Lord Almighty

It's hard to know exactly what to say about this; presumably the makers of conservative shirts believe that a significant portion of their audience is eager to wear a shirt that proclaims their willingness, even eagerness, to simulate drowning in order to torture. Leaving aside the question of the potential innocence of some of these victims of torture, should we, as a nation or even a portion of a nation, be so gleeful about our torture of guilty suspects? Or what does that say about the people willing to buy these shirts?

I think the model there kind of gets it; there's something really sad and blank about her. Like she knows she's selling something ugly and is trying very hard not to think about it. Certainly some of the models this company uses seem much happier than she is.

Two points of view

Take a look at the Drudge Report, folks. Go to the front page, just the front page and you'll find a picture of one of the four Chinese Uighurs transferred from Guantanamo Bay to Bermuda swimming in the ocean. And there are stories accompanying these pictures saying that the Uighurs now have totally changed their mind about the United States. Now, Bermuda is British, and the UK was not informed that these four Uighurs -- these are Chinese Al-Qaedas, essentially -- were going to be in Bermuda. . . . The only thing missing is the pina coladas 'cause I know Uighurs don't consume alcohol. Well, they could be virgin coladas. They don't consume alcohol.

Rush Limbaugh

Refugees from Chinese communism, these Uighur men were swept up by US forces in 2001. They were sent to Guantanamo. But they were not terrorists and not our enemies. The military soon realized its mistake and quietly tried to resettle them abroad. The efforts failed: No one wanted to brook the Chinese for the sake of a few dissidents whom the United States would not accept itself.

Years later, after the Uighurs' plight emerged in court, the Bush administration formally admitted they were not enemies. A judge ordered their release.

. . . And so the Uighurs, cleared in every imaginable way, were stranded at the prison.

Bermudian Premier Ewart Brown saw the humanitarian crisis that lay beneath the politics. He offered to accept four of them into the island's guest worker program. At 3 a.m. on June 11, I watched on the Guantanamo airstrip as four innocent men were unshackled for the last time. They climbed aboard a charter aircraft. And when the sun rose, they stepped down to free soil in Bermuda, smiling broadly.

Sabin Willit

Maybe Rush Limbaugh isn't up on the facts of the case? But why should he be? Why waste precious seconds on Chinese al-Qaeda (even if they are totally innocent)? People accused of being Chinese al-Qaeda deserve no rights, even if they are completely innocent of those accusations.

Or that seems to be the way Limbaugh thinks. For a more rational view, read Sabin Willit's article, and see that Limbaugh isn't alone in his assessment of these innocent men.

News From the Past - June 16, 1929

This story appeared in the Miami Daily News Reporter, Sunday June 16, 1929, although it's dated June 15th. Weekends, what are you going to do?

80 Year Old War Veteran Hikes Miles for Pension
Joplin Mo. June 15.
—An 80 year old Civil War Veteran, stooped of shoulder and silver haired, trudged slowly through Joplin today, homeward bound to Dodge City, Kas., from Siloam Springs, Ark. where ha had walked to arrange an application for a pension. He is U. S. Sawyer.
Several weeks ago Sawyer started afoot from Dodge City, walking many dusty miles before reaching his destination. There the pension papers were arranged and now he is walking back to Dodge City.
Sawyer has refused many "lifts."
"I don't need to ride," he said. "I can make it all right so long as 1 take my time. 1 don't like to accept lifts anyway. People might think 1 was a bum. I'll be home in a little while."

Honestly, I find this story somewhat affecting, particularly that last line.

What Conservatives could do to get me to take them more Seriously

I am reading Michael Barone's latest article, in which he takes Obama to task for changing the way we fight the War on Terror.

The other problem is what I call the sloppy over-generosity of the American people. Except when aroused and alert, we have a tendency to be fat, dumb and happy, and to want to spread that happiness around. So, hey, let's give these detainees more rights than they're entitled to under the Geneva Conventions. It'll make us feel generous, and maybe it will make them like us.

OK come on, Barone. Do you really believe that Liberals support giving rights to suspected terrorists because then they will like us? One thing Conservatives could do to earn my respect is deal with what our arguments actually are.

That wasn't my main point though - my main point is I would love to see someone like Barone or Limbaugh deal with the reality of Khaled el-Masri (who Glenn Greenwald mentioned the other day) or others in a similar situation.

From the start, the rendition team suspected that his case was one of mistaken identity. But the C.I.A. officer in charge at Langley—the agency asked that the officer’s name be withheld—insisted that Masri be further interrogated. “She just looked in her crystal ball and it said that he was bad,” a colleague recalls. Masri says that he was chained in a freezing cell with no bed, and given water so putrid that he could smell it across the room. He was threatened and stripped, and could hear other detainees crying all around him. After several weeks, the C.I.A. officer in charge learned that Masri’s German passport was not a forgery, as was originally suspected, and that he was not the terror suspect the agency thought he was. (The names were similar.) Even so, the officer in charge refused to release him.

Eventually, Masri went on a hunger strike, losing sixty pounds. Skeptics in the agency went directly over the officer’s head to Tenet, who realized that his agency had been brutalizing an innocent man. Masri was released after a hundred and forty-nine days. But the officer in charge was not disciplined; in fact, a former colleague says, “she’s been promoted—twice.” Masri, meanwhile, has been unable to sue the U.S. government for either an apology or damages, because the courts consider the very existence of rendition a state secret—a position that the Obama Justice Department has so far supported.

El-Masri's situation is unfortunately not unique. One of the reasons to insist on actually gathering evidence against the people we imprison and having that evidence reviewed by people with some distance is to ensure that we aren't torturing or tormenting COMPLETELY INNOCENT PEOPLE!

But I do not recall Barone ever talking about the possibility of error. Let's be honest I got a problem with torturing guilty people, but I'd like to think we are all opposed to tormenting guys like Masri. I suppose saying that, though, would weaken Barone's position.

To Hell With Burt Prelutsky

For being a filthy liar. In his latest article he takes up the often and thoroughly debunked canard that President Obama is not actually eligible to be President of the United States.

We elect a new president who, for all we know, doesn’t even meet the few Constitutional qualifications of the office.

Seriously - anybody who repeats this canard, even if they wrap it around "for all we know" is a jackass. This has been reviewed and reviewed and reviewed and yet we still don't know enough to definitively say that Obama was born in the US?

It says more about Burt Prelutsky than it does about President Obama

News From the Past - June 15, 1929

The first in an ongoing look back at the news of the past, this one from the The Bismark Tribune, Saturday June 15, 1929, from Bismark North Dakota.

University Couple
Marry in Airplane
Grand Forks, N. D., June 15. Happy marriages, they say, are made in heaven, and that, naively explained Mr. and Mrs. Virgil E. Knight today is one of the many reasons why they are happy today.
For they were wed in the skies yesterday; married in an airplane soaring hundreds of feet above the noise of traffic in the town below.
The bridal couple, both students at the University of North Dakota, Leora Ellen Oliver. Grand Forks, and Virgil E. Knight, Flaxton, took off Orville Shupe. Miss Borchild Olsen of Fargo, was maid of honor, and Orville Shupe of Minot, pilot of the Plane, acted as best man. The marriage ceremony was read by the Rev. G. W. Ford, Crookston, Minn.

It's interesting that Ms. Borchild Olsen actually is the maid of honor while Orville Shupe is only acting as the best man. Maybe Virgil didn't have a lot of friends? But that had to be a bit of a blow to Orville - "You can act as the best man, I guess, but don't go thinking you are one?" Or possibly the actual best man was afraid of heights? So many mysteries.

Ending Radio Silence

I was on the road two weeks ago and quite busy last week; but I am rededicating myself to this blog. For the next few minutes anyway.

It turns out President Obama wants us to all accept Islam; it was in his Cairo Speech.

Bruce Bialosky's latest article declares that he will happily accept Islam once they change completely (in his mind). He decries all the bad things Islam has done (i.e. mistreating women and gays, being enemies with Israel, pretending to care about the Palestinian cause (he presents a particularly fictional version of history). He concludes with a nice statement about Islam.

Mr. Obama, it is nice that you want us to accept Islam, but would you have asked us to accept Nazism or Communism with their mass murders and mistreatment of people? I suggest you remember we did not elect you to be Brown-Noser-in-Chief or Apologist-in-Chief; we elected you as Commander-in-Chief. I respectfully suggest you start acting like it because these apologies to mass murderers and intolerant sons-of-bitches are really getting tiresome.

Yeah; well kind of non-sensical; I suspect Bialosky didn't read Obama's speech, but he doesn't need to I suppose. Any speech that deals with Muslims or Arabs as human beings isn't going to be very popular with him. Bialosky and others who believe in the "Muslim Menace" don't seem to see peace with the Islamic world as likely until we have thoroughly conquered it.

For a rational alternative let's turn back to President Bush's Cairo speech.

In Ankara, I made clear that America is not – and never will be – at war with Islam. We will, however, relentlessly confront violent extremists who pose a grave threat to our security. Because we reject the same thing that people of all faiths reject: the killing of innocent men, women, and children. And it is my first duty as President to protect the American people.

The situation in Afghanistan demonstrates America's goals, and our need to work together. Over seven years ago, the United States pursued al Qaeda and the Taliban with broad international support. We did not go by choice, we went because of necessity. I am aware that some question or justify the events of 9/11. But let us be clear: al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 people on that day. The victims were innocent men, women and children from America and many other nations who had done nothing to harm anybody. And yet Al Qaeda chose to ruthlessly murder these people, claimed credit for the attack, and even now states their determination to kill on a massive scale. They have affiliates in many countries and are trying to expand their reach. These are not opinions to be debated; these are facts to be dealt with.

Make no mistake: we do not want to keep our troops in Afghanistan. We seek no military bases there. It is agonizing for America to lose our young men and women. It is costly and politically difficult to continue this conflict. We would gladly bring every single one of our troops home if we could be confident that there were not violent extremists in Afghanistan and Pakistan determined to kill as many Americans as they possibly can. But that is not yet the case.

That's why we're partnering with a coalition of forty-six countries. And despite the costs involved, America's commitment will not weaken. Indeed, none of us should tolerate these extremists. They have killed in many countries. They have killed people of different faiths – more than any other, they have killed Muslims. Their actions are irreconcilable with the rights of human beings, the progress of nations, and with Islam. The Holy Koran teaches that whoever kills an innocent, it is as if he has killed all mankind; and whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind. The enduring faith of over a billion people is so much bigger than the narrow hatred of a few. Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism – it is an important part of promoting peace.

Good quote from Sonia Sotomayor

However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care.

This is from a speech Sotomayor gave in 2002, one which is giving her a bit of grief, as a quote from it is taken out of context.

I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.

Within context it is still a bit overstated, although the meaning is clear; there is some value to having minorities and women serving on the bench; they bring something that their white male counterparts don't have. You might disagree with that, particularly if you believe that the law is always clear and easy to interpret.

At any rate, I advise reading the speech as a whole.

The Childish Conservatives

The nomination of Sonia Sotomayer has really brought out the childish side of Conservatives, as they try to pretend something that just manifestly isn't true. Take David Limbaugh's latest article.

Obama said a Supreme Court nominee's two most important qualities are her rigorous intellect and mastery of the law and her recognition of the limits of the judicial role -- that a judge's job is to interpret law, not to make it.

Then came the "but," the exception that imperceptibly swallowed the rule. He quoted former Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes as saying, "The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience." In other words: "Forget what I just said about how judges should interpret, not make, the law. I want my judges to have empathy. And don't tell anyone, but when I say 'empathy,' that's code for bending the law to achieve the results I want based on the selective empathy I have for certain victimized groups."

Or Thomas Sowell's latest article.

"Empathy" for particular groups can be reconciled with "equal justice under law"-- the motto over the entrance to the Supreme Court-- only with smooth words. But not in reality.

Here's the childishness; the assessment that the law has basically one honest interpretation. When a judge rules, there is one right answer, clearly stated in the laws. If Sotomayer fails to apply the clearly self evident law, because of empathy or reverse racism or anything, she is unfit to serve. Conveniently the law, if properly applied, is always conservative.

But of course that is childish. If the law were so self evident, as Anonymous Liberal points out, well, Courts of Appeal and Supreme Courts wouldn't really be necessary.

But in Simplistic Republican World, none of this actually happens. Good conservative judges don't "make policy," they simply enforce the law. The law is apparently always clear. Indeed it's a wonder that lawyers even bother to appeal cases in the Fourth Circuit. After all, they should know that the conservative jurists in that circuit will simply "enforce the law" (because they wouldn't dream of "making policy"), so the outcome should be very predictable.

And, finally, it goes without saying that it wouldn't matter who Obama put up, they were always going to be the most liberal person ever nominated to the supreme court.

More on Liberals Vs. Conservatives

I meant to publish that Adams piece yesterday by the way.

Anyway today's analysis of Liberals comes from John Hawkins who is somewhat less nuanced than Adams.

Liberals love to think of themselves as sophisticated, nuanced intellectuals, but the truth is they have a kindergartner’s view of the world. If it has been defined as "nice" to people they like, they're for it. If it has been defined as "mean" to people they like, they’re against it -- and that is about as deep as it gets.

Hilarious. Untrue, but hilarious.

I will note that he echoes Adams from yesterday on one point.

There is no dream more eternal in the liberal heart than completely remaking human nature. If we could all just care about the person across the world as much as we do our families, we could live in a utopia! Unfortunately, in practice, human nature tends to be quite a bit more difficult to subvert than in the liberal imagination. That's why, despite more than 5,000 years of human civilization, very little progress has been made in this area – but, oh, the Left is still trying.

I like the phrase remaking human nature - it kind of puts a creepy mind control spin on the idea people react to their environments. If people live in a crummy environment that they see little hope of getting out of, they will turn to almost anything that promises a way out or at least some dignity. If we can make people's environments less miserable and hopeless, the Osama Bin Ladin's of the world will not be quite so persuasive.

But wait, it turns out that thanks to conservatisms more accurate view of human nature, terrorists would be come terrorists no matter what, because they are just evil inside. So trying to make the world less crummy is a waste of time. Yeah, that's the more adult way of looking at things.

It's Human Nature

Mike S. Adams takes a break from complaining about how hard it is to be a conservative on campus to write about the differences between liberals and conservatives. He does correctly state that we see human nature differently.

The conservative sees man as born in a broken state. This tragic view of human nature sees man as selfish and hedonistic by design. Given his nature, it is no wonder a man chooses crime. It is a wonder he ever chooses conformity.

. . . the liberal sees things differently. Everyone is born “good” with a blank slate. To the extent that people become “bad” it is because “society” corrupted them. Nowhere does the liberal explain how combining many good people makes a bad society.

Fair enough as far as it goes; except that Adams misses a key factor in his analysis; Liberals see humans as changeable. If a human is mistreated or abused he might turn more towards extreme or evil ways of expressing himself. If a human is treated with respect or kindness he might turn more positive or good.

For Conservatives, it seems, the only salvation is that offered by Christianity; only Christ can purify a heart to make it good. Hence there's no point to trying to clean up slums and help poor inner city kids get into college. Unless they have been cleansed by Christ, such efforts accomplish nothing other than giving an already wicked and corrupt person more tools to pursue his wickedness and corruption.

Now when it comes to ultimate salvation, Christian Conservatives might be right. But when it comes to the here and now, they couldn't be more wrong or destructive in their beliefs. Because the assumption that bad people can't change leads to, as mentioned above, no reason to make life better for those struggling (of course when you combine it with the theory that those who are wealthy must have earned deserved their wealth and those who are poor are condemned by God or their own laziness, than you have twice the reason not to care about the poor).

Beyond that he specifically notes that Conservatives believe diplomacy to be a stupid waste of time. People who are our enemies are going to stay our enemies until we crush them (some how defeating our enemies and conquering their countries will make them our buddies).

At any rate it's not hard headed and rational to assume that humans cannot change; it's childish. The only constant in human nature is change. That change can be for better or worse, but it's only logical to figure out ways to encourage positive change.

Should we be Civil to One Another?

Yes! No! Maybe!

Just read Michael Gerson's latest article at Townhall in which he says that liberals in particular should be nicer to conservatives.

America doesn't need another scolding lecture on the importance of civility. Well, apparently it does. So here goes.

Well, only if you are really sure.

This is in relation to Wanda Sykes appearance at the White House Correspondents dinner. Frankly she had some funny bits, but the bit about Rush Limbaugh isn't funny. Or it's funny in the same way that Ann Coulter is funny; if you already hate the person she's talking about, it seems pretty plausible.

Once again it seems necessary to point out that Wanda Sykes isn't setting policy and has little power within the Democratic party - contrast to Rush Limbaugh who apparently does have considerable influence on his fellow conservatoids.

Find myself a City to live in

Having a hard time plowing through conservatoid writing today, so thought I would point you to this interesting article at Commondreams about redesigning our cities. The author has some alarmism in it, as most environmental articles do, but the basic ideas are really interesting.

Mordently funny

It's humorous to read Ben Shapiro's latest article in which he warns that attempts to shame critics of the Obama Administration are an early warning sign of Nazism or Leninism. Of course such attempts are far more unorganized and sporadic than they were under President Bush, attempts with Shapiro happily supported. Such as these lines from an article in 2006.

Americans may be unhappy with Republicans, but Republicans must make clear that the alternative is a country run by those who consistently side with enemies of the American people.

It is fairly simple though - to conservatives like Shapiro the conservative point of view is worth defending and the liberal viewpoint is to be stamped out if possible. So freedom of speech is great when a conservative is talking. When a liberal is talking? Well, it's at best a necessary evil.

There's No More Magic

So what makes absinthe absinthe? Essentially it is a neutral spirit infused with myriad herbs and botanicals, centering around anise, fennel and a specific type of wormwood, Artemisia absinthium, from which absinthe takes its name. This wormwood contains small amounts of thujone, a compound once thought to affect the mind. It’s understood now that hallucinations and other health issues attributed to overindulging in absinthe were more a result of alcohol poisoning due to the high alcohol content, typically 50 to 70 percent.

So much for the green fairy - this depressing news from the New York Times.

What is Conservatism?

I suppose after doing this blog for so long I should know the answer, but Conservatives keep confusing me. The latest is John Hawkins who encourages Republicans to take up the banner of "No" proudly.

The GOP has spent eight years fudging the differences between the Republican and Democrat parties. In large part, that's why the American people tossed the Republican Party out on its collective behind: given a choice between Democrats and Democrat-lite, they chose the real thing.

Now, after being referred to as "The Party of No," the GOP should embrace that label instead of running from it. Yes, we have plenty of solutions, but before they can be implemented, Barack Obama has to be stopped -- he has to fail. Wanting Barack Obama to fail is like wanting someone who's trying to beat your child to death with a shovel to fail. You want him to fail because you love your child and we want Barack Obama to fail because we love this country.

Pretty grim language there, incidentally. Obama's governance is like beating a child with a shovel? Yeah that might be beyond the pale.

But what I find baffling is the theory that Republicans haven't been conservative enough. I kind of get where they are coming from on the budget; Republicans spent money pretty good in their years. But then the very first issue Hawkins brings up for Republicans to say no to is the closing of Gitmo - aren't Republicans the party of Gitmo?

At any rate, with Cheney, Limbaugh, and articles like these, we have no shortage of conservatives encouraging Republicans to go all out on principles.

We're Doomed

According to Doug Giles, in his latest article, the ancient prophets of the Old Testament were like "Rush, Beck, Coulter, Miller or O’Reilly on steroids."

I think I just lost my religion.

He also says that we are pretty much screwed.

I’m guessin’ God hasn’t had an extreme makeover and that He is the same yesterday, today and forever, which could mean in our current culture—where evil is good and good is evil—that we might be in line for grave negative sanctions because, apparently, America’s new favorite pastime is whizzing on that which is holy, just and good.

Our new favorite pastime is whizzing on that which his holy just and good? Oh I see, kind of like comparing Old Testament prophets to Ann Coulter - yeah I guess that would get under God's skin.

It's possible that Doug Giles isn't really a theologian you should trust.

Sex Doesn't Sell

At least when it comes to computer games, according to an article at the Guardian. The article reviews the history of sexy video games, and notes that oddly, a number of games that feature prominent breasts (or boobies if you will), don't sell quite as well as you would expect them too.

Far from the porn-crazed sex ghouls they're frequently portrayed as, male videogame players appear to be developing quite a potent resistance to exploitative, sex-based marketing practices.

I think the key question is not whether or not a game is sexy or not but whether or not a game is fun or not. If a game is fun, well, the design sense, whether fun and light, heavy and dark, or, well, overly sexualized is icing on the cake. If the game is not fun, well, all the breasts in the world (which I calculate to be 6,722 million) won't make it fun.

What he said

Call me an alarmist, but we are witnessing the beginning of the most frightening period of government tyranny in our nation's history.

OK, you're an alarmist.

This is from David Limbaugh's latest article, in which he reviews Obama's mythical hatred of capitalism. To conservatives of Limbaugh's stripe, Capitalism is like virginity; the moment it is compromised through regulation or taxation, it is gone. It begs the question of whether or not we've had capitalism since the 1800s, but I gather they would say that we have had, at best, an incomplete capitalism since then.

All over the Map

David Limbaugh's latest article reads almost like a stream of consciousness. He starts out explaining that America is still, all signs to the contrary, a conservative nation. In order to win the Republicans need to be more Conservative. Fair enough, if a bit dependent on what I like to call "wishful thinking."

Limbaugh then moves to attack Obama in the standard way; familiar if you were around in the Clinton Era. Obama is a super liberal but pretends to be a moderate.

Obama tells us he's a disciple of capitalism while he gobbles up big chunks of the private sector and refuses to allow them out from under his government thumb when they try to refund their TARP money. He declares an end to earmarks as he signs a bill bloated with almost 9,000 of them. He boasts of his fiscal responsibility as he schemes to quadruple the deficit.

Yeah that's pretty familiar. But don't worry, Limbaugh sees hope on the horizon in the battle over the Supreme Court. After they trash the character of any candidate for the Supreme Court Obama puts up, well, they can paint Obama as a crazy liberal for having put him up in the first place.

We'll have to see how that works.

Obama's First Justice

Well Conservatives have already started working on Obama's nominee to the Supreme Court - a nomination he hasn't made yet, but one they know will be just awful. Carol Platt Liebau decries the possibility of Obama picking an empathetic justice, which she takes to me empathetic to unwed mothers and accused criminals. From this (and ignoring the rest of Obama's statement, she concludes that Obama wants a super legislator on the bench running roughshod over the constitution and decent Americans.

Instead, Obama wants a policymaker sitting on the Supreme Court – in fact, a super-lawmaker on steroids. He’s looking for a judge willing to engage in an enterprise that has nothing to do with the actual process of adjudication – that is, interpreting the laws that have been passed by a legislature and signed by an executive.

Of course the assumption Liebau makes here is that the conservative interpretation of the laws is the only reasonable one; the only way that a justice would rule in agreement with Kennedy or Ginsburg is if they were being essentially unreasonable. Empathy clouds their minds and they vote by something other than the law.

Poppycock. While I might strongly disagree with an Alito or a Scalia, I'm not going to pretend like they don't know the law. Nor am I going to pretend like they don't have legal rationales for why they vote the way they do; I simply disagree with their interpretation (or to be more precise, I agree with people who know far more about such issues than I do).

In other news, Kevin James suggests Daffy Duck as the ideal candidate for the Surpreme Court; largely because he is a minority, black, handicapped (speech impediment), and a perpetual victim. Because the only thing we liberals are looking for is minorities, not qualifications. Clearly this must be so because if we were interested in a qualified candidate we would select another White guy.

Dennis Prager and Torture

Dennis Prager's latest article takes on the torture question, and he asks nine questions of liberals who want to see further investigations into the torture. He concludes his article with this chilling pronouncement.

If you do not address these questions, it would appear that you care less about morality and torture than about vengeance against the Bush administration.

Oh my. Well, I'd better answer these questions then.

Given how much you rightly hate torture, why did you oppose the removal of Saddam Hussein . . .

We opposed the invasion of Iraq, not the removal of Saddam Hussein. We saw, correctly, that invading Iraq would be a lot more expensive and difficult than the Bush Administration pretended at the time. Legitimately it could and did make things worse for the Iraqis.

Also the abuses at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere were our responsibility; what Saddam did, as awful as it was, wasn't.

Are all forms of painful pressure equally morally objectionable? In other words, are you willing to acknowledge that there are gradations of torture as, for example, there are gradations of burns, with a third-degree burn considerably more injurious and painful than a first-degree burn? Or is all painful treatment to be considered torture? Just as you, correctly, ask proponents of waterboarding where they draw their line, you, too, must explain where you draw your line.

For the record, burning a suspect, whether you give him a first or a third degree burn is still torture. By the same token actually drowning someone would be worse that simulating torture through waterboarding. That's not the point. The point is that we are inflicting pain - and that is torture.

Is any maltreatment of anyone at any time -- even a high-level terrorist with knowledge that would likely save innocents’ lives -- wrong?

Inflicting pain is not the same as maltreatment - this question goes on to bring up the would you torture Osama question. I would oppose torturing Osama bin Ladin.

If lawyers will be prosecuted for giving legal advice to an administration that you consider immoral and illegal, do you concede that this might inhibit lawyers in the future from giving unpopular but sincerely argued advice to the government in any sensitive area?

If a lawyer advises an administration to break the law, as it seems they did in this case, well, than they should be held responsible for their bad advice. Now it might be an honest mistake; perhaps those involved genuinely believe we lived in a dictatorship where the President's word is law. In that case, I'd be fine with an insanity plea.

Presumably you would acknowledge that the release of the classified reports on the handling of high-level, post-Sept. 11 terror suspects would inflame passions in many parts of the Muslim world. If innocents were murdered because nonviolent cartoons of Muhammad were published in a Danish newspaper, presumably far more innocents will be tortured and murdered with the release of these reports and photos. Do you accept any moral responsibility for any ensuing violence against American and other civilians?

OK, so you are saying the release of these pictures will cause violence, and it's our fault? Not the fact that torture happened, but the fact that we revealed it? Well I still think you tell the truth.

If, then, the intelligence community has been adversely affected, do you believe it can still do the work necessary to protect tens, perhaps hundreds, of thousands of people from death and maiming?

I believe the damage was done by the Bush Administrations decision to torture, not by the revelations now necessitated by that torture.

Will you seek to prosecute members of Congress such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who were made aware of the waterboarding of high-level suspects and voiced no objections?

If this is accurate, than yes, I would support it.

Would you agree to releasing the photos of the treatment of Islamic terrorists only if accompanied by photos of what their terror has done to thousands of innocent people around the world?

IN other words, make the case to the rest of the world that "Yeah we tortured, but Osama Bin Ladin has done a lot worse?" I'm not sure that is a winning strategy. For one thing, I think people hold the United States to a somewhat higher standard than Osama Bin Ladin.

You say that America’s treatment of terror suspects will cause terrorists to treat their captives, especially Americans, more cruelly. On what grounds do you assert this? . . . Do you think that evil people care how morally pure America is?

This is moderately funny because just a few points ago you asserted that releasing these pictures would cause riots we should feel guilty about. If there are evil people who want to riot, won't they riot anyway, pictures or no pictures?

But in response to the argument the war in terror isn't happening in a vacuum. There might be other military conflicts we find ourselves drawn into, in which case our decisions in torture might come back to hurt us. But even if releasing that information doesn't help in that regard it would still be the right thing to do. What we did, as a nation, under President Bush was both legally and morally wrong, and we need to take responsibility for our actions. And that's the bottom line.

Vengeance vs. Justice

This will be a debate that carries us through the rest of the year I think, in regards to the torture memos and former Bush administration officials who approved "enhanced interrogation techniques." On the one side you have people like Michael Barone, in his latest article.

The Madame Defarges of the Democratic left want to see the guillotine flash down and heads roll. Specifically, they want to see the prosecution or impeachment of officials who approved enhanced interrogation techniques -- torture, in their view.

On the other side you have people like Glenn Greenwald who see things a bit differently.

As is obvious from everything I've written over the past three years, I think the need to criminally prosecute those who authorized and ordered torture (as well as illegal surveillance) is absolute and non-negotiable (and, as I wrote earlier today, in the case of torture, criminal investigations are legally compelled). A collective refusal to prosecute the grotesque war crimes that we know our Government committed is to indict all of us in those crimes, to make us complict in their commission.

I tend to come down on Greenwald's side of the fence, if, for no other reason, then that I believe in our court system. If the Bush administration officials who approved these measures are truly innocent of wrong doing, let them stand in court and say so, and prove it to the court.

Investigating

Don't have a lot of time this morning, but wanted to point out Paul Krugman's latest, basically arguing that we should be investigating some of the criminal acts of the previous administration.

For example, would investigating the crimes of the Bush era really divert time and energy needed elsewhere? Let’s be concrete: whose time and energy are we talking about?

Tim Geithner, the Treasury secretary, wouldn’t be called away from his efforts to rescue the economy. Peter Orszag, the budget director, wouldn’t be called away from his efforts to reform health care. Steven Chu, the energy secretary, wouldn’t be called away from his efforts to limit climate change. Even the president needn’t, and indeed shouldn’t, be involved. All he would have to do is let the Justice Department do its job — which he’s supposed to do in any case — and not get in the way of any Congressional investigations.

I don’t know about you, but I think America is capable of uncovering the truth and enforcing the law even while it goes about its other business.

It's a good article and I largely agree.

Your weekly rush

Just in case you doubted, here's the great one himself, on Edison.

We cannot forget the man who is perhaps America's greatest inventor of all time, Thomas Edison. His incredible inventions defined our modern world. Among them, the incandescent lightbulb, so we can see earth at night, and see each other at night, . . . Thomas Edison is a hero to America and all mankind, and on this Earth Day we salute Thomas Edison and so many other capitalist inventors whose efforts have brought so much joy to us, the billions of people who inhabit our dear old Mother Earth. And now even Edison is being besmirched with the invention of the spaghetti lightbulb.

Yeah I'm still not sure how the spaghetti lightbulb besmirches Edison.

Back to the Present

I'm not sure how to write this. Walter E. Williams has written an article in which he argues in favor of both Succession and Nullification, two "constitutional" rights that have been been null since the 1860s. But Williams finds them still valid.

While the U.S. Constitution does not provide a specific provision for nullification, the case for nullification is found in the nature of compacts and agreements. Our Constitution represents a compact between the states and the federal government. As with any compact, one party does not have a monopoly over its interpretation, nor can one party change it without the consent of the other. Additionally, no one has a moral obligation to obey unconstitutional laws. That's not to say there is not a compelling case for obedience of unconstitutional laws. That compelling case is the brute force of the federal government to coerce obedience, possibly going as far as using its military might to lay waste to a disobedient state and its peoples.

What makes this somewhat more disturbing is the sight of Williams, a black man, arguing in favor of two principles who's historical usage was to preserve slavery (although not the most interesting position he's taken). Nullification first appeared in an attempt by South Carolina to require black seaman to be imprisoned while in port. It's most famous use was over tariffs it is true, but with one eye on what can the Federal Government impose should they decide to approach the question of slavery.

At any rate the doctrine of nullification ended in the 1830s and succession of course was put to bed in the Civil War. Seems unlikely that either doctrine will be successfully applied today, Texan political posturing notwithstanding.

A Few Points

1. Go check out this post at the Slactivist on how to respond to the theory that Christians are persecuted in America. It's very accurate.

2. Was listening to Limbaugh while driving around at lunch; it's Earth day so he's pretty upset and somewhat irrational. Apparently the CFL Light bulb is an insult to Thomas Edison, according to Rush. I'm not sure Edison would see it that way; he did say "If we all did the things we are capable of doing, we would literally astound ourselves." Doesn't sound like the sort of guy who would be happy with us stopping the development of new ideas and new more efficient products.

Unhinged

For years I had to wade through articles insisting that Liberals were mentally unstable or unhinged in their attacks on President Bush. I don't doubt that there were some articles that went a little over the top in their attacks on President Bush; I pointed a few out from time to time.

That said, Brent Bozell's latest article on President Obama rivals anything liberals said about Bush.

Obama's so egotistical he thinks America has two historical eras, Before Obama and the Glorious Now. After sitting through a 50-minute diatribe from that communist thug Daniel Ortega, who ranted that America had unleashed a century of expansionist aggression, Obama's response wasn't national, just personal: "I'm grateful that President Ortega did not blame me for things that happened when I was 3 months old."

. . . American reporters saw this as a glorious moment. Time's Tim Padgett said the hate-America gift was appropriate, because Obama "proved at the Trinidad summit to be the first U.S. president to get it." Obama "gets" the America-haters.

The first thing that jumps out at you reading this article is just how much Bozell hates Obama.

But secondly, he has know knowledge of Latin American History; he doesn't realize or care how much Latin America legitimately resents the United States. We have acted aggressively in that part of the world for decades, and they want to be sure we don't go back to those ways. Bozell doesn't know that, or, if he does, doesn't care.

Getting along with Latin America involves acknowloging our history, which Obama is willing to do. The fact that Bozell doesn't like it, and wishes Obama believed in the childish version of America where everything America does is great (except when a liberal is around), well, as I said, it's kind of childish.

In other news we discovered another planet. Two actually. The LA Times has the story.

Mild Amusement

I was on the road last week so kind of blew this off; but I'm back today.

But I am mildly amused by John Hawkin's latest article, in which he argues that Liberals don't have a permanent majority. or rather he argues that they do have a permanent majority, but in a sarcastic ways. See for yourself.

Sure, America's political history has been one long churning political cycle with both party's fortunes going up and down, but that's not going to happen this time! This time, the Republicans aren't going to learn anything from losing, conservatives aren't going to be inspired to take action by being out of power, and the Democrats aren't going to get even more complacent and corrupt as they enjoy the rewards of being in power.

What I find mordantly amusing is the admonition to Liberals not to get overconfident. Hawkins wasn't writing in 2002 or 2004, but I am guessing some Conservatives could have used his advice in the days of "Permanent Majority" talk, and the embarrassing suggestion that the red states kick the blue states out of the union.

Conservatives vs. Liberals

Michael Medved's latest article takes on this ancient conundrum. Liberals he says reflexively blame society for society's failures. If someone falls behind, it is proof that society is unfair. He then explains the conservative position.

Conservatives and libertarians, on the other hand, view success or failure as the inevitable consequence of different levels of talent, hard work and productivity. While acknowledging that a few lucky slackers may be born into fortunate circumstances that they never earned, or that some virtuous and gifted individuals can suffer reverses or tragedies that they don’t deserve, right wingers believe that worldly advancement (particularly in the USA) comes for the most part from focus, toil and smart choices. They therefore resent government redistribution programs for taking hard-earned wealth from the people who deserve it most and giving it to those who merit it least.

Weak. If I were to write a parody of the Republican/Conservative point of view just to make fun of it I might come up with something like this.

The truth is that, as a liberal, I don't believe that all inequalities are the fault of society; in some cases people are just lazy or make bad choices. In other cases, there are systematic problems that can be addressed. So rather than believing that all problems are caused by society (as Medved believes that I believe) or believing that all (or nearly all) problems are caused by the individual (as Medved believes), I believe that some problems are caused by the individual, but there are some systematic weaknesses that can be cleaned up.

At a town hall meeting with French and German citizens in Strasbourg, France, President Barack Obama proved he hadn't just been posturing on the campaign trail when he castigated then-President George W. Bush for his "unilateralist" foreign policies. It's now clear that Obama wanted not only the American electorate to understand his disdain for his predecessor and the country he led but also the rest of the world to know it.

He told his European audience: "It's always harder to forge true partnerships and sturdy alliances than to act alone. … In America, there's a failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world. Instead of … seeking to partner with you … there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive."

David Limbaugh, "Somewhere Under the Rainbow"

Wonder why Limbaugh had to put in quite so many ellipses in that little quote. Could it be that he is taking Obama a little out of context? Media Matters, responding to a similar take by Sean Hannity, seems to think so.

Is What You See What Is?

Politically speaking, the answer is oftentimes no. Take, for example, Matt Barber's latest article, in which he rails against RNC Chairman Michael Steele for his relaxed attitudes towards homosexuality and abortion.

The Homosexuality section is a humdinger; apparently Michael Steele does not consider homosexuality a choice, which Barber then conflates towards supporting Gay Marriage. But then he unloads on Steele in more of a general way.

The American people demand much more. They have forsaken the GOP because it first forsook them. Yet the party’s ideologically emaciated leaders remain oblivious to the obvious – blind to the political sustenance aplenty that pelts thick skulls like manna from Heaven. If the GOP ever wishes to reverse its spiral into the abyss of irrelevancy, it must, in word and deed, make a bold, unapologetic return to the fiscally conservative and socially conservative policies that fueled the Reagan revolution.

It must be very comforting to Barber to believe this in these dark times for conservatism. But I suspect the American people are neither as conservative as he would like them nor as liberal as I would like them.

This theory requires him to believe that the American people either 1) wanted conservatism but McCains weakness and Obama's deception confused them to the point that they thought Obama was the more conservative candidate or 2) wanted decisive leadership, and Obama was stronger at projecting that, while modern republicans look like wishy-washy wimps. The first requires you to believe that Americans are conservative but pretty stupid. The second I can see, though.

The Limbaugh Challange

The Los Angeles Times, showing good sense, recently published an editorial by Andrew Klavan which insulted their readers.

If you are reading this newspaper, the likelihood is that you agree with the Obama administration's recent attacks on conservative radio talker Rush Limbaugh. That's the likelihood; here's the certainty: You've never listened to Rush Limbaugh.

Oh no, you haven't. Whenever I interrupt a liberal's anti-Limbaugh rant to point out that the ranter has never actually listened to the man, he always says the same thing: "I've heard him!"

On further questioning, it always turns out that by "heard him," he means he's heard the selected excerpts spoon-fed him by the distortion-mongers of the mainstream media. These excerpts are specifically designed to accomplish one thing: to make sure you never actually listen to Limbaugh's show, never actually give him a fair chance to speak his piece to you directly.

I'm going to pause here to note that I have actually listened to Rush Limbaugh. He's had plenty of opportunity to speak his piece to me; and I still regularly tune in. Let's skip down a bit in this well thought out editorial directed at those people who choose to read the Los Angeles Times.

You're a lowdown, yellow-bellied, lily-livered intellectual coward. You're terrified of finding out he makes more sense than you do.

I listen to Limbaugh every chance I get, and I have never heard the man utter a single racist, hateful or stupid word.

Never? I mean I'll be generous and give your racist. There are some well publicized contradictions to that point, but in honesty, he doesn't say as many racist things as he does stupid and hateful things.

I think it's gratifying in a way that we can drop the pretense that Rush Limbaugh is just an entertainer and isn't that important.

False Choices

Young Ben Shapiro's latest is interesting; he takes Obama for task for using the phraseology of "false choices," which he describes as childish.

And so Obama claimed in the Chicago Tribune that Americans “need not choose between a chaotic and unforgiving capitalism and an oppressive government-run economy.” That choice, he said, is a “false choice.” It is a false choice as he phrases it -- capitalism isn’t chaotic and unforgiving. But the simple choice between capitalism and a government-managed economy is a real choice -- and it’s the most important choice Americans have faced in half a century. Obscuring the need to make that choice by glossing over it with happy talk does a profound disservice to the American people.

It is in fact a false choice, Shapiro. It presents, as Conservatives tend to these days, two poles. The pure pristine clarity of unfettered, laissez-faire capitalism verses, in a word, communism. But the truth is that it there is a long continuity between those two poles. Conservatives are trying to blur that distinction right now to suggest that any proposal Obama puts forwards is a step on the way to Communism; but I don't know how successful they are going to be.

Projection

Projection, in this case, means taking your own flaws and projecting them onto others. For an example, take John Hawkins' latest article.

Additionally, conservatives tend to think liberals are merely stupid or emotional, while liberals tend to view conservatives as evil -- and liberals use that belief to justify lying about conservatives. After all, if you lie about someone who's evil to keep them from doing bad things, couldn't that be considered virtuous? You may disagree with that, but liberal politicians, bloggers, and journalists live by that rule. Any lie told about a conservative, even one that liberals know isn't true, will be uncritically repeated ad nauseum by the Left until the point it becomes politically disadvantageous to do so.

I should note that Hawkins includes a link to substantiate his assertion that Conservatives believe Liberals are dumb and emotional while Liberals believe Conservatives are evil. That link leads back to his own blog. I can't knock it; I do it myself on occasion.

I'm not sure I believe that myself. I think that there are plenty of Conservatives who believe that Liberals want to destroy America, want America to suffer, because they believe that a suffering America will give them power. I think this because I've heard them say it.

The overall subject of this article is how do Liberals lie about Conservatives. It's hard to write about this subject in a way without doing some self analysis at the same time. Because of course I am a liberal, and I don't think we lie about conservatives nearly as much as they lie about us. So I'll just note that of these 7 ways liberals lie about conservatives, I've seen conservatives utilize all 7.

Looking at Conservatives Charitably

Do Conservatives believe that their policies will enrich the wealthy at the expense of poor and working class Americans? I'm willing to concede they mostly don't. Every so often you read a screed by someone who really does seem to have it in for America's poor, but for the most part Conservatives believe that if Conservative policies are followed they will be good for everybody.

Take for example, Kevin McCullough's latest article.

The bailout, the stimulus, the omnibus, and the proposed budget all do nothing to assist a poor person in finding independence and they all aim to create an enslavement to entitlements that dehumanize the individual, create embarrassment for their family, and ultimately rob that person of one of the most cherished gifts God grants us--the satisfaction of personal achievement.

Now I'm going to take McCullough at his word; this is genuinely how he looks at the world. The damage done by helping poor people would be greater than the damage they are are already suffering. I disagree with his assessment; rather I think following his policies will make wealthy people more powerful and more wealthy while making life harder for America's working and middle class. That's why I disagree with and oppose the policies he and other conservatives espouse, but I generally don't doubt that such policies are honestly held (with a few exceptions I must admit).

But McCullough is not likely to extend to me the same charity.

Democrats, and the progressive left in particular, exploit the poor, they use the poor, they write speeches about them, and manipulate their "unrepresented voices" in debates. But one thing is increasingly clear from the Obama administration and the popular left in America, they don't have any interest in helping them.

So there you go.

Comments on the Prompter

As promised I did look at the comments on the article above; like I thought they aren't keen on Gerson's article.

One set of complaints is worth pointing out.

But you seem to have missed the main point of all those people complaining about the president's constant use of the teleprompter: he was sold to us as someone who didn't need it.

Barack Obama was supposed to be this eloquent man, with a firm grasp on the situation at hand and the admirable ability to speak with strength and conviction.

Amen brother, Amen!!! You said pretty much what I was thinking when I read this pile of poop: When you are supposed to be the reincarnation of Aristotle, Socrates, or Plato in speaking to the masses, you are not supposed to need promoter for a six minute speech!

The second comment is saying Amen to the first guys comment.

So the complaint is, essentially, that Obama was supposed to be a brilliant speaker and a brilliant man, nearly a godlike figure who could do anything, and since he is using a teleprompter, he must not be flawless. This only works if you buy the argument the Obama sold himself as a perfect human being. Republicans do; they've been "concerned" about his "Messianic" trappings since about the time they realized he had a good chance to take the nomination from Hillary.

On the other hand I, and dare I say most Democrats, never thought Obama was a flawles; they just thought he was clearly better than McCain and a huge step up from President Bush. So the argument, to me at least, seems a strawman. "You Liberals said that Obama was perfect, and it turns out he's not."

If you prefer a nuttier comment, by the way, check out this one.

When this punk sold his soul to the Bilderberg Group he agreed to let them script his presentations. They know what they want said to facilitate the destruction of our country and create their new world order. Honestly, stop calling this fool "brilliant" and an inspiring speaker - he is neither. We are on the cusp of either a revolution or a complete downfall in this nation. Pick your side.

That's a tough choice; particularly since a revolution could easily lead to the complete downfall in this nation.

Making sense

Don't have a lot of time this morning but wanted to point you to a sensible article over at Townhall by Michael Gerson. He takes on the Limbaugh Conservatives current obsession with teleprompters and President Obama's use thereof. And he basically says it should be no big deal.

Obama's goal at his recent news conference was less elevated -- to express his thoughts on the economy with precision, as he faces a crisis in which a stray word could have a tremendous cost.

During a wobbly first two months, Obama has had many problems. But using an autocue isn't one of them. A teleprompter speech represents the elevation of writing in politics. And good writing has an authenticity of its own.

He's not wrong. But I doubt his message will resonate with Townhall readers for two reasons.

One, he attributes to Obama good speeches; but our buddies at Townhall presumably think that Obama's speeches have been lousy.

Two, he is mildly critical of President Ronald Reagan's ability to speak extemporaneously.

If I think of it I'll check in the comments sections later on.

Let's Talk about Flags

Yep Flags. I was just reading Steve Chapman's latest article in which he talks about Rep. Shane Jett of the Oklahoma Legislature, who wants to add an exclamation point to the state flag. You see the flag has the name on it, but Rep. Jett thinks he can spruce it up with an exclamation point.

There are a couple of jokes to make here, I suppose. Steve Chapman makes a few of them.

Given that most flags fly almost exclusively in their home state, including a name disparages the mental acuity of residents. It implies that without a prompt, some people would forget where they live.

Ah but what if Doctor Mysteriex develops his mass amnesia ray? The prominent name of the state would give the newly amnesiac masses a chance.

Doctor Mysteriex - "Ha you hapless fools, welcome to Mysteriexland, a private fiefdom where you are all pathetic serfs! Ha ha ha ha ha!"

Oklahoman - "But wait, look at that flag over there. It says Oklahoma? What's an Oklahoma?"

Doctor Mysteriex - "Curses. For some reason, I'm foiled."

Steve Chapman points out that many state flags suck, and suggests that flags need to be simpler and easier to draw. So he basically comes down on the side of Rep. Jett, saying that at least he's trying to improve the State Flag.

I agree, but frankly if you are going to take your inspiration from Rogers and Hammerstien, well, The Sound of Music is a far superior work.

Liberals vs. Conservatives

Glenn Greenwald's latest article contrasts the criticisms President Obama has received from Liberals and the praise President Bush received from conservatives.

Whenever I would speak at events over the last couple of years and criticize the Bush administration's expansions of government power, extreme secrecy and other forms of corruption, one of the most frequent questions I would be asked was whether "the Left" -- meaning liberals and progressives -- would continue to embrace these principles with a Democrat in the White House, or whether they would instead replicate the behavior of the Right and uncritically support whatever the Democratic President decided. Though I could only speculate, I always answered -- because I believed -- that the events of the last eight years had so powerfully demonstrated and ingrained the dangers of uncritical support for political leaders that most liberals would be critical of and oppositional to a Democratic President when that President undertook actions in tension with progressive views.

Two months into Obama's presidency, one can clearly conclude that this is true. Even though Obama unsurprisingly and understandably remains generally popular with Democrats and liberals alike, there is ample progressive criticism of Obama in a way that is quite healthy and that reflects a meaningful difference between the "conservative movement" and many progressives.

I think there's a valid point here, but perhaps a few caveats need to be applied.

First of all, conservatives are naturally inclined to the great man theory of politics, because they don't believe in the power of Government to do good. Rather they think the Government that does the least is the best. In their minds, it takes a great man to really make Government work at all, and they become devoted to those man. Consider how regularly they accused the bureaucrats of sabotaging President Bush.

This also goes to what they see the job of the President, which is, in a nutshell, commander in chief. They are aware that he also oversees a vast executive bureaucracy, but, since they would like to see that bureaucracy destroyed, they don't consider that side of his job to be very important. What matters to them is protecting the American people.

Which ties into one of Greenwald's blind spots in a way. He obviously cares greatly about civil liberties and how the Bush administration took a hatchet to basic constitutional protections. And to conservatives, those are Bush's strong points. So their willingness to praise him when he was doing that kind of stuff; it's not like they were praising him in spite of his record on civil liberties. Rather they were praising him for casting aside our civil liberties.

So when you talk about their slavish devotion to President Bush, he's right, they were slavishly devoted to him on the issues of foreign policy and protecting the homeland. But a conservative can respond to this by saying "Yeah but we criticized him all the time on issues like growing the government or border protection." Which again is true but missing the point.

The bottom line is that the things the Bush government were doing should have been a problem to all Americans, conservative or liberal. The fact is, however, a significant number of Americans wanted President Bush to do exactly what he did.

Oh and if you are tempted to say "I sure haven't seen any liberals / progressives criticize Obama," kindly look around a bit before posting.

Why don't people hate Communism more?

Dennis Prager's latest article covers Communism vs. Fascism/Nazism, and asks the question we all agree that Nazism is really really bad. So why don't we realize how bad Communism is. He gives his seven reasons; some of which are accurate and some of which are veiled attacks on liberals. He does note that Communism seems to have won, saying "Communism won, Nazism lost. And the winners write history."

However he does leave out a few reasons why Communism isn't seen as bad as Fascism.

1. Conservatives have been muddying the waters since the 1940s and the era of McCarthy. They have tried to equate everything and everyone more liberal than Ronald Reagan as Communist, and hatve warned for years that every liberal/progressive proposal is leading us to Communism. It's a bit like the boy who cried wolf; eventually it stops working. And in so doing it confuses people about what Communism is.

2. Communists are still around and are valuable trading partners. While you can argue that this sucks (and it certainly does) we can't afford to antagonize them as much as perhaps we should. Instead we are stuck pretending they are our friends, which restricts our ability to demonize them the same way we demonize Iran.

But of course the larger point is that whatever high minded principles Prager pretends to, he is of course in favor of reminding us all that Liberals and Progressives are soft on Communism because they secretly favor it.

Sharia Investments

I don't have a lot to say about this story; Diana West, in her latest article, is glad that people are starting to wake up to President Obama's socialist agenda, at least in regards to the outrage over the AIG bonuses. After all he's continued the Bush administrations policy of giving AIG bailout money.

But, in Wests opinion, what people should really be upset about are some of AIG's funds witch conform to Sharia law.

The nationalization of AIG is forcing the American taxpayer to support a very different kind of toxic asset. I refer to AIG's promotion of Sharia (Islamic law) in its Takaful division, the Sharia-compliant insurance sector of AIG. Since we the people own 80 percent of AIG, we the people now promote Sharia, too.

Don't believe me? Takaful insurance, our very own AIG Takaful Web site explains, "avoids prohibited elements in accordance with the Sharia law," adding: "We do not invest in anything that is haram (prohibited under Sharia). We do not borrow, lend or enter into any financial transaction that is unIslamic."

Apparently this particular issue has caused West to discover the value of separating Church and State. But I think West would like to see Islam separated from everything possible. At any rate this isn't too hard to understand. There are people who want to invest money in investments that confirm to Islamic principles; AIG has created funds to cater to those people. It is no different than funds created to conform to a wide variety of ideas and belief systems; there is a niche and AIG filled it.

I wonder what West thinks a real American government would do - require those funds be shut and the money returned to the clients, I guess. Because the existence of and any accommodation of Islam, in the slightest, is a threat to all of us.

Boldness

Matt Towery has a recommendation for the Republican Party in his latest article. It's that they should be bold. Specifically they should put forth ideas. Bold ideas. Four bold ideas that Towery would like to see the Republicans champion.

1. Term limits for congressional types. I don't have a strong feeling about this one, one way or another. The issue isn't term limits, however, the really issue is gerrymandering. How many congressional districts in the United States are really contestable and how many are cut in such a way as to be "safe" for one party or the other? But that's another issue; at any rate, this is nice, but not going to set the world on fire.

2. The Fair Tax. By the fair tax they mean a flat tax - this would lower the tax burden on the wealthy and possibly raise it on the working class. It would mean that the government would have to spend less money, which means they would have to cut services (presumably services which disproportionately benefit the working class).

3. Eliminate federal agencies and consolidate others. As referenced earlier, whether or not Towery specifically wants to make life harder on the working and middle class, that would probably be the end result, as programs that benefit them are scaled back or eliminated.

4. Start a program to restore American Manufacturing Dominance.

Provide a list of laws to be eliminated, incentives to be provided and a definitive means of measuring progress. We will forever be beholden to countries such as China to provide capital for our treasury if they continue to grow a manufacturing-strong economy while we become a nation where basically everyone trades dollar bills for providing services to one another.

This is the most interesting to me. Because how does China beat us currently? They treat their employees terribly, paying them little, and working them hard. Right now, American workers are far more expensive than Chinese ones. American Workers have to be paid well, have to have benefits, have to have safe working conditions, have limits in how long they can work and so on and so forth. Chinese workers are a bargain comparatively speaking.

Now as a soft-headed liberal I think to myself, "Well something needs to be done to give those Chinese workers a leg up." But I'm guessing Towery, as a hard-headed Conservative, probably isn't thinking along those lines. Possibly he believes that we can innovate faster than the Chinese, improve our manufacturing processes such that we can continue employing expensive American workers and still out perform Chinese plants. But just as likely he believes that American Workers have it too easy and are too protected. If we remove those protections, eliminate that "list of laws" he references (and I'm not even mentioning the environmental laws), if we make America a bit more like the third world, well, than things will really take off.

The Glory of Capitalism

This is from Monday's Rush Limbaugh show, in which he was talking about the AIG Bonuses and why the government shouldn't interview with said bonuses. He got a call from someone who complained about Government Bailout money going to provide the bonuses, who was upset at having to scrape by while these people were getting the big bucks. Rush then asserted that if he wanted to make $250,000.00 it was out there for him. He then proceeded to give his theory of capitalist compensation.

People get paid -- at least in capitalism -- based upon the value of their work to other people.

If you work for me, for example, and I assign you to do something I no longer have time to do, but I need you to do it almost as good as I do, knowing you can't do it as well as I do, but almost as good, and let's say I determine that in terms of my time and my desires, let's say I'm going to pay you a hundred thousand dollars to do that, it is silly for anybody to start assigning, "Well, is that job worth a hundred thousand?" It is to me, and I'm paying it, and that's all that counts. Somebody who does the same thing for somebody else may make minimum wage, as an example, may make 50, whatever. May make more. It's worth what I'm willing to pay somebody to do it.

In a strict sense this is right, with some caveats.

1. We have determined that some activities are illegal because they harm the community. No matter how much value you might place on Crack Cocaine or how much you might be willing to pay to acquire it, it remains illegal in our system because of the damage it does to our communities. Some other corporate practices might well fall into this category as well.

2. A system that rewards activities out of phase with their actual value is not sustainable. Google Tulip Mania for an example of this particular problem. For the past several years, I believe we have been suffering from "executive mania." Executives are compensated enormously, seemingly regardless of the actual benefits they bring to the company.

Now I understand that if AIG wants to compensate their executives well above the value they actually bring to the company that's their business (unless they are taking Government Bailout money of course (they are, in fact, taking Government bailout money)).

The Sanctity of Contracts

This is a recent post by Glen Greenwald that points out that some contracts are more sanctified than others.

As any lawyer knows, there are few things more common - or easier -- than finding legal arguments that call into question the meaning and validity of contracts. Every day, commercial courts are filled with litigations between parties to seemingly clear-cut agreements. Particularly in circumstances as extreme as these, there are a litany of arguments and legal strategies that any lawyer would immediately recognize to bestow AIG with leverage either to be able to avoid these sleazy payments or force substantial concessions.

There's more here, in particular about why these particular contracts are so important to fulfill (because otherwise AIG will be able to retain the talent that has run their country into the ground).

Socialism, Communism, Marxism, Obamaism?

Not so much.

But that won't stop Conservatives like David Limbaugh, in his latest article, from claiming that Obama is a threat to capitalism.

I don't use the term "Marxist," in connection with President Barack Obama's policies, lightly or even to inflame, but to express my genuine fear that if we don't put the brakes on his agenda to remake America in his image, we'll end up both enslaving and bankrupting America by the end of his tenure.

Well except that Obama isn't really much of a Marxist. Heck he's not even a socialist according to an actual socialist, Billy Wharton, in an editorial at the Washington Post.

The funny thing is, of course, that socialists know that Barack Obama is not one of us. Not only is he not a socialist, he may in fact not even be a liberal. Socialists understand him more as a hedge-fund Democrat -- one of a generation of neoliberal politicians firmly committed to free-market policies.

. . . I doubt that any of Obama's policies will someday appear in the annals of socialist history. The president has, however, been assigned the unenviable task of salvaging a capitalist system intent on devouring itself. The question is whether he can do so without addressing the deep inequalities that have become fundamental features of American society.

That's not to say that Obama isn't a threat to the kind of America that the Limbaugh brothers believe in. He is. Robert Reich, in an article over at Salon, underlined how Obama's plans, although incremental and perhaps even timid, reflect an underlying change in our national economic policy.

But there's another way to view Obamanomics -- as an economic philosophy exactly the opposite of the one that's dominated America for more than a quarter century.

The basic idea of Reaganomics was that the economy grows from the top down. Lower taxes on the wealthy make them work harder and invest more, and the benefits trickle down to everyone else. Rarely in economic history has a theory been more tested in the real world and proven so wrong. In point of fact, nothing trickled down. After the Reagan tax cuts, increases in the median wage slowed, adjusted for inflation. After George W. Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy, the median wage actually dropped. Meanwhile, most of the income went to the top. In 1980, just before the Reagan revolution, the richest 1 percent took home 9 percent of total national income. But by 2007, the richest 1 percent was taking home 22 percent.

Obamanomics, by contrast, holds that an economy grows best from the bottom up. Obama's program increases taxes on the top and uses the proceeds to raise the living standard of average Americans by giving them lower taxes, better schools and more affordable health insurance. That may not seem very radical, but compared with the last quarter century it's revolutionary.

He's not wrong. Reagen, Bush 1, Clinton, and Bush 2 all operated under the principle that government was at best inefficient and at worse a straight jacket; they all operated on the principle that taking of the wealthy and corporations was job number one. And we've paid the price for that political theory.

Are You John Galt?

Atlas Shrugged is a popular book among conservatives right now. For those who don't know, it posits a world in which the successful and creative people abandon an America and a world that increasingly straightjackets their creativity and robs them of their wealth.

Well with Obama in the white house, I gather Republicans feel that it's time to implement this idea and that's what Terry Paulson suggests, hypothetically, in his latest article.

Our unchecked entitlement system will eventually collapse; I challenge you to make that happen now! It’s time for Atlas to shrug—to calmly, consciously and deliberately go on strike for true fairness. Our collective response must be simple and non-violent—“No More! I will cease to achieve, invent, produce, hire, serve or invest until all Americans pay the same flat income-tax rate!”

Reengage when America once again is a country that protects everyone’s rights—the right to property, the right for every person to rise as far as she’s able.

It must certainly be entertaining for Republicans to entertain this fantasy; but a general strike of the wealthy only works if they all agree to participate, and consequently all agree to abandon their wealth or to withdraw from America.

I don't really know what to say about this particular fantasy. I think it's telling that Paulson (and many Republicans) look at America as it is and basically determines that wealthiest among us are the ones who are really getting the shaft.

Welcome to Socialism

It's amusing to watch the battle between Rush Limbaugh and Obama, this titanic struggle in which Obama and other Democrats noted that Limbaugh had a vastly different view of America than themselves. Yep, that's hitting him below the belt. Oh and Limbaugh said he hopes Obama fails which isn't playing to well, even with some in his own party.

So naturally Conservatives are springing to Rush's defense. Today it's Bret Prelutsky and Frank Turek.

When the Democrats took James Carville’s advice to attack Rush Limbaugh, it made perfect sense. Some people thought it was intended to distract us from the fact that Obama was spending money faster than the Monopoly Company could print it. I, on the other hand, believed it was setting us up for the passage of the so-called Fairness Doctrine.

Bret Prelutsky, Obama, Kruschev, and Limbaugh

Obama’s direction is demonstrably wrong because it ignores the repeated lessons of history and adopts a false view of human nature. Socialism has never worked and will never work because it destroys human incentive and creates dependency.

Limbaugh says that Obama knows this and wants to create a culture of dependency that will keep Democrats perpetually in power. If this is true, Obama is taking a leadership page from Joseph Stalin.

Frank Turek, Limbaugh, Obama, Stalin and Leadership

It's fascinating that both Prelutsky and Turek defend Rush by calling Obama the equivalent of a Communist Dictator. Prelutsky is a little softer than Turek (in the sense that Khruschev is less of a monster than Stalin), but both demonize Obama far more than Obama demonized Limbaugh.

It reminds me uncannily of the theory that if Conservative Christians don't get everything they want, they are being persecuted. I suspect this kind of complaining will get worse before it gets better.

Save the Rich

Dan Kennedy's latest article is how foolish it is for Obama to tax the wealthy. Apparently it's designed to punish married married people a lot more than single wealthy people.

As I understand it, Obama’s tax attack begins at $200,000 of income for an individual but only $250,000 for a married couple. So, if I earn $399,000.00 and my wife is a stay-at-home Mom, we should divorce and “live in sin,” and I should shift $199,500 of the income to her.

I suppose if the only reason you are married is the tax break, that would be true. But I doubt that this is really designed to punish married people. Rather it has to do with how much money it really takes to live; there are entire families living on less than $50,000, so it shouldn't be impossible for a couple to live on $250,000.

Those Darned Hollywood Policy Makers

Ben Shapiro's latest article is about Hollywood and Iran. He's peeved.

Last week, a group of prominent actors and movie executives from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences visited Iran.

Fresh from the Academy’s triumphant Oscar-night celebration of homosexuality and religion-bashing, Sid Ganis, president of the Academy, Oscar-nominated actresses Annette Bening and Alfre Woodard, former president Frank Pierson, and producers William Horberg and Tom Pollack made the journey to Tehran.

There they met with the Iranian House of Cinema, the film organization operating under the auspices of the Islamic, homosexuality-banning Iranian government.

. . . Since when have Hollywood stars become proxies for actual policymakers?

OK a few points; is Ben Shapiro disapproving of Iran's policy towards homosexuals? Or envious of it? Cause it seems like he disapproves of Hollywood being in favor of Homosexuals being treated like full citizens and equally disapproving of Iran discriminating against Homosexuals.

Whatever, the other oddity is him taking a meeting of American film makers with Iranian film makers as some sort of statement by the Obama administration. I'm not surprised that Shapiro doesn't know this, because Iran is the enemy and showing any interest at all in the enemy is weakness to the meathead right wing, but Iran actually does have a vibrant film scene.

Mike S. Adams

Excessively lazy Mike S. Adam's latest article is a bunch of e-mails between himself and one of his readers, a liberal woman named Rachel. Adams supposes he comes off better in this debate, but I'm not so sure.

But, Rachel, the only ones who did not understand were the ones on liberal websites. This reinforces the unfortunate view that liberalism is an emotional disorder rather than a political philosophy. I believe I can say that since I am a former liberal.

Are you a prostitute?

What a jackass.

It's well known that Limbaugh's screeners make sure to exclude any liberal with a brain, while putting any liberal who sounds like a moron at the top of the list. Mike S. Adams seems to be trying a similar technique, but he doesn't pull it off quite as successfully.

Radical Change

Kevin McCullough's latest article is entitled "Why Obama Wants America to Fail." Promising title. In it he takes Obama to task for failing to solve our nations financial problems. Obviously if he wanted an economic upturn he'd return to the Bush policies of endless tax cuts. His decision not immediately enact Bush-style Tax Cuts proves that he wants America to fail.

It sounds like I'm over stating his case for humorous effect I admit; but other then the reference to President Bush, that is pretty much his argument.

If it makes no sense to the free market economists that populate the best economics programs across the nation, if it weakens the ability for the average family to make ends meet, and if it does not increase the number of people actually working, why is President Obama so stubbornly continuing to pursue his economically diabolical plan of destruction?

Fortunately for us all, McCullough has an answer to this conundrum; Obama wants Americans to suffer so they will support his policies of making America worse for everybody.

President Obama and his team do not intend to solve this crisis as quickly as they possibly could--like he promised on the campaign trail. Instead, his intention is to let us bleed until the whimper we are expressing now finally builds into an all out, gut wrenching, cry of anguish. He does not care what must be done to arrive at that reality, only that we arrive there.

This is pretty nasty stuff; but I think McCullough believes it. And I think a surprising number of conservative Republicans would agree with his analysis. Which is why their party is headed, in the short term, towards obscurity.

The Fairness Doctrine isn't Coming Back

This is the theme of an article over at Commondreams from the Capital Times. The article makes it clear that Rush and Congressional Republicans are aware of this.

They have never been all that worried about the fairness doctrine.

They're worried about what always scares them: a wide-open, freewheeling debate and the competition of ideas that encourages everyone to have their say and trusts the American people to sort things out.

Well I'm not sure that's entirely correct. I certainly am in favor of different points of view on the radio, but the right wing commentators point has always been that non-Conservative points of view aren't profitable. People don't want a liberal Rush Limbaugh, in their viewpoint, or at least they don't want a Rush Limbaugh bad enough to support him. The American people demand the opportunity to be constantly harangued by right wing nut jobs and don't want free wheeling debates or competition of ideas. So if you mandate that; well, that means radio owners are going to be required to place on the air people their audience doesn't want to listen to. Which will lead to a loss in advertising revenues, which will lead to a format change. "Hey if I am a talk radio station, I have to spend half my time alienating my customers, but if I am a country radio station, well no worries."

Now that's necessarily the world's great argument; I think there ways to encourage greater diversity of views without placing straight jackets on radio stations, and Republicans / Conservatives always leave out the toxic influence of Clear Channel on our radio environment. One of the simplest ways to provide a balance in local radio markets would be to help out small local radio stations, both existing ones and new ones.

Clearly Thinking

You can't blame David Limbaugh for leaping to the defense of his brother Rush, in his latest article. Still his defense doesn't make a lot of sense. He wants to have it both ways, suggesting that Rush isn't as important as some Democrats are making him out to be while simultaneously exulting him as the standard bearer of the opposition.

Have you noticed their coordinated effort to label Rush the leader of the Republican Party? Do you think it's accidental that James Carville so describes him? Do you think it's just coincidental that Obama called Rush out personally and that the entire flock of mainstream media sheep followed suit?

. . . Rush is the target because he represents the real opposition. He's the leading voice for those who are really standing up for America and its founding ideals.

It kind of sounds like Rush really is something worth going after if you want to promote liberal ideals.

Self Mythologizing

We all self mythologize to a certain extent; it's how we live with ourselves. Sometimes it's putting a happy sheen over a crummy life and sometimes it's faking it until you make it, but we all do it to a certain extent. Oh, and if you are reading this and thinking "I don't do that" you probably do it worse than most.

Right now Conservatives find themselves having to put up with a President they didn't vote for and don't much like. So they have transformed him into a raving socialist and themselves into defenders of the realm. Take Doug Giles latest article, praising Rush Limbaugh.

In Obamaland where truth is dead, muscle power becomes the operative standard of speech. The results are cultic conformity and group bullying. The chief orgasmic goal of the elders of Obamaland is to create a rock-solid environment of political correctness—with the intended end being the cowing of people who might rustle their feathers by not parroting their already tried (and been found wanting) opinions. They can’t allow people to speak and think freely because the realist and the truth dealer would pee on their little party. That’s exactly what Rush is doing, and I’ll think I’ll join him.

See Doug Giles is busy patting himself on the back for, well, continuing to do what he's been doing. Rather than admitting he is going to continue criticizing a moderately liberal President, he chooses to pretend he's heroically doing battle against an oppressive dictator.

And let's face it, that just a lot more heroic and noble.