A Post Racial Society

Dinesh D'Souza's latest article applauds the election of Obama. Not because he thinks Obama will be a good President (he doesn't) but because the election of Obama proves that racism is a thing of the past. In a sense he's right; it certainly represents a big step forward for African Americans. However he then ruins it by talking about rational vs. irrational discrimination.

One of the new terms that The End of Racism coined was the idea of “rational discrimination.” The basic idea here is that there are two kinds of discrimination: one is based on prejudice, and the other is based on conclusions. If groups are hated just for their skin color, then this is irrational discrimination. But if groups provoke hostility on account of their behavior, then this is rational discrimination. The implication of this idea is that it is not racist to be wary of African Americans who behave badly, as long as you are well disposed toward African Americans who conduct themselves admirably.

Codswallop. The question isn't how do you treat black people you know act badly or black people you know act admirably; it's how do you treat black people you don't know. That's what prejudice means; you prejudge people. Obviously you are not required to associate with someone you consider dangerous or annoying or insufferable. The question is - what do you do if you see a Black Person you don't know? Or if you interview for a job a Black Person you don't know? Or a loan application? How does rational discrimination work if you don't have a basis from which to make an informed decision?

Hilarious

President Obama has been president for nine days. Nine days. Keep that in mind as I quote the opening lines of Larry Elder's latest article.

"When," someone recently asked me, "does President Obama's media 'honeymoon' period end?"

Answer: It won't.

Oh, sure, every relationship experiences peaks and valleys. But the "mainstream media" wanted Obama to win, and helped him do so. If Obama were a stock, the media would be "fully invested."

Well and conservative pukes like Larry Elder have invested heavily against Obama; far more so than the "liberal" media. So expect Conservative nastiness against him for the next eight years.

Maybe the War on Terror isn't over just yet

Or at least that's John Feffer's opinion, in an article over at Commondreams.

. . . even if Obama holds to his word on torture, closes Guantánamo within the year, applies the same yardstick to detainees at Bagram and in Iraq, and eliminates the Clinton-era policy on extraordinary rendition, the death of the "global war on terror," as Mark Twain once said of his own prematurely published obituary, is greatly exaggerated. Indeed, on the day after it published GWOT's obituary, The Washington Post reported on two U.S. unilateral air strikes in Pakistan that killed 20 suspected terrorists. Although it observed an uncharacteristic silence over these strikes, the Pakistani government has previously expressed outrage at these violations of its sovereignty.

I'm not sure I find Feffer all that compelling, but I totally agree that if you voted for Obama expecting him to act like Dennis Kucinich, you're probably going to be disappointed.

Tony Blankley Writes Dishonestly

Here's the opening paragraphs of Tony Blankley's latest article.

President Barack Obama is a beguiling but confounding figure. As he said of himself in "The Audacity of Hope," "I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views." It is indeed audacious that he should proclaim this consciously disingenuous attribute. And as one reads his inaugural address, it is hard not to conclude that it was crafted shrewdly to perpetuate such confusion.

Run-of-the-mill politicians try to hide their duplicity. Only the most gifted of that profession brag that they intend to confound and confuse the public. Such an effort is beyond ingenious; it is brazenly ingenuous.

Yeah, except that Obama wasn't boasting in The Audacity of Hope. He was commenting on how people look at him. Two totally different things. And of course his comment could be made of almost any public figure. Look at the differing takes on George W. Bush; some people see him as a failure and a criminal, while others see him as a hero and a protector. That's not a calculated strategy on either Obama or Bush's part; just the nature of being that well known.

The War on Terror is Over

That's the good news. Now for the bad news; we apparently lost. This according to young Ben Shapiro, boy prognosticator.

On Nov. 4, 2008, America lost the war on terror. President Barack Obama’s feckless, pathetically apologetic perspective on foreign policy spells the end of the quest for liberty in the Middle East. It spells the end of America’s moral leadership in the global war for freedom. And it spells the end of a hard-fought campaign to protect America. Our enemies must be happily celebrating their great good fortune in America’s election of this platitudinous, morally relativistic, Jimmy Carter carbon copy in the midst of battle.

Yeah Ben's still pretending to see the future. He's mostly responding to an interview Obama gave with Al Arabiya; basically Ben Shapiro feels that Obama has abandoned this country and his oath to protect us by not continuing the belligerent policies of the Bush Administration.

There's a Shocker

Lorie Byrd's latest article discusses the bizarre fact that Democrats think that people should support a Democratic President.

After eight years of savaging George W. Bush, those on the left now believe that supporting the President is good for the country. Supporting the new President, that is.

In a sense this is totally normal; Democrats favor Democratic Presidents who will govern the way we think we should be governed.

The larger context though is that liberals believe that the Bush administration was both staggeringly incompetent and criminal. It's not that we are opposed to business solutions to problems or a war first approach to fighting terrorism. We are of course, but that's not enough to buy the level of opposition. It's that, in our opinion, the Bush administration failed the American people and committed illegal acts.

Grading on a Scale

Mike S. Adams has a new way of scoring his tests based on what he believes our new president believes. And he details this new method in his latest article. It's nice that Adams has moved from complaining about how hard it is to be a conservative in academia, but this isn't that much better.

The new policy I am announcing today is that those who score above 90 on the first exam will have points deducted and given to students at the bottom of the grade distribution. For example, if a student gets a 99, I will then deduct nine points and give them to the person with the lowest grade. If a person scores 95 I will then deduct five points and give them to the person with the second lowest grade. If someone scores 93 I will then deduct three points and give them to the next lowest person. And so on.

Of course this is inane. First of all, while Obama is in favor of strengthening the welfare net, he is not a socialist. He merely thinks the American dream should be accesible to all and not just to the children of privilege.

If Adams wanted his class room to reflect his societal/economic views he should do this.

1. At the opening of the semester arbitrarily assign seats, those are the seats which the students will hold for the semester.

2. Mike S. Adams will direct his teaching towards the students in the first 2 rows, and will speak in a quiet voice. Should students in the rows in the back receive any teaching, well, that shows the system works.

3. The students in the first two rows will develop a jargon which will not be shared with the rest of the class; tests and quizzes will liberally use this jargon. If students from the other rows have a hard time figuring out this code, well, they should try harder.

4. Cheating is not permitted; this rule will be strictly enforced to any student not sitting in the first two rolls.

But of course Adams' presumably doesn't favor these sorts of exclusionary policies in his classroom; he prefers them in our nation's economic system.

Predictable enough

It turns out Republicans weren't keen on President Obama's inaugural speech.

President Barack Obama’s inaugural speech was supposed to be one of the great inaugural addresses of all time. It was supposed to encourage us, to inspire us. Instead, it deflated us.

Obama’s inaugural address deflated us because it perfectly crystallized the quandary America now finds itself in: we wanted our faith renewed through a “transformational moment” -- but now we’ve got a faithless man for president.

Ben Shapiro, "Obama’s Inaugural: Hubris Will Bring Him Down"

President Obama's Inaugural Address?

Clichéd, surprisingly dull, naive, and memorable only insofar as it was forgettable.

Wynton Hall, "An Army of Clichés Marching Across the Presidential Palate"

Obama's speech was a carefully crafted self-contradiction, with a beginning and end that could have been delivered by a conservative and a middle that envisioned government unleashed from constitutional restraints.

Terence Jeffrey, "We the Government"

It was more somber, just listening to it and looking at the occasional crowd shots, the occasion seemed to be more somber than anybody was led to believe. All this is surprising to me, that there was very little inspiration, that there was soaring phrases that just weren't there. Now, it was said that Obama was writing this himself. And that was the news that we got. Obama was going to write this speech himself. He sequestered himself for two days and didn't want to be interrupted with anything while he worked on this. If that's true, it was said that he was writing it himself, the results show that he probably did, because most of his speeches are written by David Axelrod. But this was buzz kill for the assembled billions out there. This was buzz kill. This was no buzz. There was bzz bzz bzz bzz bzz. You'll have to forgive me if this offends you, folks. I'm just sharing with you my honest reaction to elements of the speech.

Rush Limbaugh, Yesterday's Show.

To be fair Thomas Sowell and George Will were largely complimentary towards the speech.

I'm a Nice Person and I never call people names unlike those nasty lousy mean-spirited lying piece-of-crap Republicans

Well it's Inauguration Day. It's a day where we as a nation come together to celebrate the inauguration of a new President (hence the name, Inauguration Day (seemed more dignified than New President Day)). Always hard to know how to handle this if your guy lost. Obviously if you supported McCain or Kerry or Gore or Dole or Bush 41. In fairness most of the Conservatives are doing ok with it, although some reflective twitches are emerging. Mona Charen's article though, for some reason, got under my skin.

I did not vote for the man who today becomes the 44th president of the United States, and in fact, advocated for his opponent. But I am not immune to the happiness of those who did support him, particularly African-Americans, and -- to slice it a little thinner -- particularly older African-Americas who actually lived through the contempt and cruelty of Jim Crow America. I do not for minute deny the symbolic greatness of the moment, and despite my wariness of President Obama's policies, it makes me happy to see so many of my fellow Americans in a celebratory, patriotic mood. (If the shoe were on the other foot, however, I doubt that they would reciprocate these sentiments.)

I guess it's important with a new president to remind us all what bastards liberals are. Without constant reminders Conservatives might forget.

Red Meat

Rush Limbaugh spent some time yesterday on this article by Andrew Klavan at Big Hollywood. Klavan's argument is that Conservatism isn't dead and is in fact coming back more powerful than ever.

But we’re not unarmed and we’re in no way defeated. We have great politicians like Sarah Palin–who could well be president in not eight years but four–honest newsmen like Bret Baer and genius commentators like Rush–and Ann Coulter, who’s only about ten times smarter, funnier and more talented as a satirist than Jon Stewart or Bill Maher will ever be. The left can’t out-argue these mind-warriors so they try to ridicule, disdain and isolate them, to make us feel ashamed that we admire and respect them. And they tell us they’re finished, washed-up. Why, just look, it must be true: it’s right there in the newspapers and on TV.

They’re lying. The left has to lie for the simple reason that they’re wrong and we’re right, their policies don’t work and ours do.

It's probably very heartening to read that if you are a conservatoid. Too bad it's not so much true; Ann Coulter is a nasty minded simpleton, who's passionate enough, but lacks both honesty and truthfulness. Sarah Palin is a train wreck waiting to happen (again). Limbaugh's genius consists of convincing people who already agree with him to agree with him even more.

I'm not saying there's no hope for Republicans; I rather believe they will be back and successful in the future. Politics is cyclical. But they aren't back yet; and I think getting back will mean abandoning or back-burnering Limbaugh/Coulter triumphalism.

An Imposed Solution

Over at Commondreams Michael Lerner has written an article stating clearly that the Obama / Clinton plan to address the Palestine / Hamas / Israel conflict will fail. That's probably a safe bet, as all other attempts to resolve that conflict have failed. But his rationale for while it will fail I'm not sure about.

The only viable alternative is for Obama to call for an international conference of the European Unon, Israel and the Arab States, the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, and, yes, Iran and India as well, and allow that international conference to impose a solution that provides security and justice to both sides. Only an imposed settlement has the slightest chance of being just to Palestinians - the precondition for a lasting peace, and a secure Israel.

I am not sure about this. For one thing such a conference, particularly if made up of Israels enemies, is not likely to be well received in Israel. So this international body imposes a two state solution (presumably), tells Israel "This is the land you will give to the Palestines." and then Israel says "Nope, we aren't doing that." What next?

Well the answer would seem to be for this international body to force Israel to comply in some way - that's what imposing a solution means. I don't see how that goes well for anybody.

Give 'em the boot!

Obama sure is getting a lot of advice from Conservative Columnists. And that advice largely adds up to an admonition to, well, be Conservative. I guess it's not surprising Conservatives are in favor of Conservatism. Cal Thomas's latest article is in this vein, encouraging Obama to help the American people to become more independent of the government. Not by helping them, but more by encouraging them. Then Thomas makes this fascinating statement.

Don't make the mistake Republicans made when they ran all three branches of government. Make Republicans feel like fellow Americans with a different plan for reaching similar goals. No one wants poorly performing schools, more poverty and a weak national defense. If we can agree on the problems, we can then discuss the best way to solve them. Include Republicans in your decision-making and at least occasionally embrace some of their ideas. Disarming your opponents is less bloody and can be more productive than crushing them.

I suspect that Thomas thinks this is good advice for Democrats; but not as sure he would be as keen on Republicans following this advice. Democrats should be nice to the Republicans; Republicans should beat the hell out of Democrats. That works because Conservatives are nice people who genuinely want to make America better; Democrats may or may not be - after all Thomas did label us Taliban Democrats back in the day. So it makes sense to be nice and even accommodating to people who are good hearted and want to help America, but it makes no sense to be nice to people who are not nice and not good hearted and who don't really want to make America better.

Brave Ben Shapiro does battle with a Strawman

Yep - and Young Ben does a pretty good job of it in his latest article. The particular strawman he is fighting is the theory that Liberals claimed that electing Obama would prove, once and for all, that we weren't a racist nation. Yep. But we've had racial problems since the election, so I guess it was all a scam. Thank you Ben Shapiro for successfully defeating that Strawman. I guess voting for Obama was a waste of time; unless, of course, you voted for Obama because you thought he was the best candidate for the job.

But what are the odds of that?

Ronald Reagan's Legacy

Talking about Ronald Reagan is a somewhat risky proposition. Conservatives revere him, as witnessed by the recent competitors for the Republican National Committee Chairmanship all affirming that Reagan was the greatest Republican President. In that honor he beat out another Republican President, Abraham Lincoln. Given the reverence for Reagan displayed by the Right and his relatively recent passing, most Democrats take a pass at talking about him. They either mimic faintly the reverence of Republicans or keep their mouths shut.

Ronald Reagan, to a large extent, created modern Republicanism however, and had a hand in creating modern conservatism as well. Many of the things we decry about Rush Limbaugh or George W. Bush had their roots in Reagan's vision of government. And this is the point of an article by Dave Zweifel over at Commondreams.

Zweifel notes the National Committee meeting referenced above and then points out Reagan's questionable legacy.

My first political memory of Reagan goes way back to the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. Ronald Reagan was then the governor of California. He didn't have much praise for the slain civil rights leader, blaming his murder on "a great tragedy that began when we began compromising with law and order, and people (i.e. King) started choosing which laws they'd break."

While everyone from presidential candidate Richard Nixon to the sanitation workers in Memphis was publicly mourning King's death, Reagan was indirectly appealing to the bigotry that was so prevalent in the 1960s: that Martin Luther King Jr. deserved what he got.

. . . Reagan succeeded in changing American culture from one of looking out for each other to one of looking out for one's self. Taxes were bad, period. Placing checks on savings and loans and banks would hurt the economy.

Reagan was a transformational President, there's no question of that. His legacy as one of the most important American Presidents is assured. What we can, and must question are whether or not his transformation was truly beneficial to America.

An End to Cops

John Stossel's latest article argues that regulation is foolish because people break the law anyway.

Advocates of regulation attribute almost magical powers to regulators, but clever cheats can get around any system. They always have. It's their chosen profession, and the regulators can't look everywhere. Regulation advocates also assume that bureaucrats are disinterested and incorruptible, but we know this is not always true. People who work in government are like anyone else. There will always be a percentage of individuals who can be tempted by corrupt opportunities.

. . . Fraud will always exist. Enforcement of anti-fraud laws is a useful deterrent, but in the end there's no substitute for investor vigilance. Government regulations provide a false sense of security -- and that's worth less than no sense of security at all.

I think Stossel is right but he clearly doesn't go far enough. For example right now a portion of our taxes goes to pay inefficient police officers to protect us from criminals. And what do we read in the papers, day after day? Crimes are still being committed. Criminals aren't dumb and they aren't giving up. And Police seem unable (and in some cases unwilling) to stop them. So why not leave security up to the individual? Rather than the false security of a police force, leave it up to each individual to provide their own security! And if they don't feel competent to handle that themselves, they could hire a security firm to protect themselves. Such firms would doubtless be cheaper and more efficient than Government Run Policing, and they would be required to be effective by the logic of the free market.

But wait, I guess a lot of people wouldn't have the means to hire a private police force. And that might lead to an increase in crime, as crime becomes more profitable. But this would be great economic news for security companies; they could raise their rates. And the people in society who really contribute and are rewarded, would be able to protect themselves by hiring these security firms.

It'd be a golden age.

The Investor Tax

Bob Herbert's latest article is inconsistent but contains the germ of a good idea. Specifically he proposes placing a small tax the buying and selling of investments.

The economist Dean Baker is a strong advocate of a financial transactions tax. This would impose a small fee — ranging up to, say, 0.25 percent — on the sale or transfer of stocks, bonds and other financial assets, including the seemingly endless variety of exotic financial instruments that have been in the news so much lately.

According to Mr. Baker, the co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, the fees would raise a ton of money, perhaps $100 billion or more annually — money that the government sorely needs.

But there’s another intriguing element to the proposal. While the fees would be a trivial expense for what the general public tends to think of as ordinary traders — people investing in stocks, bonds or other assets for some reasonable period of time — they would amount to a much heavier lift for speculators, the folks who bring a manic quality to the markets, who treat it like a casino.

Not a bad idea, but Herbert chooses to spend more time explaining to us (as if we didn't already know) that we have large deficits and aren't likely to slow our spending in the near future, than going over the details of how this plan would work. Still not a bad idea all in all.

Obama's Problem? He's not Conservative!

Or so goes Mona Charen's latest article, lamenting his policies which are just not that conservative. And without conservative approaches to the current financial crisis, well, things will get worse and civilization might well collapse.

Obama will have a few weeks or months of maximum political influence. If ever there were a time to do the really hard things -- reduce spending, increase the retirement age, introduce real competition to the health care system, cut corporate tax rates, balance our books -- this is it. If Obama used his popularity to achieve those critical goals for our nation's future, he would deserve to be on all those T-shirts and coffee mugs. He might even be a candidate for Mount Rushmore. As it is, he and we are headed in the wrong direction.

Seems unlikely, particularly as Obama and his advisers have made it clear that this is the exact opposite of the direction they want to go. But since I think Mona Charen's prescriptions are likely to make America's problems worse, I am OK with him ignoring her advice.

Nothing New Under the Sun

Glenn Greenwald, in a recent article, points out, as he has in the past, that Obama's centrism is not new and is pretty much de riguer for Liberals and Democrats in Washington.

Whatever else one might want to say about this "centrist" approach, the absolute last thing one can say about it is that there's anything "new" or "remarkable" about it. The notion that Democrats must spurn their left-wing base and move to the "non-ideological" center is the most conventional of conventional Beltway wisdom (which is why Ignatius, the most conventional of Beltway pundits, is preaching it). That's how Democrats earn their Seriousness credentials, and it's been that way for decades.

Several weeks ago, I documented that this was the exact approach that fueled Bill Clinton's candidacy and the Clinton Presidency. That's what Clinton's widely-celebrated Sister Souljah moment and his Dick-Morris-designed "triangulation" were all about: "moving toward the center in a way that upsets some of his liberal allies," as Ignatius put it today as though it's some brand new Obama invention.

He's not wrong.

He also points out that Obama is not likely to pursue charges against Bush Administration lawbreakers. That's pretty predictable, but disappointing. Sends the message that breaking the law is no big deal if you rise high enough in the ranks of power.

Fifth Column

David Horowitz's latest article is in support of the actions of Israel in Gaza and more specifically a denunciation of anybody who questions them. And to prove how depraved the left is he quotes a Professor of Middle Eastern Studies at the University of Wisconsin. Because nobody is more powerful or influential within American Liberalism than Professors of Middle Eastern Studies.

He then makes this ominous declaration.

Like many of her political comrades in the secular and religious left she has joined the forces of Islamic barbarism that are ranged against the civilized people of America and Israel. And she is only one of many. In the midst of the global war that radical Islam has declared on the West, the conflict in Gaza has revealed the presence of a fifth column in the West so detached from its own communities and civilized values that it now constitutes a clear and present danger to our survival.

A clear and present danger, eh? It's almost like the Government should crack down on our threat to civilization. I'd write more but I'm busy helping establish a Shaira Dictatorship, because I'm a decadent libertine.

Into Battle with David Limbaugh

David Limbaugh's latest article is called "To Your Battle Stations, Conservatives." Who exactly are conservatives going to attack and how are they going to attack them? Well they are going to attack liberals and Barack Obama and they are going to attack them by criticizing them (and slandering them as well). Yeah that's not exactly warfare.

In fairness, I do pretty much the same thing (I try not to slander people), but I don't call my lap top a "battle station."

Anyway let's get to the meat of the article.

True conservatives out there -- however many remain -- must not forget the ominous words of Obama's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, who said: "Rule one: Never allow a crisis to go to waste. They are opportunities to do big things."

Perhaps this statement was not as sexy for sound bite purposes as Obama's cavalier remark to Joe the Plumber that we need to spread the wealth around a little bit. But it is even more revealing.

Sure, much has been stated about Emanuel's comment, but not nearly enough. For in all the media-generated excitement over Obama's pecs and the faux conservative approval of Obama's "moderate" appointments, it appears we have failed to grasp the significance of this revelation.

Pretty hilarious watching a big Bush supporter complain about a President taking advantage of a crisis. Or a conservative for that matter. We all remember what the days after 9/11 were like. People came together and Bush rammed through his agenda, including eventually invading Iraq. Limbaugh didn't have a problem with President Bush using 9/11 to push his agenda; but then again, Limbaugh agrees with Bush's agenda.

Football and the American Dream

Terence Jeffrey's latest article takes football as a metaphor for the American Economy.

Americans love football because it rewards those who deserve to be rewarded. It does this because its rules are well known, commonsensical, and unchanging during any particular game and season, and also because what it takes to win in football transcends the natural physical talents of those who play it.

Just as the kid who never graduates from high school can end up being the largest employer in town, so the kid who is too slow to run track and too short to play basketball can became the fullback who is too hard to tackle -- especially when it is fourth and one and the game is on the line.

Yep. And the point is that the Government wants to act like bad referees - picking the winner regardless of what happens on the field.

However when it comes to the economy - I feel like the refs are totally asleep or totally in the bag for one side. Consider attending a game in which players on one side were given every benefit of the doubt, and could commit multiple infractions before getting in trouble, while players on the other side were ejected from the game for minor rules breaking. Now consider how our criminal justice system treats wealthy whites and poor blacks.

We don't suffer from too many refs or too many regulations whatever the squealers on the right say. The rich and corporations really are getting enough breaks; it's time to give a few to the middle and working class.

Winners and Losers

Rush Limbaugh is also upset about Obama's plan to cut taxes; he's also upset about his plan to help businesses who have suffered losses in the last year.

I'm just telling you up front, these are not tax cuts. This is welfare. The vast majority of the tax cuts are not going to people who either pay taxes or earn a profit in business. The vast majority of the tax cuts are going to go to people that don't pay taxes. It's Joe the Plumber right in front of our face. It's the redistribution of wealth is what's happening with Obama's tax cut plan. "A key provision would allow companies to write off huge losses incurred last year as well as any losses from this year to retroactively reduce tax bills dating back five years. In effect, it would entitle companies to receive cash from the government that they otherwise could not have claimed." Now, that sounds really good, doesn't it? Except what if your company made money? You're not included.

Picking winners and losers.

Yeah it's rough. Companies who made money aren't getting the same breaks as companies who didn't make money. And people who are already have plenty of money aren't getting even more money. Here's another sad truth; responsible people who keep their houses from catching on fire just don't have firemen coming round to put their fires out.

I'm amazed that people in the middle or lower class can listen to Limbaugh and think "This guy is own my side." But they do.

Dangerous Policies

Dick Morris and Eilleen Gann are aghast at some of Obama's dangerous tax policies. The dangerous part about the plan seems to be the part where it's a tax cut for the middle class and working class.

Obama's plan - he'd give all couples a $1,000 refundable tax credit and all single people $500 - would funnel more than $50 billion to the lowest half of the country, thereby completely wiping out their total federal tax liability. In most cases, it would trigger a "refund" welfare check.

In one stroke, this would transform the majority of voters from taxpayers into tax eaters - and leave an increasingly small minority to pay the bill. Whether or not this is good economics, it is very dangerous politics.

Essentially, it would put those who actually pay the taxes that fund our government into much the same situation as landlords in New York City - hopelessly outvoted by their tenants, who use their political clout to limit rents and landlords' profits.

Yeah my heart bleeds for the wealthy in America. I mean it's not like they don't have plenty of other ways to influence elections, by say Campaign Contributions or running for office themselves (most office holders will continue to come from the wealthy in America).

The real problem is that this plan will expose to the American Middle and Working class that the interests of the Republican party are not their own. The Republicans (and to be fair, most Democrats) work for the Corporations not the People; opposing a bill that will put money in the pockets of the working and middle class will reveal that, whatever the rhetoric is.

It's clear that this bill is dangerous. To Republicans.

Ann Coulter and the Culture of Victim Hood

For those who missed this; Ann Coulter was banned for life from appearing on NBC. Heard this last night during an interview between her and Sean Hannity. Oh and she appeared on NBC's Today Show this morning.

Yeah - they don't make lifetime bans the way they used to.

Ann Coulter's new book is on how Liberals claim to be victims but are really nasty and mean to conservatives instead. And she's proved it by whining repeatedly at how picked on she is.

For more on this story check out Media Matters.

Gaza and Rational Anti-Americanism

Michael Medved's latest article asks the poignant question of why Palestinian death matter a lot more than deaths in other parts of the world. Why do we care about Palestine when we don't care about people in Sri Lanka or Uganda? Credit where credit is due; this is a damn good question. But of course Medved's proposed answer ignores a few points.

Another factor serves to explain the blinding spotlight on all conflicts involving Israel and her neighbors: the deep engagement in the region of the United States of America. Domestic critics of recent U.S. policy suggest that much of the world (especially among Islamic nations) hates America because of our connection to Israel. In fact, the evidence actually suggests that the nations of the earth despise Israel because of its close attachment with the United States.

Yep - Reflexive Anti-Americanism causes the world to reject Israel and champion the Palestinians.

What?

A few obvious points. Medved discounts any wrong action on Israel's part; the actual suffering of the Palestinian people isn't a blip on his radar. Second he discounts the influence of Oil on the situation. If this were happening in Africa or in some other part of the world where natural resources were not quite so concentrated, Palestinians would really be screwed.

But more to the point, the Anti Americanism in Medved's history is presented as irrational. He never provides the context for why some nations might not be keen on us; perhaps for him there is no context. Our support of the Shah or Saddam Hussein for example, or our support of Israel's subjugation of the Palestinians isn't mentioned.

Because Medved refuses to grapple with what we have done to piss off people in that part of the world, the only answer is they hate America (and Israel) irrationally. And once you have reduced your enemy from someone you disagree with (and I'm certainly not in agreement with Hamas or Iran's way of looking at things) to an irrational mad dog, well, it sort of justifies anything. I mean if you determine that the Palestinians or the Middle East are mad dogs, well, why waste your time negotiating with them. You don't negotiated with mad dogs; you lock them up or put them down (or both).

This attitude has to be terribly corrosive to conducting foreign policy; but it seems pretty common on the right wing of this nation.

More on the Gaza Strip

Gosh this is an upbeat topic isn't it? But this is really worth reading. Townhalls Hugh Hewitt interviewed Salon's Glenn Greenwald on the issue of Israel's actions in Gaza, and it's worth reading.

Hewitt takes Greenwald to task for an overly optimistic view of Hamas.

. . . my optimism is based on the fact that human beings have pretty universal characteristics. And there have been parties who looked to be completely fanatically devoted to one another’s destruction who have been able to achieve peaceful resolutions, even though they long swore that they never would. You know, you look at warring factions in Ireland and the Balkans, and even in the Middle East, and you see parties that have long sworn to destroy one another now living side by side in peace as a result of the diplomatic process. So are there elements in Hamas who are so religiously radicalized that they will never, ever accept a solution that recognizes Israel’s right to exist? I’m sure that’s true, and I’m sure there are lots of Israelis, right wing religious figures who will never accept the Palestinians’ right to have a state in the West Bank or Gaza. There’s American Evangelicals who never will. But I think that what you do is you focus on the more reasonable parties, and you marginalize and render impotent those extremists who continue to object. And that’s how you get security and peace for Israel and for its neighbors.

I think they sort of talk past each other in this section, in part because Hewitt isn't willing to see a distinction between Hamas and the Palestinian people.

And Hewitt also adheres to the set in stone black and white mentality that makes up a lot of Conservatoids. If someone is evil, they are evil; there's not much to be done about it. If you believe that than you don't put a lot of stock in "hey if you blow up Palestinian buildings you might make Palestinians more likely to listen to radicals like Hamas." If they are going to be terrorists, than that's what will happen.

Invasion USA

Chuck Norris's latest article suggests that America's lack of Isolationism and Nativism is dooming us as a people.

The USA is being infiltrated by illegals, sold to foreign powers, and abandoned by its government. But are Americans enabling the dissolution of our economy and country, as well, by continuing to buy foreign goods?

Norris's solution is for people to buy American. I can see the appeal. In an America where people feel increasingly like they don't have control over their lives, well you want to find a way to get control. To find something you do have control over. And it's even worse for Republicans, who are out of political power (after the delusions of the middle of the decade when they believed they would run everything forever). That said I'm not sure this will actually accomplish anything, other than making the people who do it feel good.

Worth Reading

Glenn Greenwald's latest article takes on the current situation in Gaza, and some of the responses he's gotten from people, telling him he should put himself in the shoes of the Israeli people.

. . . for those who insist that others put themselves in the position of a resident of Sderot -- as though that will, by itself, prove the justifiability of the Israeli attack -- the idea literally never occurs to them that they ought to imagine what it's like to live under foreign occupation for 4 decades (and, despite the 2005 "withdrawal from Gaza," Israel continues to occupy and expand its settlements on Palestinian land and to control and severely restrict many key aspects of Gazan life). No thought is given to what it is like, what emotions it generates, what horrible acts start to appear justifiable, when you have a hostile foreign army control your borders and airspace and internal affairs for 40 years, one which builds walls around you, imposes the most intensely humiliating conditions on your daily life, blockades your land so that you're barred from exiting and prevented from accessing basic nutrition and medical needs for your children to the point where a substantial portion of the underage population suffers from stunted growth.

The whole article is good, taking on how people who whole heartedly support this action look at the Palestinians.

I maintain an annoyed neutrality towards these issues, but that doesn't mean they aren't worth considering. You might also want to look at this article at Salon, which goes over Israeli support for this current action, and why this war isn't likely to be much more than a blip on the long term scale.

Liberals and the KKK

Kevin McCullough isn't an innovator in Conservatoid rhetoric. He doesn't create many tropes; but he knows how to repeat them. And this week, he repeats a lie about liberals, one conservatives have said before, but does it was a notable nastiness.

Here's the truth, the Ku Klux Klan was started by [b]Conservative[/b] Democrats after the Civil War as a way to terrorize Blacks and Northerners.

Here's the way McCullough puts it.

When the party of left-wing America founded the Ku Klux Klan they did so because they wished to seize the rights of an entire people group, intimidate them into voting for the candidates they decided, and for anyone so messy as to get in the way they became people who did not deserve to live. One of the sitting members of the Unites States Senate who participated in Klan activity still sits seated by the same party that founded the Klan. His name is Robert Byrd. Power--even if gained through ruthless means--was the absolute objective to the Klan, and the Democrats who founded it.

The same historical parallel could be made by the ruthless rise of Adolph Hitler and his hatred based upon a person's race, skin color, or disability. For no better reason than to satisfy a dark perversion of his soul and to insure the kind of power that absolute fear instills in followers Hitler manipulated his own people to reach his objective, and to take lives.

Ah - you see the little twist McCullough does there? He blurs the line between party and ideology to hide the fact that the people who started the Ku Klux Klan had far more in common with Conservatives than Liberals.

His proof by the way? Liberals don't whole heartedly support the actions Israel is taken in the Gaza strip. Why some liberals sent in letters to the editor of the Jerusalem times criticizing their actions. These included one liberal with the curious name LibertarianSoul.

He also tells another lie. One not quite as far reaching as suggesting the KKK is a liberal organization but certainly a lie nonetheless.

In America, none of the anti-war groups that wished to see Bush impeached, said even a word about Saddam's brutal crimes against his own people.

That's a total lie but McCullough can probably get away with it. In fact the protests against the war regularly pointed out that Saddam had brutalized his own people. There were some individuals or even organizations who ignored that, but they weren't the majority. And hell, the way McCullough sets this up, if even one liberal said "Yeah Saddam's definitely a bad guy" it would make him a liar.

But anybody who has gotten that far in the article and still agrees with McCullough is probably too stupid to realize the lie there.

Dennis Prager Speaks to the Wives of America

Dennis Prager argues, in his latest article, that wives should have sex with their husbands whether they want to or not.

Why would a loving, wise woman allow mood to determine whether or not she will give her husband one of the most important expressions of love she can show him? What else in life, of such significance, do we allow to be governed by mood?

What if your husband woke up one day and announced that he was not in the mood to go to work? If this happened a few times a year, any wife would have sympathy for her hardworking husband. But what if this happened as often as many wives announce that they are not in the mood to have sex? Most women would gradually stop respecting and therefore eventually stop loving such a man.

Not sure what to say to that. Maybe nothing need be said.

Presented with little comment

Coalitions of environmental, anti-nuclear, anti-capitalist, sustainable-agriculture and anti-globalization forces have coalesced in Europe to form and support socialist parties. This has yet to happen in the United States. The left never rallied in significant numbers behind Cynthia McKinney or Ralph Nader. In picking the lesser of two evils, it threw its lot in with a Democratic Party that backs our imperial wars, empowers the national security state and does the bidding of corporations.

If Barack Obama does not end the flagrant theft of taxpayer funds by corporate slugs and the disgraceful abandonment of our working class, especially as foreclosures and unemployment mount, many in the country will turn in desperation to the far right embodied by groups such as Christian radicals. The failure by the left to offer a democratic socialist alternative will mean there will be, in the eyes of many embittered and struggling working- and middle-class Americans, no alternative but a perverted Christian fascism. The inability to articulate a viable socialism has been our gravest mistake. It will ensure, if this does not soon change, a ruthless totalitarian capitalism.

Chris Hedges, Why I am a Socialist

It's entirely possible that he's right. Society certainly seems pretty shattered right now, and I'm not convinced that Obama is going to be able to fix things. We'll see.

Obama has his Whitewater

And by Whitewater I mean bullshit scandal that Conservatoid ideologues will use to taint Obama whenever possible, despite knowing (and they surely know) that the whole thing is nonsense.

Here it is - Rod Blagojevich, corrupt Governor of Illinois, tried to sell Obama's seat, and described him as an MF because he wasn't willing to go along with this corrupt scheme. Clearly Obama is as guilty as Blagojevich, and should be in jail, not the White House. Or this is the opinion of Floyd and Mary Beth Brown.

If the intention was to send a message to Blagojevich, then some members of Obama's inner circle may be facing indictment. It takes two to tango and all of those who actively participated in the alleged negotiations to sell a Senate seat are just as guilty as Blagojevich.

As for the other option, an attempt to actually put a stop to the "shakedown" scheme, may be viewed, at first glance, as an exoneration of Team Obama. But not so fast... having knowledge of such a scheme and not reporting it to the authorities is a serious offense as well.

Great. Now of course Obama will be legally exonerated. He clearly didn't do anything wrong. Doesn't matter. They never got Clinton on Whitewater. They never got Hillary on the Foster suicide. Didn't stop them from bringing it up. The point isn't to get to the truth; the point is to destroy Obama.

Christmas Movies, Charity, and Rush Limbaugh

Rush Limbaugh talked about Love Actually yesterday on his broadcast - a well loved movie by at least a few. He made this comment.

I found, aside from liking the movie, what I found was here's a movie that's got things in it that you would not dare recommend, especially with your young children. I don't know what the rating is. I didn't pay any attention to the rating of the movie, but I don't know how it got away without being an R. It's got nudity in it, yeah, it does, well, partial nudity, it's got really questionable language in little spurts. But would you let me finish the thought here so I can go grab a phone call. What amazed me was all of these liberals thinking it's a Christmas classic.

I'm not exactly sure why a movie can't be both a Christmas movie and aimed at adults. Don't adults get Christmas every year as well?

He also talked about charity.

But I've always been amazed at how one climbs the ranks of society by being involved in "charities." Many of these people don't donate a dime to the charity. They go out and raise money for a gigantic party, or series of balls or what have you -- where the women put on their finest clothes and jewelry and the men reluctantly, you know, stuff themselves into tuxedos; and they head to these fabulous places where the cost to put the whole thing on may be a million dollars and the net amount raised is a hundred grand. All of the newspaper society reporters are there. All of the photographers are there; all the phony baloney, plastic banana, good-time rock 'n' roller people who are impressed with people who have wealth.

They might be reprobates. They might be worthless. They might be mean. They might be dull, boring. But because they have a lot of money, they are fascinating and what they do is considered fascinating. So this creates a cycle where these sometimes dull, boring, dry, phony frauds that are not donating a dime but are going out there and asking everybody else to give them a dime, then get their pictures in the society pages and written up.

This is in relation to the Bernie Madoff scandal, and a story about how Conservatives give to personal charity. To me it's somewhat telling in how some Conservatives look at charity and at the poor and needy. They despise them and they kind of despise people who want to help them.

Shallow Pride

That's not Pride that happens to have the quality of being Shallow, but rather Pride in being Shallow. It is an odd phenomenon that you see among many on the right; the perverse joy they seem to take in admitting they can't get into art or thought or what not. I suppose it is intended to makd them seem more like normal folks.

Humorist Burt Prelutsky's latest article talks about how sad it is too allow poor people access to college. He spends some time complaining about diversity and noting that he had no interest in his classmates whatsoever.

The truth of the matter was that my interest in my fellow scholars, and I don't think my attitude was at all atypical, was limited to wanting to date the more attractive coeds and wanting to eviscerate those brainiacs most likely to raise the class curve.

What a deep fellow this Prelutsky is.

I don't know - anti-intellectualism has deep roots in American history, and I don't suppose it's going away. But it's always disappointing to me to see it.

You just might be a liberal.

Do you sacrifice babies while having bi-sexual orgies and worshiping nature? Well then, you just might be a liberal. Or so goes this charming article by Matt Barber.

In fact, today's liberalism is largely a sanitized retread of an antiquated mythology – one that significantly predates the only truly progressive movement: biblical Christianity.

. . . In his sermon, Pastor Mabray illustrated that, although they've now assumed a more contemporary flair, the fundamentals of Baal worship remain alive and well today. The principal pillars of Baalism were child sacrifice, sexual immorality (both heterosexual and homosexual) and pantheism (reverence of creation over the Creator).

Ritualistic Baal worship, in sum, looked a little like this: Adults would gather around the altar of Baal. Infants would then be burned alive as a sacrificial offering to the deity. Amid horrific screams and the stench of charred human flesh, congregants – men and women alike – would engage in bisexual orgies. The ritual of convenience was intended to produce economic prosperity by prompting Baal to bring rain for the fertility of "mother earth."

What a nice message - and so Christmasy.

But wait you say - is this Barber fellow really talking about modern liberals?

Modern liberalism deviates little from its ancient predecessor. While its macabre rituals have been sanitized with flowery and euphemistic terms of art, its core tenets and practices remain eerily similar.

I guess he is.

It's hard to know what to write about this article; I guess I'll settle with a pithy "Go to Hell Mr. Barber".

We are all one people

Hey holiday festivities and work are getting in the way of regular posting, but did want to point you this article at Common Dreams, about Colin Powell, Rush Limbaugh and what it means to be American.

Powell also derided a campaign appeal beat into paste by Sarah Palin - that rural islands of small-town homogeny represent America values while more diverse urban centers do not.

"Most of us don't live in small towns," Powell told CNN's Fareed Zakharia last weekend. "I was raised in the South Bronx, and there's nothing wrong with my value system from the South Bronx."

Damn straight. I grew up in Southern California and there's nothing wrong with that either.

Paul Weyrich

Conservative writer and leader of the Heritage Foundation has died at 66. Kind of sad; although Weyrich's Heritage Foundation I find more of a Limbaugh Conservative organization than it's counterparts, the guy himself didn't bother me that much.

Here's our posts on him.

Freedom of Religion

Or, Can a Non-Christian really be an American Citizen? Michael Medved's latest article would seem to imply that no, non-Christians really don't belong here. He notes that the founders intended Christianity to be the dominate religion (a dubious theory as we've discussed). Then he brings it back to Christmas.

For more than two centuries, government at every level followed this approach, making no "attempt to level all religions" and recognizing the privileged position of Christianity as the faith embraced by the vast majority of the nation's citizens. If municipalities or other public entities authorized Hanukkah displays to accompany the Christmas trees that became common everywhere, they did so because the Christian majority supported these gracious concessions to a tiny Jewish minority, not because the Constitution required them.

So basically Michael Medved is clearly arguing that other religions should be treated as legally and politically inferior to Christianity. I'm pretty sure I disagree with that.

Another minor point; Medved does pretend that the big threat to Christians celebrating Christmas comes from Festivus and the Flying Spaghetti monster; I suppose this protects him from the implications of his opinions to the millions of Jewish, Muslim, Hindi, Bhuddhist, Atheist, and Agnostic Americans.

Bush'll be Gone Soon

But he left his mark, and it's not a good one. Consider this from Glenn Greenwald.

The policies which the Senate Armed Services Committee unanimously concludes were authorized by Bush, Rumsfeld and several other top Bush officials did not merely lead to "abuse" and humiliating treatment, but are directly -- and unquestionably -- responsible for numerous detainee murders.

Tortured to death. Depressing to say the least.

Tuesday Beats - M83 - "Saturdays = Youth"

Upfront I should admit I have had this album only 4 days, so this might be initial enthusiasm talking, but so far I really really like it. I have been aware of M83 as a band that does atmospheric, ambient tracks (like Lower Your Eyes To Die With The Sun which I encountered on Adam Freeland's contribution to the Back to Mine series (which I also recommend)). Now there's plenty of atmospheric noodling on "Saturdays = Youth" but he combines it with a real 80s vibe on this album, and the kind of 80s music I liked. I hear echoes of OMD, Dave Stewart and the Eurythmics, and so on. Anyway check out Graveyard Girl which I quite like.

More Politics coming.

Do You Believe in Shame?

Dennis Prager does; he's written a whole article about how much better white American heterosexual Christians are because they can express Shame. Even though they shouldn't have to. Sort of. He starts off mocking black pride and mourning the lack of opportunities for white Christians to really enjoy themselves. I'm not sure about that; it seems like to me we spend plenty of time celebrating white Christians.

Then he trots out an old chestnut.

For a generation, college students have been taught that it is impossible for blacks to be racist because only the racial group in power, i.e. whites, can express racism.

Of course, that is nonsense. A black can be a racist just as a white can be one. A minority race might not have the power to implement racist national policies but that hardly means that no minority group, or any individual, can be a racist.

Prager kind of gives himself away here. Of course a Black person can be surly to a White customer or co-worker. But Black racism against White people has little to no effect on white people other than a few awkward moments (and occasional and deplorable violence). White power over society constantly affects Black Americans.

Prager laments that black people are rarely required to express shame for their racial crimes; the flip side is that every black male is seen as a potential criminal (and let's not forget Arab Americans who have it even worse). When a white guy gets caught doing a horrendous crime, nobody worries that now society will judge white males more harshly.

At the end of the day, Prager pretends like he's writing to America's minorities, but his real focus is White Christian Males who read Townhall, and he's just telling them what they already believe; that they are the greatest.

Chicago is a Magical Place

Just being from there taints you forever, and ensures that you will be held responsible, after a fashion, for everything that happens there. Consider this recent article from Michael Barone.

It is a reminder that, for all his inspirational talk of hope and change, Obama, like Blagojevich, are both products of Chicago Democratic politics, which is capable of producing leaders both sublime and sordid.

Look for eight years of this; Republicans constantly reminding us that no matter how good Obama looks, he's from Chicago and therefore suspect.

Good Advice for the Republican Party

Brian Birdnow, writing at Townhall, is taking on the tough question of where should the Republican Party do now. He's not the first, but he's not that far off. He argues that the Republican Party needs to oppose the Democratic plans, which makes sense.

They must organize and present a principled opposition to Obama’s neo-Social Democracy by offering clearly defined conservative, market based alternatives. It is critically important that the Party reinvigorate its relationship with the conservative think tanks so that it can again become a party of ideas and not simple politics.

Now I sort of agree with this plan and sort of disagree with this plan. I do think that Republicans need to be more about more than "We really hate Liberals." As long as the Republican Party and Conservative Movement is under the thrall of Limbaugh Conservatism, well, I don't know how they can play a positive role or a successful one.

New Look

Ok I wasn't very satisfied with the former look so going to this. Also I am starting to use Blogger Comments instead of Haloscan Comments for a couple of reasons. Finally I added a link to my Blogomatic 5200 which I have been meaning to do for a while. Check it out.

Happy Sparkle Season

I haven't bothered much with the "War on Christmas" this year, mostly because other people aren't bothering as much with it. You see Conservatives thrive on portraying themselves as persecuted (as do many liberals), and at a time when they run everything (like they did from 2002 to 2006), well, it's hard to find examples of persecution. So you are stuck pretending there's some kind liberal War on Christmas in order to show how rough Conservatives have it.

There are other elements explaining why that debate bubbled up, such as the Bush Administration's lack of enthusiasm for fulfilling the desires of traditionalist conservatives, and the sense that the War in Iraq was moving from being a winning to a losing issue. Suffice it to say those elements that made the War on Christmas such good policy in 2005-2006 are in 2008 no longer that big a deal. In 2008 they have lost the House, the Senate, and the White House; rather than complaining about trumped up Persecution, they have actual problems to confront.

But that doesn't mean there aren't some Conservatives out there fighting the good fight; in this case Floyd and Mary Beth Brown are taking on a group from Wisconsin who put up an Atheist Sign in Washington, in their latest article.

The saga all started in October when Washington State gave a permit to a Wisconsin-based atheist group to display its sign alongside a Christian Nativity scene in the state's Capitol in Olympia.

It turns out that Freedom From Religion is a national group, headquartered in Wisconsin. I guess the implication that this is an example of Wisconsin's picking on Washington is not factual.

Then there's this touching bit.

Stickney summarizes: "The constitutional right to exercise free speech anytime and anywhere applies to liberals and their politically correct causes and classifications only."

Outraged by this sign that mocks religions, this week more than 500 demonstrators rallied on the steps of the state Capitol to protest.

That's Larry Stickney, President of the Washington Values Alliance. So Stickney is upset that Christians don't have freedom of speech and then, in the very next line, the authors note that Christians exercised their freedom of speech to protest, seemingly, their inability to exercise their freedom of speech.

I suppose I must also point out the hypocrisy of complaining about your freedom of speech being trampled when your argument is basically that somebody else shouldn't be allowed to speak. Freedom of Speech for Christians only, eh? I'll also note that this offending sign was set up near a nativity scene, implying that equal space was given to the Christian Point of View. Probably more than equal.

The Chicago Way

Well It's going to be fun to watch Rush and other Limbaugh Conservatives say "Obama" and "The Chicago Way" as close together as they possibly can as often as they possibly can, without actually saying that Obama has done anything wrong (because, as it turns out, he hasn't).

Steve Chapman has an interesting take on this; Obama has an opportunity to rise above his homeland by allowing Patrick Fitzgerald to keep his position as US Attorney.

As president, he can exercise the customary prerogative of replacing all U.S. attorneys with his own appointees. During the campaign, he indicated he was willing to leave Fitzgerald in place. But he is bound to come under pressure from politicians back home to name someone less obsessive about official vice.

Until this week, that option might have been appealing, since the resulting controversy would have been of interest only in Chicagoland. But now it has become a matter for national attention. For Obama to cashier Fitzgerald would make him look complicit in corruption.

In truth, the Blagojevich affair gives Obama the perfect excuse to do the right thing, no matter what the cost to his political friends. Then, for a change, the sun will keep shining on Illinois.

What a switcharoo. Conservatoids used to lambaste Patrick Fitzgerald for pursuing the Plame Link with uncalled for vigor. Now that he is going after (stupid and corrupt) Democrats his position must be preserved.

Of course not all Conservatives see Obama keeping Fitzgerald on as an act of principal; Rush Limbaugh described it as an act of desperation.

However, what are the odds that the US attorney in Chicago will be replaced by Barack Obama when he is inaugurated? Can you just see the headline now? "Patrick Fitzgerald, he of the Scooter Libby conviction and the indictment of Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich today was fired by incoming President Barack Obama and replaced by X." People will say, "Wait a minute, Fitzgerald is fired? Why, after he indicts Blagojevich, a Democrat?" I don't care how tone deaf they are in Obamaville -- and they're not tone deaf -- that's not going to happen. So he might fire 92 US attorneys, but he's not going to fire 93 US attorneys.

So you have the specter of Obama either getting rid of Fitzgerald and proving his corruption and connection to the "Chicago Way" or you have Obama keeping Fitzgerald out of fear and political expediency. You can't win for losing with guys like Chapman or Limbaugh dealing the cards.

I'll also parenthetically note that Rush Limbaugh misspoke during this particular rant, implying that Bush had kept all of Clinton's attorneys. Not actually true.

Is Now the Time to Fix Health Care?

Most Washington Pundits and Politicians would say no. Coincidentally most Washington Pundits and Politicians receive money from the medical industry, either through campaign contributions or through advertising revenues. Probably no connection there.

The editors at the New Republic, on the other hand, say yes, in an article over there today.

. . . most proposals for universal coverage start with a federally financed expansion of Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program. That means more poor people would get health insurance right away. And, as economist Jonathan Gruber argued recently in The New York Times, expanding those programs provides a superb economic stimulus. When poor people get health insurance, they purchase medical goods and services. More important, they start spending money on other things, since they no longer have to put aside money to pay for medical emergencies. That funnels cash back into the economy, promoting growth. "Health care reform," Gruber concluded, "is good for our economy."

I can't disagree, and I don't want to. Let's fix this mess.

The Fairness Doctrine

Conservatives are up in arms about the Fairness Doctrine, despite scant evidence that Liberals are serious about bringing it back. This shows the disproportionate influence of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity; their oxs would get gored if it came back and they are letting people know they don't like the idea. And Tony Blankley's latest article is in their service.

. . . there is no ambiguity about this issue. The Fairness Doctrine would require every show to be balanced in its political opinion, thus ending the viability of any business plans for a successful -- either liberal or conservative -- radio host. But because almost all successful talk radio shows are conservative, liberal Democrats are trying to kill it. They have been explicit. They say they want to take Rush Limbaugh's voice off the radio, as well as the voices of other leading conservatives.

A few points. First of all Democrats aren't really going to make the Fairness Doctrine a priority, no matter how much conservatives might want them too. For exactly the same reasons Conservatives are spoiling for this fight; Democrats know that it will make them look bad.

Secondly, there has to be ways to encouraged a diversity of views on our public airwaves without resorting to these ham-handed strategies suggested by Tony Blankley. But any attempt to promote differing view points or locally produced radio content will be a threat to Clear Channel and will be painted as an attack on Freedom of Speech.

Is Obama Legally Allowed to be President?

Yes. Yes he is. He was born in the United States and is a United States Citizen. A few conservatives, very few, are asserting that this is not true - they held a press conference yesterday at the National Press Club, in which they made several outlandish assertions, according to this report by Salon's Mike Madden.

Taitz -- the lead attorney in the case the Supreme Court declined to hear Monday morning -- kept making stranger and stranger assertions. At one point, she asked why the government had fined broadcasters for Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction," but didn't intervene to force the media to report on Obama's allegedly phony birth certificate. She claimed Obama holds passports from at least four countries, compared him to Black Panther leader Eldridge Cleaver, equated the "controversy" about Obama to Watergate, and finished her tour-de-force presentation by saying that if Obama can claim he's a U.S. citizen and win an election, then so could just about anyone. "If a person can become a presidential candidate only based on his own statement," she said, "then somebody like Osama bin Laden, theoretically, can come and write a statement, 'I'm eligible,' and we should put him on the ballot, too?"

Now here's a sentence I didn't think I'd ever write; let's turn to David Horowitz for some perspective.

Conservatives are supposed to respect the organic nature of human societies. Ours has been driven by profound disagreements that have been deepening over many years. We are divided not only about political facts and social values, but also about what the Constitution itself means. The crusaders on this issue choose to ignore these problems and are proposing to deny the will of 64 million voters by appealing to 5 Supreme Court Justices (since no one is delusional enough to think that the 4 liberal justices are going to take the presidency away from Obama). What kind of conservatism is this?

It is not conservatism; it is sore loserism and quite radical in its intent.

I suppose it says something about these claims that even a guy like Horowitz finds them a distraction. And that something is that these claims are very very shaky indeed.

Farewell to the First Golden Age (of Conservatism)

Conservatives don't really know what to do in this new era. The are the minority party, when, not four years ago, they were crowing about a perpetual majority, and relegating their political enemies to the dustheap of history. Well I guess we are all in that dustheap now. Some Conservatives, like Rush Limbaugh, see this as a time to renew the parties opposition to everything liberal. Others think this is a good time to renew the spirit of getting along and feeling like we are all in the same boat. We all want what's best for America. In this latter camp, slot Terry Paulson, at least based on his latest article.

If there is one thing that Americans ought to unite on, it is our commitment to work to improve and sustain our great country. We may disagree on what path to follow, but there should be no difference in our commitment to preserve and improve this blessed republic.

Sounds very nice. And I agree with the sentiment; we are all in this together, we can talk about things we really disagree on while still treating each other with respect.

Of course the more combative side of me notes that I doubt Paulson would be writing this were the situation reversed.

Oh and Ann Coulter has a new book, advertised just to the right of his article. It's called "Guilty: Liberal 'Victims' and their Assault on America." Good stuff.

My Highest Rated Electronica Songs, December 2008

'New Life (Remix)', Depeche Mode, June, 1981
'Love Action (I Believe in Love)', Human League, October, 1981
'Everything's Gone Green', New Order, December, 1981
'Situation (12" Mix)', Yazoo, August, 1982
'The Upstairs Room', The Cure, December, 1983
'The Flat Earth', Thomas Dolby, February, 1984
'Talking Loud and Clear', Orchestral Manoeuvres in the Dark, April, 1984
'Close (To the Edit)', The Art of Noise, May, 1984
'Shake the Disease', Depeche Mode, April, 1985
'The Swing of Things', a-ha, October, 1986
'As the End Draws Near ', Manufacture, January, 1987
'Left to My Own Devices', Pet Shop Boys, October, 1988
'Big Car (3AM Vocal)', Severed Heads, April, 1990
'Stars ', Erasure, May, 1990
'Little Fluffy Clouds (Orbital Dance Mix)', The Orb, June, 1990
'Disappointed (Single Mix)', Electronic, October, 1992
'Liberation', Pet Shop Boys, September, 1993
'Cowgirl', Underworld, December, 1993
'Glory Box', Portishead, August, 1994
'1963 (1994 Mix)', New Order, November, 1994
'Setting Son', The Chemical Brothers with Noel Gallagher, October, 1996
'Possibly Maybe (Lucy Mix)', Bjork, October, 1996
'Building Steam With a Grain of Salt', DJ Shadow, November, 1996
'Breath', Prodigy, November, 1996
'Trip Like I Do', The Crystal Method, September, 1997
'Brimful of Asha (Norman Cook Edit)', Cornershop, September, 1997
'Squirt ', Fluke, September, 1997
'All I Need', Air, January, 1998
'History Repeating ', Propellerhads feat. Shirley Bassey, January, 1998
'Ray of Light', Madonna, May, 1998
'You Must Learn All Night Long (DJ Swamp Mix)', Fantastic Plastic Machine, September, 1998
'Praise You', Fatboy Slim, October, 1998
'Tequila (Mint Royale Shot)', Terrorvision, November, 1998
'Vikrum the Vampire ', Talvin Singh, November, 1998
'Don't Stop ', Freestylers, April, 1999
'Woman in Blue ', Pepe Deluxe , May, 1999
'Natural Blues (Mike D Remix)', Moby, March, 2000
'Come', Lemon Jelly, June, 2000
'Autoharp', Hooverphonic, September, 2000
'Everything In It's Right Place', Radiohead, October, 2000
'It's Automatic', Zoot Woman, January, 2001
'In the Waiting Line', Zero 7, April, 2001
'Illuminate', Orbital Feat. David Gray, July, 2001
'Losing my Edge', LCD Soundsystem, July, 2002
'Season Song ', Blue States, October, 2002
'Dream Machine ', Mark Farina feat. Sean Hayes, October, 2003
'Insomniac Olympics', Blockhead, March, 2004
'Put it Back Together ', Fatboy Slim feat. Damon Alburn, October, 2004
'Close Your Eyes ', The Chemical Brothers with The Magic Numbers, January, 2005
'Feel So Free', Ivy, March, 2005
'Feel Good Inc.', Gorrillaz, May, 2005
'There they Go', Krafty Kuts feat. Dynamite MC, October, 2006
'D.A.N.C.E.', Justice, June, 2007

This includes both Synthpop and Downtempo/Trip Hop tracks.

How to Get Ahead in Politics while doint the Right Thing

Thomas Frank, over at the Huffington Post, has argued that Democrats should look into doing something about American Health Care. Not just because it's good policy but good politics.

Still, conservatives have always dreaded the day that Democrats discover (or rediscover) that there is a happy political synergy between delivering liberal economic reforms and building the liberal movement. The classic statement of this fear is a famous memo that Bill Kristol wrote in 1993, when he had just started out as a political strategist and the Clinton administration was preparing to propose some version of national health care.

"The plan should not be amended; it should be erased," Mr. Kristol advised the GOP. And not merely because Mr. Clinton's scheme was (in Mr. Kristol's view) bad policy, but because "it will revive the reputation of the party that spends and regulates, the Democrats, as the generous protector of middle-class interests."

For a long time I had basically bought the theory that Health-Care should stay private rather than being in the hands of an inefficient government. Then I needed some health care, and some friends needed some health care, and it occurs to me that maybe the system we have isn't the world's greatest. So I'm pretty receptive to this idea; I just hope our representatives in Congress feel similarly.

Two Points of View

As some of you know, Obama is no longer planning on passing a windfall profits tax on Oil Companies, which was a campaign promise. Well here are some responses to this choice, the first by David Sirota.

Between this move and the move to wait to repeal the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, it seems like the Obama team is buying into the right-wing frame that raising any taxes - even those on the richest citizens and wealthiest corporations - is bad for the economy. Of course, that frame is debunked by history. And while sure, it's OK to rack up deficits so as to spend our way out of the economic crisis, it's sorta silly to ignore the tax moves that could be implemented to limit those deficits where possible.

Oh, and one last thing - if oil prices are down and oil industry profits are truly down, what's the harm in passing a windfall profits tax?

And here's a contrasting view by Josh Marshall

I'm not sure I get the response to Obama's apparent decision to shelve the windfall profits tax on the big oil companies. As the name implies, windfall profits taxes are intended to tax windfall profits. But the cost of oil has now dropped to something like a third of what it was when this idea was floated. So I'm really not getting how this is breaking a promise or currying favor with the oil companies. This seems like a pretty straightforward case of adjusting policy to take account of demonstrable and undeniable changes in the economic picture.

I think the factor both gentleman leave out is the political capital which must be expended to keep this promise, which causes me to lean a bit more towards Marshall's point of view.

Bush Derangement Syndrome

Jason Lee Steorts has written an article that supposedly explains how McCain lost the election but really covers and is entitled Bush Derangement Syndrome. For those unfamiliar with this affliction, it is applied to people who opposed the President and his policies. Or rather that was the old definition of it. The new definition of it, put forward by Steorts, are those who looked at Bush's foreign policy screw-ups with insufficient charity.

That the influencers tended to see Bush as a jingoistic, fundamentalist idiot rather than a worthy adversary with whom they had profound disagreements inevitably influenced their presentation of his policies. They are supposed to specialize in nuance and subtlety; the assessment of a war fought against an appallingly cruel autocrat, on the basis of flawed but sincerely believed intelligence, would seem to cry out for such virtues. Their narrative instead combined the nuance of an infomercial with the subtlety of a morality play.

Oh my heart bleeds. Poor Bush. He was just doing his best; why couldn't we see him as an intellectually flawed but ultimately good guy?

I suppose it might have had something to do with him and his administration's tendency, particularly in 2004 and 2002, to portray everybody who disagreed with him as a traitor or a dupe. Bush got off light compared to what he and his followers tried to do to liberals. And now, that his moronic plans have failed, his followers still want to pretend that it's all due to the hated liberals.

For the record, that's also why we weren't too impressed with Sarah Palin. Yeah it'd be nice if she learned to speak a bit better, but our real problem with her was that she promised a continuation of the same Rovian politics that had poisoned our political discourse.

Obama's Picks

There is a certain amount of discomfort with President Elect Obama's selections for major positions in his administration. Robert Scheer argues, in his latest article, that his economic team's track record is less than promising, given their involvement in Citigroup's meltdown.

As opposed to the far tougher deal negotiated on the bailout of AIG, the arrangement with Citigroup leaves the executives, including Rubin, who brought Citigroup to the brink of ruin, still in charge. Nor is there any guarantee of the value of the mortgage bundles that taxpayers will be guaranteeing. That is because, as candidate Obama clearly stated in his major economics address back in March, the deregulation pushed though during the Clinton years ended transparency in banking.

Why then has he appointed the very people responsible for this disaster to now make it all better?

It's a good question. Is Obama going to be a status quo guy, who talks a good game but sells out the base at every opportunity? Probably. It worked for Clinton after all, and it'll presumably work for him.

Joe Conason, big Clinton defender, has a more hopeful assessment in his latest article, however. He argues that as long as Obama is in charge, these centrists will have to toe his line.

Indeed, Mr. Obama has steadfastly refused to scale back his platform of spending initiatives, from infrastructure to health care, despite all the tut-tutting commentary. Instead, even as he rolled out his team, he pledged a very substantial spending increase during the first two years of his term as the only means to prevent the recession from plunging into something far worse.

And his appointees will implement the Obama program, not only because that is what he tells them to do but because that is what they have come to believe is best for the country.

I'd like to believe in Mr. Conason, and until Obama is actually in the Oval Office, I suppose there's no reason not to.

My Highest Rated Rock Songs, December 2008

'Strychnine', The Sonics, January, 1965
'Subterranean Homesick Blues', Bob Dylan, March, 1965
'Rain', The Beatles, June, 1966
'Garden of My Mind ', The Mickey Finn , January, 1967
'Somebody to Love ', Jefferson Airplane, April, 1967
'Manic Depression', Jimi Hendrix , May, 1967
'My Eyes Have Seen You ', The Doors, September, 1967
'Mr. Soul', Buffalo Springfield, November, 1967
'Piece of My Heart ', Big Brother and the Holding Company, March, 1968
'Gimme Shelter', Rolling Stones, December, 1969
'Ever Fallen in Love (With Someone You Shouldn't've)', The Buzzcocks, September, 1978
'Transmission', Joy Division, November, 1979
'Guns of Brixton', The Clash, December, 1979
'Real Child of Hell', X, July, 1982
'Pretty Persuasion', R.E.M., April, 1984
'Gratitude ', Oingo Boingo, November, 1984
'Kundalini Express', Love and Rockets, September, 1986
'Shoplifters of the World Unite', The Smiths, January, 1987
'Exit (Live)', U2, July, 1987
'All that Money Wants ', Psychedelic Furs , January, 1988
'Monkey Gone to Heaven', The Pixies, April, 1989
'God Knows It's True', Teenage Fanclub, November, 1990
'Until the End of the World', U2, November, 1991
'Low', Cracker, August, 1993
'Heart Shaped Box ', Nirvana, September, 1993
'Fall Down', Toad the Wet Sprocket, May, 1994
'Scenery', Neil Young, June, 1995
'Bullet with Butterfly Wings', Smashing Pumpkins, October, 1995
'Wonderwall', Oasis, October, 1995
'When She Was Happy', Pluto, January, 1996
'Mouth', Bush, November, 1996
'Song 2', Blur, February, 1997
'Everlong', Foo Fighters, May, 1997
'It Hurts When I Laugh', Love Spit Love, August, 1997
'Step Into My World', Hurricane #1, September, 1997
'This Time', The Verve , September, 1997
'In Hiding ', Pearl Jam, February, 1998
'One of These Days', Spacehog, March, 1998
'Runaground', James, June, 1998
'Legal Man', Belle and Sebastian, May, 2000
'Bohemian Like You', The Dandy Warhols, August, 2000
'The Whore's Hustle and the Hustler's Whore', PJ Havey, October, 2000
'The Twelve Steps', Spiritualized, September, 2001
'Light and Day/Reach for the Sun', The Polyphonic Spree, February, 2003
'Myxomatosis. (Judge, Jury & Executioner.)', Radiohead, June, 2003
'When You Were Young ', The Killers, September, 2006
'Melody Day', Caribou, August, 2007
'The Night Starts Here', The Stars, September, 2007
'Supernatural Superserious', R.E.M., February, 2008
'Love is Noise', The Verve , August, 2008

This is for right now; some of these songs could drop out or be replaced. Just an attempt to put together a really good and comprehensive rock list. Also this excludes Folk Rock, which I will post tomorrow or the next day.

Obviously I'm not a big fan of the 1970s.

Interesting Star Trek Story

Was just reading a review of Star Trek Season 3 over at Popmatters - and there's an interesting story about the first on air interracial kiss.

Just putting blacks and whites on the bridge together was innovative, but Star Trek went a step further during its third season. The show staged the first interracial kiss ever aired on television. The backstory is typically complicated. Captain Kirk, Spock, Lieutenant Uhuru and Nurse Chapel are captives of a vindictive society with the power to control minds. Their captors are putting on a show – Spock sings and plays the harp, Kirk and Spock fight and, finally, the two men are forced to kiss the women.

In an interview on disc seven, Nichols says that she saw the kiss in early drafts of the script and kept expecting it to come out. By the day of filming, the kiss was still in the script. The cast filmed the scene, and immediate chaos ensued. The director shut filming down, called in executives and the whole group of “suits” as Nichols called them, debated whether to allow the kiss. Finally, Gene Roddenberry broke the impasse, suggesting that two versions be filmed, one with a kiss, one without. They’d decide later. It was Friday afternoon. Nichols recalls the William Shatner dragged out the “kiss” filming, insisting on take after take until, finally, there was only time for one take of the non-kiss version. At the crucial moment, Shatner crossed his eyes. No one noticed until later…too late to reshoot the scene. The kiss stayed in.

I just wouldn't have thought Shatner capable of that on a couple of levels; I'm impressed.

Limbaugh Conservatives or McCarthy Conservatives

Neal Gabler has written an interesting article over at the LA Times about the Origin of modern Conservatism, in which he argues that it's real patron saint is Tailgunner Joe McCarthy, not Ronald Reagan.

But there is another rendition of the story of modern conservatism, one that doesn't begin with Goldwater and doesn't celebrate his libertarian orientation. It is a less heroic story, and one that may go a much longer way toward really explaining the Republican Party's past electoral fortunes and its future. In this tale, the real father of modern Republicanism is Sen. Joe McCarthy, and the line doesn't run from Goldwater to Reagan to George W. Bush; it runs from McCarthy to Nixon to Bush and possibly now to Sarah Palin. It centralizes what one might call the McCarthy gene, something deep in the DNA of the Republican Party that determines how Republicans run for office, and because it is genetic, it isn't likely to be expunged any time soon.

It's a pretty convincing argument, actually.