Confusion Beats

I just noticed this in the comments section of my post on Tom Delay, and felt it required a more prominent place on my board.

YOU ARE WARNED

The following rule WILL BE enforced on this blog as is required of all DUers.

Troops Support will be faked.

We know you are a terrorist sympathizer, but you WILL NOT post such on this board.

Failure to obey this rule will result in dire consequences.

We required the same at DU and enforcement of this rule is now in effect at DU.
DU Link 1
DU Link 2
DU Link 3

You will see derSkinner has chosen to adopt this enforcement rather than face our wrath.

This will be your only warning.

Here's my dilemma; this mandates that I fake support for the troops. But I actually do support the troops. How can you fake something you actually have? Is that logically possible? Epistemologically possible?

I mean how can you pretend to believe something you actually believe?

For those who don't know I strongly support our troops. I have a brother who served in the Marines and a father who served in the Air Force. I have friends who will probably be in Afghanistan next year. If anything my respect and admiration for our troops is one thing that prompts me to be very critical of how President Bush has used them.

It goes without saying but I have no fear of the wrath the DU Wolverines, incidentally. It should be clear to all that they are bunch of losers with delusions of masculinity.

Red State, Blue State

Here's an interesting statistic; the state with the fewest divorces? Massachusetts. Which is interesting when you set it against some of the claims made on behalf of the red states (many of which have divorce rates well over the national average) by pandering politicians and pundits.

Now that's some nice alliteration.

But it's not as meaningful as it looks; sure things aren't as wonderful in the red states as some would like to pretend, but that doesn't mean that the only answer is that people in Massachusetts are more moral than people in, say, Texas. There are any number of other explanations possible.

The Hammer

This is a story I haven't spent a lot of time on, but it's worth being aware of. Tom Delay, the House majority leader, is being investigated for campaign finance violations in the 2002 election (the election which, if you will recall, gave him the power to redistrict the state to ensure a conservative majority). House rules require him to set aside his leadership status for the duration of the investigation. So naturally Senate Republicans are rewriting the rules to allow Delay to stay in power.

My favorite quote by Tom Delay was when he said, "Emotional appeals about working families trying to get by on $4.25 an hour are hard to resist. Fortunately, such families do not exist."

For the record, they do exist.

Anyway E. J. Dionne, Jr. writes on this issue today, and makes a telling comment.

Recall how Republicans dismissed any and all who charged that the investigations of President Bill Clinton by special prosecutor Ken Starr were politically motivated. Ah, but those were investigations of a shady Democrat by a distinguished Republican. When a Democrat is investigating a Republican, it can only be about politics. Is that clear?

We'll have to see how far this goes. I'm a little surprised that some other ambitious republican isn't suggesting they keep to the rules. I mean if Delay has to step down there's going to be an opening, isn't there? I guess it's a tribute to the Republican spirit of unity.

Interesting

43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

St. Matthew 5:43-44

It defies reason and upends morality to claim that God loves both Saddam Hussein and the innocent Kurds he gassed to death -- that He bestows His love on Osama bin Laden no less than on the 3,000 souls he butchered on 9/11. Of course we should pray that an evildoer will realize the awfulness of his ways and atone for his crimes. But to love him even if he doesn't? To bless him when he dies? God forbid! To bless the Hitlers and the Arafats of this world is to betray their victims. That we must never do.

Jeff Jacoby, When Hatred is Necessary

Interesting contrast.

Now in all fairness, Mr. Jacoby is not a Christian and can hardly be expected to see the world in that light. And he does make it clear that he understands Christian belief, but this passage seems to attack a central belief of Christianity as unreasonably and immoral.

New Quote, New Format!

And here you go. New Quotes page as well. Enjoy!

This Thing of Ours

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

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

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

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

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

Madness

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

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

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

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

Round The Horn and the Law of Averages

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

Anyway let's get right to it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conservative Triumphalism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I Condemn Myself

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Comments Policy

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talkin' Gay Marriage Blues

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The FCC

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

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

That Lying David Limbaugh

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Man Who Has Everything

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Troubling Times

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

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

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

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

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

Back to the Old Format

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Find Myself a City to Live in

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Quote, New Format!

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

Music tip

Found this online radio station out of Switzerland. They play a pretty good mix and they tell you what they are playing, which is always a nice touch. Nothing worse than hearing a cool song and not knowing who performed it. It's acid lounge. The way they describe it is "ENJOY THIS LIGHT SUMMER-PLATE CONSISTING OF FRESH BEATS OF NUJAZZ - DIPPED INTO THE WARMTH OF BRAZIL ELECTRO AND FINALLY SERVED WITH A BREATH OF AMBIENT." So check it out, if you want to.

Identity Politics

I've been thinking about identity politics. It's an inelegant term, but one that does contain some meaning (which puts it one up on many other political cliches). If I understand correctly it applies to how who we are plays in the political sphere. It's why starting an African-American studies program in a local college is a political issue. It's also how being both an church-going member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (the Mormons) and being a moderate liberal Democrat creates a certain amount of conflict.

For those who don't know, Mormons tend to be conservative and Republican. Utah and Idaho, our two states with the highest percentage of Mormon Population, went overwhelmingly for President Bush in the last election. And of course the perception of liberal Democrats is that we aren't religious.

So there is a perceived conflict in my life. And there are dozens of conservative pundits who want to widen this perceived gap for political gain. The President and Karl Rove have also played off this gap as well. Conservatives would love it if we would all just accept that being a liberal Democrat automatically divorces one his or her religious beliefs.

To be fair there are Democrats who do the same thing from the other side (To be a real liberal you can't be a believer), but they are far fewer in number and are not taken nearly as seriously.

This "divorce" makes me furious, on a number of levels. Suffice to say that I am both a liberal Democrat and a church-going Mormon and I see no great conflict between the two. And anybody who wants to suggest such a conflict should exist or does exist can kiss an unpleasant part of my anatomy. I haven't decided which one yet--possibly my elbow, I rarely wash it as well as I should.

Round the Horn Part M, In Which We Learn that the Martian Invaders are just a Metaphor and therefore Doubly Dangerous

And here we go.

And Then . . . has a piece on the type of candidate we apparently need to run next time to even have a chance of winning.

blogAmy had a treatise on intellectual diversity. The common Republican wisdom is that our diversity makes us weak; that may not necessarily be the case.

Chris "Lefty" Brown has a think-piece on the term Christian and whether it applies to him.

Collective Sigh has an account of grand-fatherly service in remembrance of Veteran's Day.

Mercury X23 has some extremely big news, for which we congratulate him profusely.

Rooks Rant has some thoughts on redoing the electoral college.

Steve Gilliard's News Blog has an article on who Bush is pushing for the new head of the RNC and his sexual orientation (or lack thereof). I'm not sure I buy the argument, but it's worth considering.

Words on a Page has a section on how we can get past this election and cheer up.

Yellow Doggeral Democrat has a discussion of the current round of "Fuck the South" posts going around.

Scrutiny Hooligans takes stock of the landscape in the wake of President Bush's reelection and the nominee of Alberto Gonzelez to the Attorney General.

And that's it for this week. Come back later when I may or may not post.

Holy Thursday

Two poems by William Blake

The first from Songs of innocence.

Holy Thursday

'Twas on a Holy Thursday, their innocent faces clean,
The children walking two and two, in red and blue and green,
Grey-headed beadles walk'd before, with wands as white as snow,
Till into the high dome of Paul's they like Thames' waters flow.

O what a multitude they seem'd, these flowers of London town!
Seated in companies they sit with radiance all their own.
The hum of multitudes was there, but multitudes of lambs,
Thousands of little boys and girls raising their innocent hands.

Now like a mighty wind they raise to heaven the voice of song,
Or like harmonious thunderings the seats of Heaven among.
Beneath them sit the aged men, wise guardians of the poor;
Then cherish pity, lest you drive an angel from your door.

The Second from Songs of Experience.

Holy Thursday

Is this a holy thing to see
In a rich and fruitful land, -
Babes reduced to misery,
Fed with cold and usurous hand?

Is that trembling cry a song?
Can it be a song of joy?
And so many children poor?
It is a land of poverty!

And their sun does never shine,
And their fields are bleak and bare,
And their ways are filled with thorns,
It is eternal winter there.

For where'er the sun does shine,
And where'er the rain does fall,
Babe can never hunger there,
Nor poverty the mind appal.

Low Posting

Haven't posted much today. So I thought I'd post a post on how I wasn't posting very many posts. Pretty interesting, eh?

The President has got a Mandate

Remember how I said that it didn't matter if the President had an electoral mandate or not? Well it turns out he did get an electoral mandate. The "liberal" media, in their helpful way, have declared that Bush did get a mandate from the election. Unfortunately this declaration isn't as open and shut as one might wish.

USA Today headlined a Nov. 4 story "Clear Mandate Will Boost Bush's Authority, Reach," which said that Bush "will begin his second term with a clearer and more commanding mandate than he held for the first." (The first being when he lost the popular vote to Al Gore.) The Boston Globe asserted that Bush's victory grants him "a clear mandate to advance a conservative agenda over the next four years," while MSNBC's Chris Matthews insisted, "To me the big story is the president's mandate. The president has a mandate."

But as Al Hunt noted in the Wall Street Journal, Bush's victory was "the narrowest win for a sitting president since Woodrow Wilson in 1916." (Presidential reelections in recent decades have all come with comfortable margins of victory attached.) In fact, Bush's final margin was almost identical to Jimmy Carter's win over Gerald Ford in 1976, when there was very little discussion of a mandate for the Democrat. And it's hard to imagine that if Kerry had bested Bush 51 percent to 48 percent and collected just 15 more electoral votes than needed to win, the press would be so liberal with talk of a mandate.

Hmmmm. Seems like sometimes the "liberal" media plays on the other side. Who would have thought it?

From the Bright Ideas File

Got this from Democratic Underground although I understand both Atrios and Daily Kos have it as well.

The truth is, America is not just broken--it is becoming irreparable. . . .

That is why the unthinkable must become thinkable. If the so-called "Red States" (those that voted for George W. Bush) cannot be respected or at least tolerated by the "Blue States" (those that voted for Al Gore and John Kerry), then the most disparate of them must live apart--not by secession of the former (a majority), but by expulsion of the latter. Here is how to do it.

Having been amended only 17 times since 10 vital amendments (the Bill of Rights) were added at the republic's inception, the U.S. Constitution is not easily changed, primarily because so many states (75%, now 38 of 50) must agree. Yet, there are 38 states today that may be inclined to adopt, let us call it, a "Declaration of Expulsion," that is, a specific constitutional amendment to kick out the systemically troublesome states and those trending rapidly toward anti-American, if not outright subversive, behavior. The 12 states that must go: California, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Maryland, and Delaware. Only the remaining 38 states would retain the name, "United States of America." The 12 expelled mobs could call themselves the "Dirty Dozen," or individually keep their identity and go their separate ways, probably straight to Hell.

A little Red State Triumphalism?

The sad truth there is a significant part of the Conservative movement that would like something along these lines. Some way of getting rid of liberals forever. I don't know why this is a desirable thing.

The Real America

What is the real America? What makes a real American? What do you get when you cross an elephant with a rhinoceros?

Which brings us to a quote from my favorite political website (except of course all the wonderful Liberal Coalition sites), the Daily Howler.

We think people are basically the same in all fifty states, and we think those states are all red white and blue. We find it amazing that Dem politicians-Barack Obama excepted-don't know enough to say so. We think Massachusetts is a great state-and we think Alabama is a great state too. We think the president's endless, sneering attacks on Massachusetts were a sign of his low, inept character. And we think those attacks played hard on foolish voter prejudice-voter prejudice that ought to be challenged. And oh yeah-we think the president shows his "contempt" for red-state voters when he panders to them in this way.

He also covers the not so-surprising fact that the blue states are generally the net losers in the budget games. In other words, if you take those states and work out the ratio of dollars contributed in taxes to dollars received within the state--well, a lot of red states are getting more than they are giving and a lot of blue states are giving more than they are getting. Don't know exactly what that means.

Anarchy Now! (please)

I really am having a hard time finding anything to write on this morning. I've been looking I assure you. But nothing sparks my interest.

Listening to old time radio shows more lately. Particularly the Goon Show out of the UK and Broadway is my Beat, the most lyrical cop show ever.

Broadway is my Beat starred Detective Danny Clover, who solved crimes with the help of Sergeant Muggavan (the serious one) and Sergeant Gino Tartaglia (the ethnic comedy relief, in this case, Italian comedy relief). Poor Detective Clover lives in a relentlessly dark and oppressive world, but he also has the soul of a poet. The episodes were filled with impressively poetic monologues, which sound even more poetic coming out of Larry Thor. Here's one show opener.

In the sunlight of an October morning, Broadway stands on its street corner and breaths deep of the autumn filtered air, presses out of its lungs the taste of the night past. This is the time of the day when neon is silent, spectaculars doze. The shadows have not yet found their final shapes, and the pavement is flecked with glints of sun fragments. Doorways are opened on the October day and the night dreams are swept into the gutters. It's the time of the coffee and cakes, and break from the starting gate. And the odds? Even up, you never come in.

And where I was the sunlight filtered through Italian damask, swiftly caressed Grecian fragments; a torso in black marble, a head in stone, clocked with antiquity. A glass case with golden coins, hermetically sealed against corrosions and desire. And impervious to it all, the man who leans fastidiously against a Grecian column, then lifted his glass of champagne, silently toasted the bust of Plato. Then let the realization flow over him that a policeman was there, among his treasures.

A very interesting radio program. You can listen to one episode here.

Anyway hopefully I'll get more inspired later.

Amazon Reader Reviews by Idiots

My favorite idiotic review was to the wonderful Nuggets Compilation. For those who don't know, the Nuggets albums contained a bunch of proto punk, garage rock and psychedelic one-hit wonders of the late 60s. Bands like the Chocolate Watch Band, the Strawberry Alarm Clock, the Electric Prunes and so on and so forth. Anyway read this brain-dead review.

it said on the box that it was original punk rock...this is not punk it sounds like stuff my dad like. i know alot about punk and it wasn't in the 60's... it happened a few years ago when green day came out don't be fooled if you want to here real good punk, by the new blink 182 take off your pants and jacket cd or the mark tom and travis show cd by blink it really good and much better than this...

That's hard to top, and today's idiotic review doesn't top it. Sorry to get your hopes up. But it is pretty stupid. It's in a review of the latest John Lennon release (well one of them) of acoustic songs.

This CD is horrible. I'm not a Lennon or Beatles fan mind you so maybe I'm biased, but I had to listen to this tripe in the car the other day and it was the worst thing I've ever heard. I don't understand why people don't just move on. Music has a time and a period in which it should be listened to. John Lennon died over 20 years ago, meaning his music expired well over 20 years ago as well. This music was lame then, and it's lamer (not sure if that's a word, but you get the point) now. Please do not continue to purchase the albums of long dead idiots. Buy something new, because 20 years from now what you just bought will be old and washed up, and you don't want to have some album of songs by some dead guy recorded 40 years ago taking up space in your precious home.

How many of you are making a list of dead guys that made brilliant music? Bob Marley. Miles Davis. Janis Joplin (not technically a guy, but dead, and brilliant). Beethoven. Jimi Hendrix. Kurt Corbain. George Gershwin. Louis Armstrong. Jim Morrison, Billie Holiday. Ian Curtis. Lots of others I'm not thinking of.

And John Lennon was never lame. And to prove it here are the lyrics to Working Class Hero.

Working Class Hero

As soon as you're born they make you feel small
By giving you no time instead of it all
Till the pain is so big you feel nothing at all
A working class hero is something to be
A working class hero is something to be

They hurt you at home and they hit you at school
They hate you if you're clever and they despise a fool
Till you're so fucking crazy you can't follow their rules
A working class hero is something to be
A working class hero is something to be

When they've tortured and scared you for twenty odd years
Then they expect you to pick a career
When you can't really function you're so full of fear
A working class hero is something to be
A working class hero is something to be

Keep you doped with religion and sex and tv
And you think you're so clever and classless and free
But you're still fucking peasants as far as I can see
A working class hero is something to be
A working class hero is something to be

There's room at the top they are telling you still
But first you must learn how to smile as you kill
If you want to be like the folks on the hill
A working class hero is something to be
A working class hero is something to be

If you want to be a hero well just follow me
If you want to be a hero well just follow me

Hillary in 2008?

Josh Marshall takes on this question over at Talking Points Memo and he comes to the same conclusion that I have, namely that it would be a bad idea. He brings up the dynasty problem (we really don't need to have all our presidents coming from a few families), and also suggests that Hillary will be a polarizing figure (true). But he also makes a statement I have to admit I disagree with.

Let's be honest, Hillary Clinton is a deeply divisive figure. And if there's one thing Democrats have learned in this and the previous election it is the danger of going into a national election with a candidate who cannot even get a real hearing over a large swath of the country.

The problem with this statement is that it discounts the ability of the Rush Limbaughs and the Ann Coulters to tar any prominent democrat. How long is it going to take, for example, for Barak Obama, one of the most exciting Democrats to come along, to be portrayed as five kinds of evil by the Republican Party? Every potential candidate from Dennis Kucinich to Joe Leiberman has a past that will be exploited by Karl Rove or his surrogates.

I do agree that Hillary's past has calcified to the point that it would be a lot easier for them to do it to her.

Having a Stake

Last week I posted a post on Rush Limbaugh talking about the wisdom of the founding fathers in making sure only property owners could vote because only property owners had a stake in the system.

Well that argument piqued Random Goblin's ire, so much that he posted a comment and then e-mailed me his comments as well. The thing is, he makes some good points, so I am going to give them a more prominent position.

I've been thinking about what Rush Limbaugh said (you printed it on your website) for a couple of days, and it's really been ticking me off. Here's why:

He says that only property owners have a stake in the system, and that poor folks don't, so they shouldn't be able to vote. Basically, right?

But poor people live their lives in the system and directly affected by the system. They have children who will grow up shaped by the system.

Yet, this does not qualify as "a stake."

Essentially, what Rush is saying is that property and wealth are more valuable and important than human lives and children's futures.

And you're going to have a hard time finding something that's going to piss me off more than that.

This is hard to dispute, and it is very annoying to me as well.

Of course on another note, the "system" always disproportionately helps the poor and the working class. Frankly that's what it supposed to do, protect those who can't protect themselves. This shouldn't come as any great surprise, but the wealthy can protect themselves pretty well. It's the poor and working class and middle class who need a system to protect them. Anyway, well worth considering.

New Format, New Quote, New Blog Title

And yes after many suggestions we narrowed it down to two new blog titles. One was my personal favorite "Stupid Enough Unexplanation." The other was suggested by Random Goblin, "Legal Daisy Spacing." So in the interest of fair play and also so I can save the other title for future ventures, for this week and this week only we will be known as "Legal Daisy Spacing." Those who link to this blog, there is little need to change your link, as I will be going back to Make me a Commentator in exactly 7 days time.

Oh and in all the hullabaloo we also have a new quote and a new Quotes Page.

Don't Take Your Guns to Town

A lot of people are complaining about how the President doesn't really have a mandate for enormous change. Pandagon has a chart that presents how much of the country is 100% behind the President (which is 51% of the voters). When you add in the apparent furor about abortion and Gay marriage that probably helped Bush to many of those votes, well, the idea that he has a broad mandate in the traditional sense seems a little laughable.

The problem is that President Bush doesn't need a broad mandate, in the traditional sense, to push through his extremist positions. He thinks what he is doing the right thing. In a sense he has his mandate from God, and frankly what are 55,949,348 Americans compared to God? Particularly when we are clearly both morally and intellectually wrong (as he and his followers believe). So I wouldn't necessarily expect President Bush to moderate his plans in the slightest based on a tight electoral victory.

On the other hands the New York Times also has a story on how President Bush may face certain Congressional roadblocks to doing everything he wants to do.

The president declared that he had "earned capital in the campaign, political capital," which he would spend on an agenda that includes overhauling Social Security and the tax code. Republican leaders seemed determined to carry it out.

But in the convoluted political atmosphere of the Capitol, where every lawmaker must worry about something that no longer concerns the president - re-election - it may not be so easy for the Republicans to steamroller the Democrats.

Anyway no reason to despair just yet, although I can certainly understand a certain amount of weeping and wailing.

Another H. L. Mencken Quote

Mencken writes on the reason for remaining a "faithful citizen of the Federation."

It is the reason which grows out of my mediaeval but unashamed taste for the bizarre and indelicate, my congenital weakness for comedy of the grosser varieties. The United States, to my eye, is incomparably the greatest show on earth. It is a show which avoids diligently all the kinds of clowning which tire me most quickly - for example, royal ceremonials, the tedious hocus-pocus of haut politique, the taking of politics seriously - and lays chief stress upon the kinds which delight me unceasingly - for example, the ribald combats of demagogues, the exquisitely ingenious operations of master rogues, the pursuit of witches and heretics, the desperate struggles of inferior men to claw their way into Heaven. We have clowns in constant practice among us who are as far above the clowns of any other great state as a Jack Dempsey is above a paralytic - and not a few dozen or score of them, but whole droves and herds.

For those who don't know Jack Dempsey was a very successful boxer of the time.

I must say Mencken is a man after my own heart. I don't know what he's going to do with it once he gets it, but there it is.

Round the Horn. Life is just a bitter tune with sad refrains.

Here we go. Oh the line is from a song by Bossa Nostra called "Jackie."

Iddybud has some comments on whether or not we should give President Bush his honey moon by dropping our opposition to him and his presidency out of a sense of graciousness.

Speedkill has a bit on the ever gracious Alan Keyes. I have to say, his reaction probably mirrors what the rest of the Republicans would have said, had it gone the other way.

The Gotham City 13 has a post on how we need a party that is proud of being liberal. It also doubles as his farewell post, so we'll say goodbye and a heartfelt good luck.

The Invisible Library has a somewhat discouraging but potentially accurate post on what the next four years might bring, and a dissection of the "ownership society."

Trish Wilson has a bit on what kind of blogger you might be. I am a pundit blogger apparently. Now I can sleep easier.

The Yellow Doggeral Democrat has a bit on how we need to let them know we liberals are here and we aren't going anywhere, keying off of this post at Bark Bark Woof Woof.

Anyway short today, but I have been linking around a lot this week so I don't feel that guilty.

Comics

For those of you who enjoy the X-Men Comics, you might enjoy reading the X-Axis Reviews. For those of you who think the X-Men Comics are pretty overrated and not all that good, you might enjoy reading the X-Axis Reviews. Here's a sample paragraph that I found particularly interesting in a review of Wolverine #150 from a couple of years ago.

The Wolverine-in-Japan story has now been done so often that it almost counts as a sub-genre. Traditionally, it involves squabbling martial artists, people trying to kill Wolverine, "ninjas" who don't appear to remember any of the basic principles of assassination, and at least five ludicrous plot developments explained away by reference to Japanese concepts of honour. ("For the honour of my family, I must pour a bucket of custard over my head and dance an Irish jig. You would not understand, gaijin." "Oh, well if it's your CULTURE, I'll accept that in lieu of actual characterisation or plot. Fair enough.")

Be sure also to check out the indexes which are quite well down, and in the Silver Age section, very funny as well.

Considerations

From the Tao te Ching.

28. RETAINING INTEGRITY
Whilst developing creativity,
also cultivate receptivity.
Retain the mind like that of a child,
which flows like running water.
When considering any thing,
do not lose its opposite.
When thinking of the finite,
do not forget infinity;
Act with honour, but retain humility.
By acting according to the way of the Tao,
set others an example.
By retaining the integrity
of the inner and external worlds,
true selfhood is maintained,
and the inner world made fertile.

An idea. An ideal?

Talking W Blues

I hinted at some big changes in previous posts. Well, I've decided long term this site will remain Make Me a Commentator!!! And we will continue to focus our laser like focus on conservative rhetoric. It's proven such a fertile field of study, and I don't get the impression that having won an election, conservative pundits (like Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh) are going to get any smarter.

On the other hand, reading their articles over the next week or so is really going to make me full of anger. I mean more full of anger than normal. So I'm not going to do that. If you want to read gloating Republicans there's the Townhall link over there on the right. Just interject me saying "What a moron" every few sentences and it will be just like the real thing.

So I'm going to focus elsewhere, for at least a week and a half. Next week will be a special edition of this website with a very special name for one week. So far the top contender is "Stupid-Enough Unexplanation," if you would like to join in the fun, post your suggestion for a name for this blog in the comments section below. One lucky winner will get the privilege of having the blog named after his or her suggestion for a week. And who knows, the winner could be me!

I mean you. You could name the blog. Not me.

And Sunday the 14th we will resume our regular programming format.

Lesson's Learned

Well one thing we've learned from this election is that Republicans are masters of the sleazy attacks. I mean we've all known it, but this election demonstrated it even more. And they will pick up on the slightest character flaw in order to twist it all out of proportion to bring a Democrat down. Any Democrat with any flaw or even anything that could be considered a flaw is really unlikely to be a good candidate.

So what we need is a candidate who has no background for the Republicans to trash.

And hey, everybody likes kittens don't they? I mean they are so cute and adorable.

Think about it.

Pep Talks

If you are liberal and you need a good pep talk, I suggest you go visit Echidne of the Snakes; she's got a corker of a pep talk. By the way I'm assuming corker is a positive term (that's the risk of using a slang term that fell out of favor some 30 years before you were born).

If you are conservative and you need a good pep talk, I'm afraid I don't understand. But I will leave you with these words of wisdoms. Liberals aren't going anywhere. I know you fantasize about an America where all the liberals have been scoured from the earth (and wherever else they happened to be), but it's just not happening. You can spread all the lies and demonize us all you want. We aren't going anywhere, and this campaign was just the beginning.

If you have any comments by the way, please feel free to leave them.

A Propos of Nothing

I sure am doing a good job of taking a few days off aren't I?

Anyway for no particular reason, here are the lyrics to Compared to What? Lyrics written by Gene McDaniels. The song has been performed well by Roberta Flack and David Holmes.

Compared to What?

I love to lie and lie to love
I`m hangin` on they push and shove
Possession is the motivation
That is hangin` up the goddamn nation
Looks like we always end up in a rut
Everybody now
Tryin` to make it real compared to what

Slaughterhouse is killin` hogs
Twisted children killin` frogs
Poor dumb rednecks rollin` logs
Tired old ladies kissin` dogs
I hate the human love of that stinking mutt
I can`t use it
Tryin` to make it real compared to what

President he`s got his war
Folks don`t know just what it`s for
Nobody gives us rhyme or reason
Have one doubt they call it treason
We`re chicken feathers
All without one nut goddamn it
Tryin` to make it real compared to what

Church on Sunday sleep and nod
Tryin` to duck the wrath of God
Preachers fillin` us with fright
They all tryin` to teach us what they think is right
They really got to be some kind of nut
I can`t use it
Tryin` to make it real compared to what

Where`s that bee and where`s that honey
Where`s my God and where`s my money
Unreal values a crass distortion
Unwed mothers need abortion
Kind of brings to mind old young King Tut
He did it now
Tried to make it real compared to what

Tryin` to make it real compared to what

Pogo

I did promise a pogo cartoon and an elephant never remembers.



Talk to you eventually.

Well 2

Read these words over at This Modern World, which are strangely hopeful. "Well, never forget the numbers. Never forget that if we who voted for sanity are in the minority, it is only by the barest margin. Do not let them turn a squeaker of a win into the myth of a landslide."

Or, to quote a song title from the Police, "When the world is running down, you make the best of what's still around."

Well

We'll see what happens, but it looks like President Bush gets another four years. Considering how well he did with his first four years, well, all I have to say is I hope your happy, America. I hope you don't suffer any buyer's remorse.

I probably won't be around for a couple of days. The only articles people are going to put out are gloating ones, which aren't going to be fun to read.

It's a mad mad mad mad mad mad mad Dan Rather

Apparently Dan Rather, channeling the same interesting mind he did last election, said earlier, "We may need Billy Crystal to analyze this before it's over."

Yep, that's just what this election needs. More Billy Crystal.

Thanks to the War Room over at Salon.

For those obsessive like me

Here's a website you can watch to see how the election is going. It's the New York Times.

Rush Limbaugh's Conflicted

He can't decide if he hates the idea of American's voting or if he really hates the idea of American's voting.

After talking about how much he hates the idea of idiots voting (meaning, of course, Democrats), he talks about the wisdom of the founding fathers in making sure that only White male property owners could vote, because you see, they had a stake in the system. Poor people don't have a stake in the system, so they shouldn't vote. But he does clarify himself.

No, I'm suggesting we go back. We can't. We never would. I'm not suggesting. I'm just saying that the theory behind it made sense in that they didn't want people voting who were clueless! They didn't care what people didn't know anything thought. Why should we? Why do you think I screen phone calls? I'm not going to sit here and waste valuable program time talking to dunces that have no clue what we're talking about. "But, Rush, they have a right!" They have no right whatsoever! This is a benevolent dictatorship. "But they have a First Amendment right." No, the First Amendment says you have a right to speak but nobody gets a right to be heard.

So now I'm confused--is gold old Rush suggesting that we run our elections the way he runs his talk show? With, say, vote screeners determining who can and can't vote? Hmmmmmmm.

But of course the conflict isn't in Rush. He knows what he wants (and restricting the franchise to white male property owners isn't far from it). He just doesn't want to admit that because it will, let's face it, make him look like a jerk. Well, more of a jerk.

Looking around too

Still looking around.

Pen Elayne on the Web also voted, and put up a cool picture as well. Democracy is a beautiful thing.

Kick the Leftist has some troubling news out of Volusia County, but at least they caught this. I guess.

archy has a heartwarming and somewhat laugh inducing story.

The Fulcrum has a bit on delusional reism. I don't know what that is, but I like the sound of it.

rubber hose has some info on being on the road as an electoral lawyer.

bloggg voted as well, and tells us of the experience.

Anyway that's all for now--be back later with some more analysis and a Pogo Cartoon.

Looking around

Let's see what the members of the Liberal Coalition are saying.

Musing's Musing has been to the local voting place, and has some observations.

Sooner Thought has some thoughts on whether it's worth it to vote or not.

The members of Corrente have also been to vote, Tom and Lambert anyway and possibly otherse I missed.

Respectful of Otters follows the bizarre policy of applying logic to accusations of voter fraud.

That's it for just now. Have to run to a meeting, but will be back later, I hope.

Voting is the new voting

Molly Ivins has some typically accurate words for those who are considering voting.

Politics is not about those people in Washington or those people at the state capitol. Politics is about us -- you, me and the guy next to us. We run this country, we own this country, and we have a responsibility to hire the right people to drive our bus for a while.

. . . Politics is not a picture on a wall or a television program you can decide you just don't care for. Our entire lives are set into and written by the warp and woof of politics. Political decisions affect your life every day in thousands of way -- whether the food you eat is safe, what books your children read in school, how deep you will be buried when you die, if the lady who dyes your hair is competent, how safe your money is in stocks or banks, whether you have a job, whether your kid has to go fight in a war, who is qualified to prescribe your eyeglasses -- that's all politics.

Pretty damn inspiring, in my opinion.

The Buck Stops Somewhere South of Mexico

A Sorta Fairytale.



Suzanne Fields, who I picked on in the last post, deserves a second round for this later section of her article.

The Truman-Dewey comparison has its limits, but George W., like Harry Truman, acts as if he understands "the buck stops here." That understanding has shaped his foreign policy and, like Harry Truman, he stands stubbornly by his decisions as the nation faces a new and deadly menace.

Yep we all remember the dozens of times President Bush has acknowledged his responsibility for errors or problems in his presidency. We all remember this buck stopping statement. "I don't want to sound like I've made no mistakes. I'm confident I have. I just haven't -- you just put me under the spot here, and maybe I'm not as quick on my feet as I should be in coming up with one."

If there is anything President Bush has been good at it, it's admitting his mistakes and taking responsibility for his errors. Or so all the denizens of the fantasyland Ms. fields lives in believe.

If You Have to Ask

Suzanne Fields latest contains this well repeated mantra. "Beyond the frothing-at-the-mouth Bush haters, voters generally find this president to be a likeable guy and John Kerry to be a cold fish. It's possible that personality will determine the winner this time, too."

How nice. Beyond all the boring issues and dull statistics, the President is the one most Americans would like to hang out with. How comforting. And of course that half of the nation that will vote for John Kerry? Please clean the spittle from your mouths. After all, President Bush is more likeable, so why shouldn't he be President?

Banal banal banal banal banal banal.

I just can't say it enough. Is it really that hard to look at the issues, my fellow countrymen? And what does it say about Ms. Fields that this is what she is pushing?

In other news Scrutiny Hooligans, recent joinee of the Liberal Coalition, has this very inspiring post.

This is not a post.

Ann Coulter with Geraldo Riveria as captured by Media Matters for America who is particularly hot today and who I'm stealing from left and right.

RIVERA (host): Are you, Ann Coulter, energized by the energy of the electorate? I mean, there are all these kids registering, all these other people registering.

COULTER: I don't really care about the electorate, but I have two points I want to respond to. One is on the first debate --

RIVERA: You don't really care about the electorate? Oh, okay.

Thank goodness the Conservative Movement is represented by serious people like Ann Coulter.

In Light Syrup

Continuing "The Most Absurdist Coverage of the Election on the Internet" (TM, All Rights Reserved), we have this late breaking news. The color Yellow has begun to distance itself from President Bush, saying, "I maybe met with President Bush one or two times in the course of business, but we were hardly close. And anyway President Bush often leant support to my opponent, Burnt Umber."

Meanwhile Krugman wrote a column about the glory of America.

I always get a little choked up when I go to the local school to cast my vote. The humbleness of the surroundings only emphasizes the majesty of the process: this is democracy, America's great gift to the world, in action.

But over the last few days I've been seeing pictures from Florida that are even more majestic. They show long lines of voters, snaking through buildings and on down the sidewalk: citizens patiently waiting to do their civic duty. Those people still believe in American democracy; and because they do, so do I.

You know sometimes it's hard to believe that the Democrats are the party of people who hate America. But then you read the calm wisdom of David Horowitz. "John Kerry, Michael Moore, the New York Times and CNN are getting Americans killed in Iraq and risking a terrorist catastrophe here at home, because of their pathological hatred of George Bush." Mr. Horowitz doesn't really explain how we are getting Americans killed, but I suppose you just have be on Mr. Horowitz's wavelength for it to all make sense.

Oh and we have this response from Wheat (the color not the grain), spokesman for the Burnt Umber Camp. In his words, "The Suns not Yellow it's Chicken!" So there you go.

Hey Kids Rock and Roll

Yesterday old Bill O'Reilly got an interesting call, as reported by Media Matters for America.

CALLER: I'm calling today because I think it's fair to say that a large amount of the youth that are involved in this election now, this time around. And I just think that the majority of them are voting Kerry. Is that crazy?

O'REILLY: Yeah, I think the stoned slackers'll go for Kerry. I think he'll carry that vote. ... The stoned-slacker vote. Ummm -- but I don't know if they're gonna go. You know, look, Puff Daddy [Combs] and his crew -- they're running around, "Vote or Die!" and all that. Yeah, it's good publicity to get on TV. Are they gonna get out? Are they gonna leave the bong and stand in line for an hour? I don't know.

So if you are considering voting and you are under, say 23, Bill O'Reilly thinks you are probably too stoned to vote. Are you going to take that? And of course its nice that people under 23 are all stoned slackers. Why I know literally dozens in that category who aren't stoned slackers. Maybe Mr. O'Reilly needs to get out and meet some more people.

The Hottest Election Coverage on the Net!

will be found elsewhere, but I thought that would be a good title for this post.

First of all, if you haven't voted yet, go do so, although they are predicting very long lines at the polls (see for example, this article at Salon). I'd advise you to vote early.

It's amazing that in the last week of the campaign the best news for the Bush campaign is that a guy President Bush wanted Dead or Alive, showed up. That let the Republicans pretend that Osama bin Ladin endorsed John Kerry. Nice

Presumably they'd rather we didn't consider why he was free to make such an appearance.

David Limbaugh, Republican Hack pushes every cockeyed story in his bag of tricks today, in order to take the Media to task for not printing every lie he told as the Gospel Truth. If we had the kind of media Republicans want, it would sound a lot like his brother.

Incidently for those of you wondering what a hack is, my definition it's a person who's desire to pursue an agenda supersedes his honesty. Both Limbaugh brothers are filthy liars in the service of Conservatism.

Speaking of Rush Limbaugh, he had a special guest yesterday. Good old Jeb Bush showed up to drop some pearls of wisdom on Rush Limbaugh. Such as this one on Jeb's brother, "I would be kind of stressed out, I think, having gone through what he's gone through and just the abject hatred that exists. Blind hatred, not based on anything other than just hate against the president is troubling to me, but he's guided by his faith and he's determined and disciplined, and it doesn't seem to bother him."

Blind hatred not based on anything. Seems like I've covered this one before. At any rate, I can assure our beloved Governor that any negative feelings I have for President Bush stem from my observations of how he has managed our country and are not based on irrationality.

Anyway I suspect this will be the standard for posts today, wide ranging and rambling.

Fake news story

Speaking this week on a cable news program, Newt Gingrich unexpectedly said, "But I would prefer that I mean if it's a close -- if it's close and there's an opportunity to litigate, I would say to George W. Bush don't litigate. Let Kerry be the president." Surprising, isn't it? I mean it's hard to believe that any Republican would ever suggest under any circumstances that George W. Bush should let Senator Kerry be President.

Well not to fear, as noted above, this is a fake news story. The speaker wasn't the former Speaker, but in fact Democrat Bob Kerry, and he was suggesting to John Kerry to, more or less, just give up if the race gets too close. Kind of nice of us Democrats, isn't it?

From This Modern World.

An Unusual Endorsement

Thanks to one of our alert readers who pointed this out. The American Conservative Magazine has taken sides, and apparently believes that Senator John Kerry is the candidate for them. This despite saying, "If Kerry wins, this magazine will be in opposition from Inauguration Day forward."

But apparently President Bush has convinced them to support John Kerry.

Bush has behaved like a caricature of what a right-wing president is supposed to be, and his continuation in office will discredit any sort of conservatism for generations. The launching of an invasion against a country that posed no threat to the U.S., the doling out of war profits and concessions to politically favored corporations, the financing of the war by ballooning the deficit to be passed on to the nation’s children, the ceaseless drive to cut taxes for those outside the middle class and working poor: it is as if Bush sought to resurrect every false 1960s-era left-wing cliché about predatory imperialism and turn it into administration policy. Add to this his nation-breaking immigration proposal—Bush has laid out a mad scheme to import immigrants to fill any job where the wage is so low that an American can’t be found to do it—and you have a presidency that combines imperialist Right and open-borders Left in a uniquely noxious cocktail.

I guess it's something when you manage to turn even the American Conservative against you.

Shoes for Industry

This is an old line from the Fireside Theater, but I'm afraid this post is intended to be anything but funny. There is a traveling exhibit with the name Eyes Wide Open traveling the United States. It will be in Ohio tomorrow, but today it is here in my town.

The exhibit is extremely simple; they have a pair of army boots for each soldier killed this far in the war.



It says something about the character of the times when an exhibit like this, honoring those who gave their lives in the service of their country is something rebellious. Now, to be fair, this is a political exhibit, with a political goal. But the political side is kept, deliberately I suspect, very low key.



Of course this being an exhibit for peace, there is also a representation of the Iraqi dead, limited to a thousand pairs of shoes (although the actual number of Iraqi dead is likely to be much higher.

On Writing and the West Wing

It's traditional to slam the West Wing since Aaron Sorkin left it. In all fairness, the show had a gimmicky premise saved by excellent writing and an incredible cast. It was always going to be harder and harder to keep the story going. But that doesn't excuse the rookie mistakes the writers have been making lately.

Oh and if you haven't seen the first two episodes of this season or the last two of last season and don't want to be spoiled, read no further.

The current storyline involves Americans in Palestine being hit by a terrorist attack (specifically they bomb one of the cars) which kills two senators and recurring character Admiral Fitzwallace. President Bartlet and his Chief of Staff Leo McGarry are at odds over how to respond. Leo wants a swift military reaction, President Bartlett doesn't, and in fact moves the White House to organize a summit between Israel and Palestine. Throughout all of this Leo and the President butt heads over how this response is foolishly tilting at windmills. It climaxes when Leo McGarry threatens to resign, and the President accepts his resignation. Then McGarry goes into the woods to have a heart attack.

The problem is that there is no context for these scenes unless you have been watching the show since at least the last four or five episodes of Season 3. As it stands, we are seeing the President express one point of view unconvincingly, and Leo express the other unconvincingly. It would be stronger if they referenced earlier episodes to show the human concerns involved.

At the end of Season Three, Leo recommended and practically forced the President to assassinate a terrorist leader named Shareef. That assassination was eventually revealed to the American people, and was a source of some embarrassment to the Administration. It may also have lead to the kidnapping of Zoe Bartlett the Presidents Daughter. The President naturally trusts Leo's advice a little less than he did before. But other than one scene with the First Lady and Leo (which was quickly forgotten about) and Leo suggesting that he's gunshy because of his daughter. Anyway I'm just saying, these episodes would be better if they reminded us of the human element, instead of just having Leo and the President act seemingly irrationally.

Of course since the arguments are over the Israel-Palestine conflict, it's not like anybody is going to notice a few irrational arguments. I do think it interesting that they choose to portray the entire rest of the White House as 100% on the Israeli side of the equation. The President, The First Lady and a State Department Aid (recently introduced) on one side, and everybody else on the other. Not very balanced. Still the Palestinians aren't portrayed as leering monsters so I guess that's one step up.

Flavors of Racism

I do want to make something clear. I don't think that the Republicans are trying to surpress the Black vote because they hate Black people. If the Blacks were sure to vote Republican, I suspect they'd be doing many of the things that Democrats are doing to help them get to the polls. The racism isn't that they hate Blacks; it's that they think it's ok to try to deny them the vote.

Bob Herbert, who's been covering this story for some time, has the following tales from the trail.

A flier circulating extensively in black neighborhoods in Wisconsin carries the heading "Milwaukee Black Voters League." It asserts that people are not eligible to vote if they have voted in any previous election this year; if they have ever been found guilty of anything, even a traffic violation; or if anyone in their family has ever been found guilty of anything.

"If you violate any of these laws," the flier says, "you can get ten years in prison and your children will get taken away from you."

In Philadelphia, where a large black vote is essential to a Kerry victory in the crucial state of Pennsylvania, the Republican speaker of the Pennsylvania House, John Perzel, is hard at work challenging Democratic voters. He makes no bones about his intent, telling U.S. News & World Report:

"The Kerry campaign needs to come out with humongous numbers here in Philadelphia. It's important for me to keep that number down."

Not very promising, but of course the other side of this story is how determined many are to vote and to make their voices heard.

Red TV vs. Blue TV

Project Title: Red TV vs. Blue TV.
Artist: Bryant T. Monk

Project. An installation. Two podiums. Wood, old and splintered and rickity looking, braced by iron bars not visible to the viewer.

One podium painted blue, the other painted red. The paint should be visibly peeling, and visitors are encouraged to peel off a little paint if they want to.

Sitting atop each podium are two tvs. One painted metallic red, the other metallic blue. Not peeling. The red TV showing a continuous loop of the tv show COPS. The blue tv Showing an continuous loop of the Apprentice (strictly board room scenes).

The tvs are muted but with closed captioning. Between the two podiums in silver paint, a small boom box playing a coninuous loop of Common People by Pulp and Who Want's to be A Millionaire by ABC.

So anybody want to put this together go ahead--please send any royalties to me.

This is inspired by a great article at Salon today on what regulare shows might reflect liberal or conservative values. By Brian Montopoli, it's pretty good, but misses a few favorite shows. Anyway he does, in fact cover the Apprentice and COPS.

But for the rest of us, the show's portrayal of back-stabbing, ambitious overachievers drooling over an ultimately meaningless brass ring is one of the most persuasive arguments against life in the boardroom that there is.

Honestly, though, America: Can't we do better than this? "COPS" teaches us that the poor deserve to be that way, and as an antidote to runaway political correctness, it might have a cultural function. Even a staunch Democrat watching the show would be hard-pressed to argue that the shirtless drunk driver with the tooth-impaired, possibly underage girlfriend deserves a welfare check funded by our tax dollars. But what is this celebration of the value of unfettered capitalism really a response to? We almost never see the large swath of underprivileged America that Edwards likes to invoke, and so many Americans can't even begin to contemplate the possibility of a hardworking, socially responsible underclass.

Young Ben Finds his Idol

Yes Young Ben Shapiro in his latest article has found a new idol to idealize. This is kind of like that one Brady Bunch where Bobby idealized Jesse James. Young Ben's hero is Ann Coulter, and he writes an entire column as a paen to her and her wonderful new book (which must be just flying off the shelf with an endorsement like this).

I suppose it's not much of a surprise that Ben has selected Ann Coulter as his hero. I mean this is the guy who wrote, "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." Like Ann Coulter, Ben has only a tangential relationship to the truth, as his powers of precognition demonstrate. And, like Ann, he knows how to craft a compelling metaphor.

So look for more brilliant additions to the national discourse. Or as young Ben puts it, "So make sure to buy two copies, one for you, and one for a lefty friend. Will liberals hate this book? You betcha. But that's the point. You aren't winning the argument unless you can see the steam spurting from their ears."