with
that carjacking.
Lawyer: Carjacking?! Who said anything about a carjacking?
[galley and jury murmurs]
Willie: But, didn't you just say--?
Lawyer: *I'll* ask the questions here, Carjacker Willie!

At any rate, Mr. Limbaugh, I know when my patriotism is being questioned. You can say black is white all day long if that's what you and your fans want, but I, and many others, know that it's black.

The sun's not yellow it's chicken.

Friday, June 04, 2004

Nader's Flirtation

Apparently Ralph Nader is not seeking to be the Green Party's presidential candidate in 2004. If, however, the party chooses to "endorse" him, he wouldn't say no.

Norman Solomon, a gentleman which with I don't entirely agree (although this article was perhaps a bit over the top), has the scoop.

Enjoy.

Scenes from the Fall

Our response to the Tenet resignation was, in a word, a relief. At last, someone who should have been removed from office at the very outset of the George W. Bush administration will be departing. By so doing, we can not only hope to avoid perpetuating the sorts of intelligence mistakes for which this DCI bears ultimate responsibility.

. . . Going back to the early 1990s, the CIA's view was like that of its clients elsewhere in the Arab world: Democratizing Iraq was to be resisted at every turn. The Agency favored simply replacing Saddam Hussein with another tyrannical dictator, in the interest of promoting local and regional "stability." The virulent and ongoing effort to discredit Ahmed Chalabi springs forth from the systematic hostility George Tenet fostered, or at least tolerated, towards Free Iraq.
Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., It's About Time.

It's true that Mr. Tenet has always demonstrated intense dedication to the nation and his job, but he presided over some of the most astonishing and costly failures of American espionage in recent history.

On Mr. Tenet's watch, the American intelligence community failed to comprehend the domestic threat from Al Qaeda before Sept. 11, 2001. It either bungled or hyped its analysis of Iraq to spin fanciful threats from chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, threats that President Bush used to justify the invasion. The C.I.A. itself apparently did not sign on to the more ludicrous visions offered by Mr. Rumsfeld's team, like the one of grateful Iraqis showering American soldiers with flowers. But it utterly missed the dismal state Iraq was in and the strength of the insurgency that Americans would face after the fall of Baghdad.
- New York Times Editorial.

"CIA Director George Tenet has resigned. Good. Can Congress and the media resign next?

Tenet stacked up an impressive number of failures during his tenure, but pinning America's atrophied intelligence capabilities on him is a little like blaming Danish Defense Minister Soeren Gade for Denmark's weak defense. The problem is the national material with which both have had to work. Led by Congress and the media, the United States has hobbled its ability to conduct intelligence operations throughout the past three decades with its squeamishness and its gotcha political culture.
" - Rich Lowry, "Tenet and Us."

George Tenet's resignation as director of Central Intelligence has taken the political world of Washington by storm. And yet, it was an act that had been foreseen for some time.

Consider what made Tenet's tenure at the CIA untenable: the combined weight of the 9/11 intelligence failures, the absence of Iraqi WMD and the post-occupation fiasco, as well as the unauthorized disclosure of sensitive information, whether it be the leaking of the identity and the affiliation of Ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife (a CIA covert operative) to the press, of Ahmed Chalabi's allegedly informing the Iranians (courtesy of a leak from the Pentagon) that the United States had broken Iran's diplomatic code.

But, in reflecting on his passing, one should never forget that his troubles were, for the most part, of his own making.
" - Scott Ritter, "Tenet leaves CIA's Reputation in Tatters."

"In Tenet’s defense, he inherited a weak organization seriously hampered by a shortage of spies, Justice Department rules which prohibited the CIA and U.S. law enforcement from sharing important information, and funding constraints. These issues developed primarily during the Carter and Clinton administrations – who mistakenly believed technology could replace human beings as the primary source of intelligence and protecting individual civil liberties was more important than preventing terror attacks. - Freedom Alliance, "Tenets Hard Work Should Not Be Lost in Speculation of Reasons Behind Resignation."

"There has certainly been loud rumbling about tension between the CIA on the one hand, and the Pentagon and White House on the other, over the Iraq intelligence mess. Tenet had already fallen on his sword over the controversy about Bush's mistaken claim in his 2003 State of the Union address that Iraq was seeking to buy uranium for nuclear weapons in the African nation of Niger. Although the CIA had in fact warned Bush's national security council deputy, Stephen Hadley, that the information was false, in the end it was Tenet who accepted responsibility.

With the White House having thrown Tenet overboard once, there is little doubt it would do so again. But there is some question about whether he would take the fall a second time. And there are two possible sources of friction between Tenet and the White House that are heating up: the inquiry into who revealed the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame, and the unfolding scandal over allegations that Pentagon-favorite Ahmed Chalabi passed sensitive U.S. intelligence to Iran.
" - Mary Jacoby, "Tenet's Choice."

No real commentary. Nice that both the right wing and the left wing are applauding his resignation.

Round the Horn Part 3.1223, This Ain't Really Life

Incidentally for those who are wondering, last weeks title for this feature ("Round the Horn Issue 15 - Lobsters Ate My Femur" was sort of a reference to the classic Frank Zappa album "Weasels Ripped my Flesh." This weeks title is a line from a song by Gil-Scott Heron ("B-Movie").

Let's start out with T-Rex's Guide to Life, which has a nice little review of some of the more interesting comments he's received.

Words on a Page has an exploration of some of the differences between President Bush and Former President Clinton.

The Gotham City 13 has the 411 on the person selected by America to run Iraq, Iyad Allawi.

Rubber Hose has an interesting anecdote about how reporters want to deal with environmental issues.

Good post over at archy on the contrast between Republican Rhetoric of a year ago and the realities today, in this instance referring to their dominance over the American Political system.

Congratulations are in order to Pen Elayne for becoming one of the top 100 most influential bloggers. Or should that be congratulations to the blogging community for realizing and recognizing that Pen Elayne is or should be one of the top 100 most influential bloggers.

The Invisible Library chronicles the existence of a giant mushroom in the Congo.

Dohiyi Mir has a really fascinating discussion on the use of the world imperial to describe our current President. He also quotes Lewis Carroll. Be sure to read the comments section down below as there is an interesting further discussion.

Corrente has a post on how the Bush administration is acknowledging the contributions of our soldiers (after being pushed into it).

New World Blogger has a provocative question on what poverty means. It is definitely something to think about.

And that's it for this session. Join us next time when we will have more obscure song lyrics and links to the brilliant writers of the Liberal Coalition. But, if you just can't wait for next week, you can go to the Liberal Coalition's blog roll along the left there and enjoy.

Thursday, June 03, 2004

Party Out of Bounds

Apparently if you want to you can Party for the President. Organize a party in support of President Bush. Why President Bush and his cronies even have a suggestion on what to serve.

"Let them eat cake."

Analyzing Ann II

Yep, continuing our new feature (now that the lamps seem to have run their course) is our ongoing attempt to, in a more scientific way, analyze Ann Coulters Columns.

As you recall, last week Ms. Coulters article was 43 sentences long. 20 of those sentences were attacks, 13 were positive statements of her argument, and 10 were neutral (making percentages of 47%, 30%, and 23%, respectively).

Well, Ann's latest column, "This is History calling - quick, get me Rewrite!" has 37 statements. 23 of them are attacks (making a whopping 62% of the total), 9 are positive (making 24%) and 5 are neutral (making 14%). One thing to note, her last paragraph contained a lot of short sentences slamming into Al Gore. Had she left that off, her negative/positive balance would have been a lot closer to last weeks.

A further note on the title. Ann presumably doesn't believe that she is asking for a rewrite of history (although she is).

Ann's central thesis (beyond the standard "Liberals are Hateful Morons") is that a story from New York Times Magazine, in which Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz laid out the case for the invasion of Iraq, was the Rosetta stone to understanding what would happen when we invaded. Incidently it remains the Rosetta stone despite having been penned by Bill Keller, now editor in chief at the "Seditionist Rag," by which Ann means the New York Times. If only the New York Times were as unbiased as Coulter herself, but apparently we can trust it in this instance.

Among other things, Wolfowitz apparently stated to Keller that Saddam probably hadn't rebuilt his nuclear program. So you see that proves what hypocrites we Liberals are. Here was the Secretary of Defense patiently explaining to us liberals that Saddam probably didn't even have a nuclear program running, certainly not one that was near completion, and we just weren't listening.

I guess these other guys were talking so much it was hard to pay attention to Wolfowitz.

"Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof - the smoking gun - that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud." - President George W. Bush, October 7, 2002

"QUESTION: So Saddam's more dangerous than North Korea or Iran?

VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: I think so because of his past practice and because we believe that he is a danger, a fundamental danger, not only for the region but potentially the United States, as well. And I say, a lot of that is based on the evidence that's now available, that he is working actively to improve his . . . nuclear weapons program.
" - Vice President Richard Cheney, Meet the Press, September 8, 2002

"The problem with that is the way one gains absolutely certainty as to whether a dictator like Saddam Hussein has nuclear weapons is if he uses it, and that's a little late." - Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, September 8, 2002

Got these quotes from a site I mentioned last week, "Iraq on the Record." There were 30 such references between September 1st and October 15th according to "Iraq on the Record."

Ann's slams on Gore are typically mean-spirited, but just as typically somewhat difficult to prove. And of course there's this gem. "He grew a beard - just in time for an attack on the nation by fundamentalist Muslims."

But the most problematic part of Ann's essay comes in the first couple of lines.

"The invasion of Iraq has gone fabulously well, exceeding everyone's expectations - certainly exceeding the doomsday scenarios of liberals. The Bush-haters' pre-war predictions - hundreds of thousands dead, chemical attacks on our troops, retaliatory terrorist attacks in the United States, an invasion by Turkey, oil facilities in flames and apocalyptic environmental consequences - have proven to be about as accurate as Bill Clinton's "legally accurate" statements about Monica Lewinsky.

Inasmuch as they can't cite any actual failures in Iraq, liberals busy themselves by claiming the administration somehow "misled" them about the war.
"

There are no real problems in Iraq, and anybody who says that there are problems in Iraq is a Liberal Liar (and presumably a Bush-Hater). What kind of life does Ann Lead that she's comfortable saying that? I mean part of this is shifting the terrain. The problems that Liberals are pointing out now aren't problems with the invasion itself, but problems with our plans to occupy Iraq. But there seems to be a willful decision on Ann's part to believe that the war in Iraq is going great.

Providing yet more proof for my thesis that Reality itself is Partisan.

Saving Private Chalabi

Joel Mowbray seems to be on a mission to rehabilitate Ahmed Chalabi. His latest article pins the blame for Ahmed Chalabi's downfall squarely where it belongs; on the State Department and the CIA.

He makes fun of the idea that Ahmed Chalabi passed on diplomatic codes to the Iranians. Apparently Mr. Mowbray has a hard time believing that the Iranian spy service would send a message in the broken code. Gosh that does sound a little suspicious.

Reporting by the New York Times, however, makes it clear that the Iranians didn't necessarily believe Mr. Chalabi initially. "According to American officials, the Iranian official in Baghdad, possibly not believing Mr. Chalabi's account, sent a cable to Tehran detailing his conversation with Mr. Chalabi, using the broken code." They article goes on to report that they sent a dummy message to see if the American's would respond.

But of course, the issue here isn't what Mr. Chalabi may or may not have done. The issue is how the CIA and State Department betrayed him. After all, when the CIA was casting doubts on reports of Saddams weapons of mass destruction, Ahmed Chalabi was one of those promoting them. When the State Department was suggesting that holding Iraq might prove more difficult than we initially realized, Ahmed Chalabi was out there saying that the Iraqis would welcome us as liberators and it would be smooth sailing.

So naturally we must place the blame where it belongs; on the CIA and State Department. They, by there lack of faith in our bold plan have caused it to fail.

By the way, if you didn't catch This Modern World this week, you might want to.

Wednesday, June 02, 2004

Alexandra Polier

If you are interested in the story of Alexandra Polier, the intern whom Matt Drudge acccused of of having an affair with John Kerry you might want to check out this article.

Nice to know what Drudge and the others who promoted this story are made of. Of course, it's also know to meet, in a literary sense, Ms. Alexandra Polier who stikes me as a good writer and a very human person.

Here's a touching bit.

"One reporter had a little girl call up, assuming I wouldn’t hang up on a child. They even made her say, “Can I talk to Alex?” And when I said, “Yes, it’s me,” a reporter jumped on the line. CNN’s Zain Verjee wrote beseeching notes, slipping them under the front gate. It was like a horror movie where the zombies are on the other side of the door and then an arm comes through the window."

By touching, I, of course, meant stomach cramp inducing. Still she was a Democrat and a Kerry supporter, so presumably most Limbaugh Conservatives are happy with this kind of thing.

The Trials of Conservatism

E. J. Dionne, Jr. has an article today about the fractures in the conservative movement. He begins his article with the following sentences.

"Nothing succeeds like success and nothing fails like failure.

In politics, this means that if a leader is seen as doing well, his side in the debate holds together and suppresses disagreements that are quite real but don't seem worth pursuing if they get in the way of winning.

It also means that if a leader is perceived as doing badly, those quite real disagreements are seen as much more important. Parts of the leader's political coalition try to disengage themselves from the perceived failure and differentiate themselves from those whom they see as incompetent and thus representing something other than the true faith.
"

While I agree with the upshot of Mr. Dionne's analysis, I would argue that there is a countervailing pressure. Political movements expect more out of their leaders when they are in power. They also feel less vulnerable to whatever bad stuff they think the other side is going to do. That's why in 2000, many Nader Voters, I believe, were willing to vote for him because they believed that after 8 years of Clinton things were on a bit of an even keel. They felt comfortable. It's not that they liked Candidate Bush, but they weren't afraid of him.

I'm not sure that in this election we can count on Republican dissatisfaction with President Bush's failures to cause much of an exodus. I think they still fear "President Kerry" enough to vote for President Bush. Of course that's assuming no serious third party candidate shows up (none so far) and that they vote at all. Some Republicans, maybe many Republicans will stay home on election day, which could only help Kerry.

Somedays I Just Wish I Could Stay In Bed

I don't really know what to do with this. But when the same argument pops up in two separate articles, it's probably going somewhere.

"The United Nations is an enabling institution. It enables John Kerry to babble mindlessly about the situation in Iraq. It enables President Bush to assure Americans that our troops will not remain in Iraq forever. The United Nations also enables terrorists in the Middle East to kill with impunity."
- Ben Shapiro, "The United Nations International Terrorism Organization."

"The United Nations and Red Cross have been providing cover for terrorists -- literally. And American taxpayers are footing some of the bill."
- Michelle Malkin, "The ambulances-for-terrorists scandal."

Both articles reference an incident last month in which "Arab Terrorists" (according to Ms. Malkin and Mr. Shapiro) used an ambulance in a raid on this Israeli Military. Young Ben also references an incident a number of years ago in which members of Hezbollah used UN Uniforms to lure Israeli soldiers into a trap. According to Ben there is some possibility that the Indian UN Peacekeepers were bribed into letting Hezbollah use their stuff.

In both articles the point is the same; the United Nations is a bad organization and we shouldn't support it.

The problem is that it is hard to judge the veracity of these reports and it's hard to gauge the involvement of United Nations forces in this. My personal inclination would be to suspect that the United Nations are victims in this scenario, although obviously not to the extent of the Israelis. I seriously doubt that some UN Ambulance Driver threw the keys to some terrorist and said "Just make sure you fill it up before bringing it back."

I also notice there's one player missing in both of these accounts. I mean we have the innocent Israeli Civilians. We have the brave Israeli Soldiers. We have the evil Palestinian terrorists (and lest anybody get any contrary ideas, Palestinian terrorists are pretty evil). But we don't have innocent or even innocent but a bit grimy Palestinian civilians. They don't come into the picture. And I can see why they wouldn't, since both young Ben and Ms. Malkin are asking for a cessation of medical aid to the Palestinians.

At any rate, I wish I were still in bed. And stories like these don't inspire me to change my mind.

Tuesday, June 01, 2004

A Little Information about Brunei Darussalam

First of it's on the same island as Malaysia. Although I think Malaysia is a string of Islands, and Brunei Darussalam looks like it's only on one island. According to the CIA Worldbook, it is slightly smaller than Delaware.

According to the webpage of the Brunei government, it was part of the British Empire up into the 80s. It is currently ruled by Sultan Haji Hassanal Bolkiah Mu'izzaddin Waddaulah, whose title is Sultan and Yang Di-Pertuan of Brunei Darussalam.

Here's a picture of the Empire Hotel and Country Club, which is the best picture I could find--I did see a really cool palace looking thing, but the caption was in Japanese, so I wasn't sure if it was really in Brunei Darussalam or not.



The national philosophy of Brunei Darussalam is called Melayu Islam Beraja, and according to the countries webpage, it is "a blend of Malay language, culture and Malay customs, the teaching of Islamic laws and values and the monarchy system which must be esteemed and practiced by all. Islam is tolerant of all religions so the MIB philosophy cannot be viewed as a force which stifles the practice of other religions. Rather it is a vehicle by which other religions can carry on as usual their religious practices and rites with the respects and peace they deserve." Interesting. I wonder how that works in practice.

According to the CIA Worldbook, the country is about 67% Muslim, 13% Buddhist, 10% Christian, and about 10% indigineous beliefs and others. Amnesty International doesn't seem to think they are all that bad, although certainly not perfect. "Six members of a banned religious group were reportedly detained without charge or trial. Criminal suspects were sentenced to caning." On the plus side (from Amnesty International's point of view), the Government of Brunei Darussalam haven't carried out any executions since 1957.

Unsurprisingly the food of Brunei Darussalam is somewhat similar to the rest of Malaysian food. Here's a site that gives several recipes you might eat if you were to eat in Brunei Darussalam.

Anyway it's always nice to learn more about other parts of the world.

Diverse Readership

I am using www.Webstat.com to obsessively track how many visitors I have, and they work pretty well. As I've previously reported, it provides states on what countries my readers come from. Well, I'm pleased to note that May was my most diverse month yet, with 36 separate countries representated among my readership (compared to 20 for March, and 22 for April).

Here's the break down.

Number one was the United States of America, with 1,317 hits.
Number two was Canada with 35 hits. Kind of a jump there.
Number three was the United Kingdom with 21 hits.
Number four was Australia with 20 hits.
Number five was Germany with 8 hits.
Number six was Norway with 6 hits.
Number seven was France with 5 hits.
Number eight was Lebanon with 4 hits.
Number nine was a tie between Ireland, Sweden, the Netherlands, and Japan with 3 hits.
Number ten was a tie between Algeria, India, Austria, and Brunai Darussalam (which place I have never heard of) with 2 hits.
Number eleven, with 1 hit, was a tie between Taiwan, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, Argentina, Coratia (Hrvatska), Switzerland, Hong Kong, Mexico, Israel, Finland, Gibralter, Belgium, Singapore, Peurto Rico, South Africa, Italy, New Zealand, Korea (South), Morocco, and Nigeria.

Come back later when I'll have some information on Brunai Darussalam, unless I forget.

The Wages of Sin

Here's a story you should look it. God knows we can't allow dissident opinions or dissident art in America now, and thank goodness these brave citizens took it upon themselves to show Ms. Lori Haigh the errors of her way. Next stop the New York Times.

This Modern World pointed this out this morning.

Speaking for the Microphones

Paul Krugman has a typically sharp article today on the financial necessities of President Bush's policies.

"Last week The Washington Post got hold of an Office of Management and Budget memo that directed federal agencies to prepare for post-election cuts in programs that George Bush has been touting on the campaign trail. These include nutrition for women, infants and children; Head Start; and homeland security. The numbers match those on a computer printout leaked earlier this year - one that administration officials claimed did not reflect policy.

Beyond the routine mendacity, the case of the leaked memo points us to a larger truth: whatever they may say in public, administration officials know that sustaining Mr. Bush's tax cuts will require large cuts in popular government programs. And for the vast majority of Americans, the losses from these cuts will outweigh any gains from lower taxes.

It has long been clear that the Bush administration's claim that it can simultaneously pursue war, large tax cuts and a "compassionate" agenda doesn't add up. Now we have direct confirmation that the White House is engaged in bait and switch, that it intends to pursue a not at all compassionate agenda after this year's election.
"

Of course to many Republicans this has long been a valid theory. Cut off revenue, drain the Countries Purse, and then force massive cuts in programs the Conservatives don't like anyway. A case can be made that cutting these government programs is a smart move. Not a case I would agree with, of course, but at least I understand that other people think this way.

As with Iraq, however, this Administration is unwilling to trust the American people to support their plans. Instead of flatly telling the American people "Hey, if you elect us for a second term, expect to get cuts in most social programs because we believe you don't need them and that they have a negative effect on the country."

That wouldn't sound very good on the campaign trail, though. So they are stuck with the bait and switch of pretending one thing and delivering another.

An Interview with Robot Men From Mars

I recently had the opportunity to sit down with the Robot Men from Mars (well, their designated spokesperson, X12-4 (also known as Chad)). The discussion centered around a recent article by Mike S. Adams, entitled "An Interview with David Horowitz."

MMAC!!! - So tell me, Robot Man from Mars X12-4, why have you chosen to reveal yourself and give an interview at this time?

X12-4 - Well, I was looking at some of the articles at Townhall.Com this morning, and I noticed something I found disturbing. I decided that I needed to speak out against it.

MMAC!!! - And what was that?

X12-4 - There was an article by Dr. Mike S. Adams, entitled "An interview with David Horowitz." But it wasn't an interview with David Horowitz. It was an interview with Mike S. Adams, conducted by Jamie Glazov, an associate of David Horowitz. The only participation Mr. Horowitz apparently had in this process is that he talked with Mr. Adams right before participating in the interview.

MMAC!!! - Holy Moley! That does sound a bit disingenuous on Mr. Adam's part.

X12-4 - You bet, Mr. Make me a Commentator!!! There were some other minor problems with the interview as well, which centered on Academic Freedom or the lack thereof.

MMAC!!! - Can you give us an example, Robot Man from Mars?

X12-4 - Well one particularly troubling passage concerns Dr. Cornell West. Dr. Adams apparently feels that West (who appeared in the movie Matrix Reloaded) must be a racist because he has "ties" with Khalid Muhammad. Of course Mr. Adams leaves the nature of those ties somewhat vague. Were they friends? Political Allies? Dinner Guests?

MMAC!!! - That is a bit suspicious, isn't it?

X12-4 - Yes, it is. And to make matters worse he engages in a bit of vaguely racist characterization in describing West. Allow me to quote from the relevant passage. "I wish that West would stop scratching his beard, whispering, and rocking back and forth like a heroin addict in an all-night jazz bar and just answer some simple questions. Are you an anti-Semite? If not, why do so many of your friends seem to hate Jews?" Of course Dr. Adams only cites one friend and leaves their connection vague, so it is hard for us to judge how many of Cornell's friends are anti-Semitic.

MMAC!!! - Wow. That is interesting. But I'm afraid we are out of time. Thank you so much for speaking with us. Is there anything else you'd like to say?

X12-4 - No not really. Need to get back to finish preparations to invade Venus.

Monday, May 31, 2004

Revealing my Findings

After conducting my research, I have come to the following conclusion.

Dogs have little to no sense of rhythm.

Of course I could be wrong.

So what do you think?

That's the nice thing about a comments section, I get to find out instantly how badly I've screwed up. I still have a few more changes to make this afternoon.

Need to upload my new Logo

Here it is. A sneak preview.

Big Changes today

So if something doesn't work entirely correctly, that's why. Hope to get it all back up soon.

Memorial Day

This is one of Rudyard Kiplings well known poems.

Tommy

I went into a public-'ouse to get a pint o' beer,
The publican 'e up an' sez, "We serve no red-coats here."
The girls be'ind the bar they laughed an' giggled fit to die,
I outs into the street again an' to myself sez I:
.....O it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, go away";
.....But it's "Thank you, Mister Atkins," when the band begins to play -
.....The band begins to play, my boys, the band begins to play,
.....O it's "Thank you, Mister Atkins," when the band begins to play.
I went into a theatre as sober as could be,
They gave a drunk civilian room, but 'adn't none for me;
They sent me to the gallery or round the music-'alls,
But when it comes to fightin', Lord! they'll shove me in the stalls!
.....For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, wait outside";
.....But it's "Special train for Atkins" when the trooper's on the tide -
.....The troopship's on the tide, my boys, the troopship's on the tide,
.....O it's "Special train for Atkins" when the trooper's on the tide.
Yes, makin' mock o' uniforms that guard you while you sleep
Is cheaper than them uniforms, an' they're starvation cheap;
An' hustlin' drunken soldiers when they're goin' large a bit
Is five times better business than paradin' in full kit.
.....Then it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, 'ow's yer soul?"
.....But it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll -
.....The drums begin to roll, my boys, the drums begin to roll,
.....O it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll.
We aren't no thin red 'eroes, nor we aren't no blackguards too,
But single men in barricks, most remarkable like you;
An' if sometimes our conduck isn't all your fancy paints,
Why, single men in barricks don't grow into plaster saints;
.....While it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, fall be'ind,"
.....But it's "Please to walk in front, sir," when there's trouble in the wind -
.....There's trouble in the wind, my boys, there's trouble in the wind,
.....O it's "Please to walk in front, sir," when there's trouble in the wind.
You talk o' better food for us, an' schools, an' fires, an' all:
We'll wait for extry rations if you treat us rational.
Don't mess about the cook-room slops, but prove it to our face
The Widow's Uniform is not the soldier-man's disgrace.
.....For it's Tommy this an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!"
.....But it's "Saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot;
.....An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please;
.....An' Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool - you bet that Tommy sees!


The Publican is what we would call a bartender, and the Public House is a bar. The Widow of the Widow's Uniform was Queen Victoria.

I've decided not to do any commentary on the poem, only to suggest that readers not assume that my opinions line up perfectly with Mr. Kiplings nor are they entirely dissimilar.

Sunday, May 30, 2004

New Quote

Here's your new quote, and of course, a new Quotes Page.

And for good measure, another Lamp!

Saturday, May 29, 2004

An Interview with Senator Kerry

Light Posting today, because I'm a little out of it, but I did want to point you towards an interview Senator Kerry gave to Salon Magazine.

But you voted in October 2002 to give Bush the authority to use force in Iraq. Was that vote a mistake?

No. My vote was the right vote. If I had been president, I would have wanted that authority to leverage the behavior that we needed. But I would have used it so differently than the way George Bush did.

Would there have been a war in Iraq if you had been president?

I can't tell you that. If Saddam Hussein hadn't disarmed and all the world had decided that he was not living up to the standards, who knows? You can't answer that hypothetical. But I can tell you this. I would never have rushed the process in a way that undoes the meaning of going to war "as a last resort."

And that's what you thought you were authorizing -- war as a last resort?

Absolutely. You know, we got a set of promises: We're going to build an international coalition, we're going to exhaust the remedies of the U.N., respect that process and go to war as a last resort. Well, we didn't.

And not only [did we] not go to war as a last resort, they didn't even make the plans for winning the peace. They disregarded them. They disregarded [U.S. Army General Eric] Shinseki's advice, disregarded Colin Powell's advice, disregarded the State Department's plan. The arrogance of this administration has cost Americans billions of dollars and too many lives.

The argument that the administration disregarded and disrespected the military seems to resonate strongly with the people who come to see you.

Well, the truth is the truth. The truth has a force of its own. I'm just going out there and telling the truth.


Anyway hope you are having a nice memorial day, and you can look forward to a new look on Monday.

Friday, May 28, 2004

Your Weekly Lamp

Although since you already got one or two this week, this might be more often than weekly. Still I sometimes comment on Rush Limbaugh more than once in a week so I guess it's ok.

Something Else You Might Find Interesting

Representative Henry A. Waxman (D, California) has prepared a website to provide, as it puts it, "a searchable collection of 237 specific misleading statements about the threat posed by Iraq made by the five Administration officials most responsible for providing public information and shaping public opinion on Iraq: President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Powell, and National Security Advisor Rice."

Well worth reviewing.

You weekly Rush

Posted on this in the last post, but now that Rush Limbaugh has updated his website to reflect the contents of todays show, I can post the actual quote.

"Fom the Vietnam War on, the modern era of the Democratic Party does not believe in a victorious America and will undermine a victorious America because they think it's somehow sinful for the U.S. to be the lone superpower. And if you add a political year, an election year, and a president they absolutely despise and hate, then you have them appearing as though they actually are siding with our enemies. Now, they will say, "Don't you dare challenge my patriotism" and I will say we're not, we're challenging your judgment. But you will tell me, how would, if you were siding with our enemies, be any different? From what you're doing now?"

Here's the link.

What I Would Do Differently If I Were Someone Completely Different!

Driving around at lunch today listening to the Rush Limbaugh show. Rush was talking about Democrats and walking a very fine line. See, if Rush comes out and says that Democrats are more or less Terrorists than there would be an uproar. On the other hand, Rush clearly thinks Democrats are more or less Terrorists, or in the same realm as terrorists.

So here's how he finessed the issue today. After making it clear that he wasn't challenging our patriotism, but our reasoning, he commented, "What would you do differently if you were supporting the terrorists?"

Provocative question. When I first heard it, it almost provoked me to jam my fist through my windshield. But let's consider it seriously for a moment.

The flip answer is to contrast what the Terrorists want with what President Bush wants. The terrorists are pretty well convinced that God (or Allah) is on their side. They want to engage the United States in war, because they don't believe that Allah will allow them to lose. So if I were an American believer of this particular Islamist philosophy, I suppose I would strongly support President in his choice to engage the Muslim World in a military struggle.

Of course I would applaud the abuse at Abu Ghraib prison; after all such abuse is only going to bring more recruits to the cause I and Osama bin Ladin believe in (if I were allied with Osama bin Ladin, which in real life I'm not). Why I might even try to minimize it with such statements as, "Who are these guys [detainees at Abu Ghraib]? They're shooting at Americans. They have attempted to kill Americans. You've got to put this stuff in perspective. It has to be put in context."

I suppose if I were in philosophical agreement with Osama bin Ladin I would look upon the candidacy of John Kerry with a certain amount of trepidation. I would think I could count on President Bush to invade Syria or Iran (or possibly both). But John Kerry is a fish of a different scale. I'm not sure I can count on a continual belligerence towards the Middle East with Kerry in the White House. Plus any fool should realize that much of al-Qaeda's funding and support comes from Saudi Arabia, a country with which President Bush has close ties, and one which he is unlikely to get tough with. On the other hand, Kerry, lacking such ties, might be tempted to crack down on Saudi Arabia.

But I suppose that's not really the way I'm supposed to respond to Rush's statement. Instead I'm supposed to think, "My God! What a fool I've been. By trying to get John Kerry in the white house, and by criticizing the mistakes of the Bush Administration, I'm clearly no better than a terrorist. Maybe I'd better call my local FBI office and turn myself in."

'Round the Horn Issue 15 - Lobsters Ate My Femur

Not sure what that title means, but it came to me, so I had to put it up there. At any rate, check out these other bloggers.

Steve Bates, The Yellow Doggerel Democrat has the scoop on another useful technique our soldiers are using to extract information from a people we are trying to liberate. We're taking hostages, apparently.

bloggg has an interesting and well written reaction to Dr. Cosby's speech earlier in the week.

Kick the Leftist has a well reasoned response to those who would argue that we should spend less time on Abu Ghraib and more time on Nick Berg. He also has a great post on the Washington Time's coverage of Bush's falling off a bike.

Ricks Cafe Americaine has a piece on the passing of Doug Pappas.

Sooner Thought has a piece on efforts to get Rush Limbaugh off of Armed Forces Radio. While I generally take a hardline against censorship in any form, this might be a special case due to the lack of balance (there's no aggressively liberal counterbalance to Rush's rantings), and due to the lack of media options available in the armed services.

Echidne of the Snakes has a bit on advertising, and how it sometimes promotes values that run counter to sanity.

Rooks Rant has a comparison of President Bush to a certain Monty Python Character.

Respectful of Otters has an interesting point on the idea of government privatizing their services. Namely, there is a conflict between the companies need to protect it's secret and the publics right to know what's going on with their money. She also has a good follow up post here.

blogAmy has an anecdote on unsolicited phone calls, and an intriguing question related to said anecdote.

Thursday, May 27, 2004

Analyzing Ann

I'm taking a bit more scientific approach to analyzing Ann Coulter's latest column. I've broken it down sentence by sentence. Her latest column is generally about how the war in Iraq is going better than we think it is, but it is only Liberal and Media perfidity that keeps you from knowing this. So I broke Ann's sentences (there were forty three of them) into three groups. Those that were attacks on liberals, those that were reports of positive progress, and those that were more or less neutral.

Obviously a tough distinction, but by my analysis, 10 sentences were neutral (or 23%), 13 were positive (or 30%) and 20 were attacks (47%, nearly half). So Ann Coulter is more interested, at least in this article, in attacking liberals than she is in putting forward any positive program or defense of President Bush.

It doesn't help that a number of Ann's positive statements seem factually challenged. For example, she continues to suggest that Saddam Hussein reached out to Osama Bin Ladin, despite the lack of proof (and the pretty consistent debunking of "proofs" her colleagues have put forward.

Ms. Coulter also suggests that we have found weapons of mass destruction. Someone should pass that information along to the Bush Campaign so they can trumpet it. I mean if we really did find caches of Weapons of Mass Destruction that threatened the United States, well, that's something the American People ought to know before they go into their voting booths in November. Unless, of course, Ann is referring to discredited reports.

She also spends a lot of time knocking down arguments made by Mr. Nicolas Kristol before the war. Easy enough to do, I suppose. Apparently Mr. Kristol thought our troops would face stiffer resistance from Iraqi troops, but we actually beat the Iraqi army pretty quickly. Apparently Mr. Kristol thought that capturing Hussein would be dangerous and cost the lives of many men, but we caught him easily and without it being bloody. Nice little strawman argument as it doesn't answer any of the questions about the difficulty of occupying Iraq. I mean, I'm certainly glad we beat the Iraqi Army and National Guard, but I kind of expected that, truth to tell.

On the other hand the current phase of our occupation of Iraq is proving to be a bit more difficult.

On the attack side, she calls Liberals and the media (which, just to be clear, are one and the same) Liars, Pusillanimous, womanly, and 1984 style toltalatarians. She also suggests that if the terrorists invaded Manhattan, it would immediately surrender. I wonder why Ann hates Americans so much. Or at least Americans who happen to live in New York City. Or who happen to be liberal.

Our New National Pastime!

What a grabber of a headline! It grabbed me when I saw Larry Elder use a variation on it for his article this week. But it wasn't as good as mine, because he revealed the new national pastime right in the title. See I made you read a few lines before revealing, but his title gives it right away; "Bashing President Bush takes over as our No. 1 national pastime."

He then quotes a number of harsh words spoken by members of the press, but then presents anecdotal evidence that many don't like Bush. The examples are
- A friend's doctor, who compared Bush to a "little monkey."
- A guest at a small house party who said, "That clown, Bush, has to go."
- A house painter, working for Elder, who asked what he thought of our "idiot president."
- A person who refused to talk to a Bush supporter.
- A waiter who was berated as being a Bush Supporter because he was screwing up an order.

These are all pretty regrettable incidents, and I have to say that the people in these stories, particularly the last two, aren't all that great. But, and this is a big but, I disagree with Elder when he places the blame entirely on the Democratic side of the fence. I myself have received mild abuse (along these lines) for my support of the Democratic Party, and there are others who have received much worse.

I have to say that the conservative movement to a much greater extent than the liberal movement has created the intellectual framework that supports such actions. Perhaps Mr. Elder should spend some time reading the works of Ann Coulter, or listening to Michael Savage.

Wednesday, May 26, 2004

Love Can Damage Your Health

And on that note, here's a picture of a lamp.

Mistakes were Made

I would imagine a lot are going to be pointing to this story in the New York Times, in which they admit they may have echoed the administration line a little to closely in the run up to the war in Iraq. Kind of a sad day for the paper.

Hooray for Hollywood

Linda Chavez writes an article today on the way movies used to be.

"Remember when movies aimed to entertain? You could take the whole family, from grandma to the kids, and escape the quotidian for the silver screen, watching bigger-than-life heroes engage in daring and admirable deeds. Or you could share a few G-rated laughs without worrying about offensive double-entendres or scatological references."

She then rips into three movies. Michael Moores "Fahrenheit 9/11" which many on the conservative side of the fence don't think you should be allowed to see, "The Day After Tomorrow" and "Shrek 2." The first two movies are bad because of their political message, "Shrek 2" is bad because the voice of the ugly step sister is Larry King (which makes her a cross dresser apparently. I don't see it myself, I just thought that was part of being the "ugly" stepsister.).

Her criticisms of Michael Moore's movie as an indictment of Hollywood don't make a lot of sense. Moore has always made independent and highly personalized films. To criticize Michael Moore for doing what he's always done is like criticizing John Woo for having a lot of Gun Fights, or criticizing Frank Capra for his upbeat assessment of the American Character. It's what they do.

As for "The Day after Tomorrow," I'm a bit torn. I mean to me the set up sounds like a great premise for a disaster movie. And the visuals from the previews are pretty astounding. But in for a penny, in for a pound. How do you do a movie with massive climate change without it being an environmental picture? So does that mean that any story that might have political implications shouldn't be filmed? Tricky one that, although I suspect that what it works out to is any story that might have liberal political implications should not be filmed.

As for some wish for us to go back to some Hollywood Golden Age, firstly it's not possible, secondly, movies of that time generated just as much criticism for their political messages as movies do today. Look at good old "Citizen Kane," for example.

While we're on the subject of films, let's check in with good old PABAAH (Patriotic Americans Boycotting Anti American Hollywood). Well, Jane Fonda and Barbara Streisand are going to be staring in movies that you aren't supposed to see. In other shocking news, George Clooney held a fund raiser for his father. Just so you know, any celebrity who donates to the Democratic Party or any Democratic candidate is anti American (according to PABAAH). Some Madonna fans weren't satisfied with her latest performance, so she should refund the money she received, and just play her old timey songs. And a couple articles about how much they hate Michael Moore.

Failure is not an Option!

So speaks Cal Thomas today, in an article praising President Bush's speech Monday night for "thinking big." He then goes on to say, in short, "Hey support President Bush or else get blown up, you idiots." But why be short when I can fill up inches quoting him.

"I wonder if those who have switched from approval to disapproval of President Bush in the polls fully understand what is at stake in Iraq. Failure is not an option. If the United States fails to achieve its objectives, we might as well issue printed invitations for the terrorists to turn up the heat. They will surely gain new recruits and be emboldened to stage more outrageous attacks.

It is important for some of those nations that have carped and lobbed rhetorical missiles from the sidelines at U.S. policy in Iraq to participate in rebuilding that country. Terrorism is a threat to every nation, including the surrender monkeys who think they can buy off the killers through appeasement. No free nation is safe from them, and if they aren't coming after certain nations now, they will later unless they are stopped.
"

The first step to convincing someone to agree with you is reminding them how stupid they are to disagree with you in the first place. That always works. Once people realize how stupid you think they are, they will quickly inquire as to how they can change their opinions to match yours.

Cal Thomas uses this technique by suggesting that those who disapprove of President Bush don't understand the situation, and by suggesting that those nations who don't agree with President Bush are "surrender monkeys" and appeasers. Gosh I feel like agreeing with Mr. Thomas already. But let's look at his argument.

Interesting how Mr. Thomas and some liberal critics of the occupation of Iraq see things differently. Mr. Thomas assumes that al-Qaeda will have an easier time recruiting if we leave Iraq because they won't be afraid of us. I'm not sure how that works (why would suicide bombers be afraid of us anyway. Are they worried we might kill them?). And some liberal critics suggest that if we stop occupying Iraq and, you know, doing the bad things we are doing, that they will be less likely to focus on us. I'm not sure either is a viable option (preferring the plan of the next President of these United States, John Kerry).

His paragraph directed to other nations (by which, we assume he means France) is the same old game. It's called the force. It's an old magicians trick to get you to pick the item the magician wants you to. In this case, Thomas presents exactly two options for fighting Terrorists; complete devotion to President Bush and any plan he chooses to follow or capitulation to the terrorists. Those are your only two options France. And, one would assume, those are our only two options as citizens of the United States.

Of course we can look forward to this argument all summer long; a vote for Kerry is a vote for surrender. But in order for that argument to work, President Bush's conduct in the War on Terror has to be pretty unimpeachable. And, as I'm sure you've noticed, it's not. Even if you think invading Iraq was a good idea, it's clear that President Bush and his foreign policy staff failed to prepare properly for the war. It's clear that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld wanted to fight this war on the cheap, and so failed to plan for contingencies that were predicted before the war, and have since come to pass. So maybe President Bush isn't the only solution to the world terrorism problem.

Tuesday, May 25, 2004

Another great article by Paul Krugman

I'd advise reading the whole thing, which covers recent economic news. Mr. Krugman takes the novel step of providing a website where one can verify his claims. Not a bad idea.

It ends with these words.

"In April, the economy added 288,000 jobs. If you do the math, you discover that President Bush needs about four years of job growth at last month's rate to reach what his own economists consider full employment.

The bottom line, then, is that Mr. Bush's supporters have no right to complain about the public's failure to appreciate his economic leadership. Three years of lousy performance, followed by two months of good but not great job growth, is not a record to be proud of.
"

Still I've noticed that Rush Limbaugh and other conservative figures have been suggesting since President Bush took office that the economy was in recovery or had recovered, and the Media was hiding the truth from you.

The President's Big Speech

Here's a link to the speech, if you missed it (as I did). A couple of random thoughts.

The President continues to link 9/11 to Iraq. Obviously nobody's proven a direct link, and it's very frustrating to some to hear the president making this connection. But, if I understand him correctly, the President may not see a direct link, but an indirect link.

Still, given what we know about the build up to this war, it's clear that the Bush administration wanted to invade Iraq regardless of what happened. Kind of like that old saw about Bush's economic policy ("We have a surplus and the economy is going great; thus we should give out tax cuts." "We have a deficit and the economy is stalling; thus we should give out tax cuts.")

There's also the question of how much sovereignty the new Iraqi government is going to have if we continue to occupy that country, and they have no control over our comings and goings. The real power of the new Iraqi government will not be the support of the people, but ability to influence the American occupiers. Which is, in the long term, going to drain legitimacy from the new government like a sieve.

The New York Times has a good assessment I think.

"It's regrettable that this president is never going to admit any shortcomings, much less failure. That's an aspect of Mr. Bush's character that we have to live with. But we cannot live without a serious plan for doing more than just getting through the June 30 transition and then muddling along until the November elections in the United States. Mr. Bush has yet to come up with a realistic way to internationalize the military operation and to get Iraq's political groups beyond their current game of jockeying for power and into a real process of drafting a workable constitution."

There were things to like in President Bush's speech, but there were far more generalities than specifics. One might argue that this contrasts more or less equitably with his democratic rival, John Kerry. The difference is that Kerry has provided more specifics, and, more to the point, he's not the President now. Whatever we may think of President Bush as a candidate, he is, in fact, the current president. And therefore he's responsible for running our campaign against terrorism. So it's more of a problem when he fails to provide specifics.

Monday, May 24, 2004

The Latest Kerry Besmircher

edwardpig has the lowdown on the latest brave soldier to come forward and slander future President Kerry. Go check it out!

I was fighting in the sky

Here's my latest lamp. It's metallic.



If any of you have any cool lamp pictures you'd like me to post or photoshop e-mail them to me. And I'll do the rest.

Hip Hip hypocrisy!

Sam asks Bruno and Connie, "Do you know what we're talking about here?" There's a lot of repetitious back-and-forth here while everyone ascertains that everyone knows what everyone else is talking about, which is, as Sam puts it, "unlimited, unregulated money that can be raised in staggering amounts." Sam states, "Understand, it's not like there's a law that envisions soft money; it's just that there's no law that specifically bans it. It's a loophole so big you could race the America's Cup through it. How could the President be opposed to soft money one year and take it the next? Where's he going to be on campaign finance reform tomorrow?" Bruno replies, "Exactly where he is today: leading the charge against it. In the meantime, Congress and the FEC have been sitting on their hands. Is that our fault?" Connie dutifully states, "No." Bruno continues, "So now Bartlet's supposed to obey a law that doesn't exist? What's next, imaginary speed signs?"
- Television Without Pity, Recap of The West Wing Episode, "Gone Quiet"

Once again we have helpful conservatives encouraging liberals to chop their legs off. You know those helpful folks who have suggested that if you claim to be a liberal and you aren't giving any excess income you earn to the government, you are a hypocrite. Who suggest that any wealthy liberal, or any upper middle class liberal, is by definition a hypocrite. Who suggest that any criticism of the president is dirty campaigning and hypocrisy (after all Liberals didn't like it when they were accusing President Clinton of murdering Vince Foster and raping White House staffers, so we shouldn't go around saying that his plans for post-war Iraq were largely based on fairytales and faulty intelligence).

Well, now that Senator Kerry, who may be our president down the road, is acting like he wants to win this race, well, they think he's a hypocrite. Or so a Wall Street Journal editorialist suggests.

"Even better, this Kerry trial balloon exposes campaign-finance limits as a monumental farce. The Kerry camp is considering this maneuver so it can keep raising and spending money as long as possible without having to abide by spending limits that kick in once a party formally nominates its candidate. . . .

This is always the way with campaign-finance limits. Politicians endorse them to sound holier-than-thou but then immediately turn around and exploit or invent loopholes and exceptions.
"

Of course, this person presumably has little problem with the Republican party scheduling their convention so late so as to take advantage of September 11th celebrations. The fact of the matter is that Senator Kerry is not suggesting anything illegal or immoral. He's suggesting running his campaign the same way President Bush is running his campaign. Now I might agree that it would be nice if both parties agreed to a set limit to how much they could spend, but I know that they aren't.

Secondly President Bush's campaign staff is channeling his money into flatly dishonest campaign ads. I don't need to go over this again, but the accusations against Kerry's voting record on defense have been met. If President Bush is going to continue to air such negative ads and John Kerry goes off the stump (as this editorialist would suggest) than how is he to answer these charges? The answer is obvious, he won't be able to. I can understand how this Wall Street Journal Editorialist would enjoy that, but I'm not sure it's the best strategy for Kerry to follow.

I mean lets take this argument to it's logical conclusion. Liberals are well known for complaining about the negative influence of money in governing. So why is Kerry spending any money at all running his campaign. Doesn't that make him a hypocrite? He should just spend as little as possible if he's going to be true to what conservatives think liberal ideals are.

On the other hand, maybe I'd best not give them any ideas.

I Told You!

I have always suggested that I was a Centrist Democrat. Others have suggested I was a liberal zombie or a secret freeper. But now I have scientific Proof. According to this test, I am a 32 on Non-Fiscal Issues (with 1 being completely liberal and 100 being completely conservative) and a 24 on Fiscal Issues.

So take the test yourself and see where you stand. You may be pleasently surprised. Or not. What do I know?

Infallibility

In the grand scheme of things this may be a small story, but let's look it over anyway.

Daily Kos reported that Bush fell at the end of a 17 Mile bike ride. One of Bush's flacks commented. "It's been raining a lot and the topsoil is loose. You know this president. He likes to go all-out. Suffice it to say he wasn't whistling show tunes."

I'm not sure why I should care whether or not the President was whistling show tunes, but let that go. The main point is that it was raining a lot. Except, as the Daily Kos's research shows, it really wasn't.

A couple of months ago, Future President Kerry was skiing in aspen and he took a tumble. He cussed out the secret service agent who, apparently, knocked him over, and the whole incident was, according to right wing columnists, an insight into his character. Among other things it showed that he was an elitist (because he played expensive sports like skiing instead of throwing the football around) and ungrateful (because his secret service agent is sworn to take a bullet for him).

So you have to ask yourself, what does this experience teach us about President Bush's character. President Bush, or one of his handlers, chooses to lie about falling down, particularly this sort of lie that is relatively easy to investigate. Why not just admit error, instead of trying to make this tumble about the strength of his character?

Sunday, May 23, 2004

These Heavy Notions Creep Around

I had the most number of hits in a single day on Friday, and also more hits than normal over the weekend. Things are really lifting off here at "Make me a Commentator!!!"

Don't think I don't know why that is. My new policy of putting up photoshopped pictures of lamps is drawing you like flies to the honey. Not that I intend to insinuate that there is anything fly-like about my readers. No, I've always thought of you as some of those rare Amazonion beatles--the kinds with really intricate shells.

Anyway, here's another picture of a lamp.

New Quote

There's a new quote up at the top, and of course a new Quotes Page. And in honor of this weeks quote, here's a picture of a lamp.



You might also swing over and check out this post at Respectful of Otters. Paints a bit of a scary picture.

Saturday, May 22, 2004

Gravity Flows on the Power Lines

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

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

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

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

Which brings us to Rush Limbaugh yesterday.

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

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

But the Limbaugh Conservative admits no possibility of error.

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

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

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

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

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

Look into the Stars

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

Friday, May 21, 2004

Trying to Look Like You Don't Try

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



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

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

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

It's only going to get worse

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

A selection;

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

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

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

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

Around the Horn

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Collective Sigh suggests another parallel between Iraq and Vietnam.

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

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

Lamp Picture Number 9

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