The War on Terror

Sorry not to be around this week - I have been ill and am still coming out of it.

Anyway credit where credit is do, Jonah Goldberg's latest article is not totally unredeemable.

Ultimately, the disagreement is one of first principles. If we are at war, then the rules of war apply. The fact that this is a war unlike others we've fought should not mean that it isn't a war at all.

Don't tell that to Obama. He's made it clear that he doesn't see the threat as an unconventional war but as a conventional law-enforcement problem. The attorney general insists that 9/11 is a matter for civilian courts.

OK he kind of kills it in the second paragraph, but the first paragraph is essentially accurate. Is the War on Terror a War or isn't it?

Or, to be more precise, are people captured in the war on terror captured on the battlefield or aren't they? See if they are captured on the battlefield than we can hold them in one way and if they are captured as civilians we have to treat them another way. This underlines the essential problem in the phrase "War on Terror" because the battlefield is, well, pretty much everywhere. Which implies that the Government can pick up anybody, anywhere, hold them for as long as they want and then dump them, with no recourse.

You might think I'm exaggerating but this has already happened several times. The Uighars held at Guantanemo for example. Others that we have turned over to countries who have somewhat less stringent rules on torture.

So Goldberg is right, this is about first principles. He wants the Government to be able to arrest anybody they want and hold them for as long as they like, so long as we are in a "War on Terror." Obama somewhat agrees with that (as Glenn Greenwald has pointed out, his policy on this seems to guarantee that terrorists will be found guilty, and a venue in which they can be found guilty will be selected for them. Greenwald has also pointed out how this makes it difficult to defend trying some of them in New York.).

I am not insensitive to the difficulties of fighting this particular war, but I don't think we should abandon our principles to do it.

Bravely pointing out typing Errors since 2002

I assume this is an error. This is from Kevin McCullough's latest article, in which he argues against the rule of law on the grounds that it would be psychologically difficult for New Yorkers.

These trial proceedings will reopen the still mending emotional, psychological, and physical wounds of 9/11. In deciding with such reckless abandon to make a political pay-off to the far left, and the radical Islamic sympathizers they ignorantly embolden, President Obama is ripping the stitches out of the hearts of those that have wondered if closure will ever come. When the Attorney General promises court room cameras and complete transparency of the proceedings, he seems to ignore the possibility of radicals on camera shouting inaudible commands, jibes, and insults at those in the room as well as those sitting in caves across the globe.

I assume he means audible rather than inaudible. It's hard to shout inaudibly.

As for the desire to abandon the rule of law, I disagree with McCullough. I believe that our founders were inspired when they created it, and that many good and great men have toiled in the vineyards of justice to create our modern legal system. Yes it has problems, but it is more than equal to the task of providing justice to these men.

Treason and Intellectual Honesty

Austin Bay's latest article is about how Liberals throw around the term traitor too easily, in contrast to a real traitor like that guy who shot up Fort Hood, killing several people. Let's take a moment and be grateful that this isn't another Muslim Menace article.

Bay refers to an ad by MoveOn.Org which renamed General Petraeus as "General Betray Us," and Joe Klien suggesting that some of Fox News' programming was seditious (both pretty stupid in my opinion). He compares these to instances to the Joe McCarthy witch hunts.

Bay does not, of course, bring up the writings of Ann Coulter, a fellow contributor to Townhall, who has certainly thrown around the phrase and, in fact, wrote a whole book exonerating Joe McCarthy and encouraging new witch hunts against liberals. Kind of intellectually dishonest not to acknowledge that the problem isn't limited to liberals, in my opinion.

Compare and Contrast

I will note at the top that both of these articles come from the Conservative website townhall.com.

Maybe Hasan is just a homicidal lunatic set to work by fevered demons inside his brain. But post-9/11, you can't be a killer who happens to be a Muslim. If you're a killer, it has to be because you're a Muslim.

Steve Chapman, "Muslims and Mass Murder"

According to witnesses, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan entered a medical facility at Fort Hood, prayed briefly, then shouted "Allahu akbar" before he began gunning down American troops. Now I don't know which to be more afraid of: Muslims or government-run health care systems.

Ann Coulter, "Muslim Suffers Bruised Ego in Fort Hood Tragedy"

No one thinks "political correctness" obligates the Army to treat Muslims more leniently than anyone else. But it's just as simple-minded to think they deserve to be treated worse.

Steve Chapman

Despite being well aware of Hasan's disturbing views and conduct, the Army did nothing.

Far less offensive speech has been grounds for discipline or even removal from duties in the military.

Ann Coulter

The al-Qaida leader likes nothing better than to portray the United States as waging a crusade against Muslims. We would be doing ourselves no favor to confirm the accusation.

Steve Chapman

So, now any dyspeptic expression toward a Muslim is grounds for calling in a diversity coordinator. And when the "victim" attacks, as at Fort Hood, the rest of us are supposed to feel guilty because Hasan's car got keyed once.

This isn't perhaps a fair comparison. Anns main point, as it always is, is that Liberals are evil monsters. The Anti-Muslim stuff isn't her main point, but tangential. Still, it is nice to see that Townhall supports a diversity of views.

The Ongoing Threat of Islam

As predicted we are seeing an uptick of articles on how we should all be afraid of Muslims. Austin Hill's latest article is particularly problematic. He references the Ft. Hood incident and another incident in which a Muslim Father ran over his daughter because she was living a sinful lifestyle.

Generally speaking, American non-Muslim fathers don’t run over their children with their cars and call it “honorable.” And American non-Muslim military personnel don’t intentionally kill their fellow soldiers. There is a pattern of very dangerous, deadly behavior with Muslims in America and around the world.

Americans must awaken to this reality, whether or not our President does.

Generally speaking, Muslims don't run over their daughters either. I mean Hill cites one incident, but that's not really a pattern, is it? Certainly I can cite some pretty awful things Christian Fathers have done to their children; would Hill then see that as proof the we need to awaken to a reality about Christians? Probably not.

I-Pod Ten - Morrissey

I have 169 Morrissey Songs. Here are 10 of them.

1. Now My Heart is Full (Vauxhill and I)
2. He Cried (Maladjusted)
3. Trouble Loves Me (Maladjusted)
4. On The Streets I Ran (Ringleader of the Tormentors)
5. The National Front Disco (Your Arsenal)
6. Certain People I Know (Your Arsenal)
7. The World is Full Of Crashing Bores (You Are the Quarry)
8. We Hate It When Our Friends Become Successful (Your Arsenal)
9. How Could Anybody Possibly Know How I Feel? (You Are the Quarry)
10. Wide to Recieve (Maladjusted)

A somewhat turgid mix.

The Muslim Menace

Obviously, given the events at Fort Hood, we can expect quite a strong of Muslim Menace articles over the next few days. At this point, let me note that I use the term Muslim Menace ironically, not seriously. It is to refer back to the Red Menace articles of the Red Scare.

At any rate Roger Chapin over at Townhallis a bit ahead of the curve in his latest article, calling for an enormous and unworkable plan to deal with radical Islam. Among other things we should end self rule in Afghanistan as it clearly hasn't worked. We should shut down all Madrasses. We should destroy Iran's Nuclear facilities and remove their leaders. We should threaten Saudi Arabia until they shut down their nuclear facilities. We should also destroy North Korea's nuclear facilities (easier said than done I would think). If we don't do this we are doomed.

If we citizens don’t very soon wake up and demand our incredibly blind, misguided and inept leadership decisively acts to rescue our nation from the abyss, nothing else we do will matter. America, the doomsday clock is ticking.

So there you go. I will only point out that this incredibly expensive and risky plan is unlikely to get the Islamic world on our side. Rather it seems more likely to create more enemies, while stretching our resources far past the breaking point.

I-Pod Ten - Pet Shop Boys

I have 322 Pet Shop Boys tracks. Here are 10 of them.

1. In Private (Stuart Chrichton Club Mix)
2. Bet She's Not Your Girlfriend
3. Jealousy (Extended Version)
4. Left to My Own Devices (Seven Inch Mix)
5. Hey Headmaster
6. So Hard (Single)
7. Psychological (Alter Ego Remix)
8. Yesterday, When I Was Mad (Jam & Spoon Mix)
9. I Made My Excuses and Left
10. We all Feel Better in the Dark (Brothers in Rhythm Mix)

A lot from Fundamental and Fundamentelism (the remix cd attached to Fundamental). And then number 10 was goign to be In Private, the album version, again. So I dropped it, and went to the next track, which was a particularly long and boring remix, so I skipped that as well, and went to We all Feel Better in the Dark which is a nice track.

A Good Article from Townhall

When I saw the title of Steve Chapman's latest article, "America Only Seems Polarized," I had certain expectations. This is, after all, Townhall. I anticipated Chapman explaining that Liberals are only a minor annoyance in reality and truthfully the country is very Conservative. We aren't polarized, we're conservative.

Well I was wrong. He takes a more realistic tack on the subject.

The average American citizen, contrary to myth, is neither very angry, nor very far to the left or the right, nor inclined to treat anyone with different opinions as a mortal enemy. In a cluttered media environment, the most extreme voices tend to attract so much attention that it's easy to forget something important: Most people aren't listening.

Makes sense to me.

News from the Past October 29, 1929

Two from the Denton Record Chronicle, although both of these stories cover lands far north of Denton Texas.

COYOTES INVADE ALASKA
NOME, Alaska—Coyotes, virtually unknown in Alaska until 1915, have migrated northward in such numbers as to threaten extinction of deer in some sections.

Poor Coyotes must get mighty cold in the winter.

Rocky Mountain
Region Is Covered
By General Snow
DENVER, Colo.. Oct. 29.— Winter paid a real visit to the Rocky Mountain region last night, leaving a general snow from Montana to New Mexico. Parts of Montana, Wyoming,Colorado and New Mexico reported snow up to five inches.
Air mail transportation on the transcontinental line was paralyzed when mountains between Salt Lake City and Cheyenne were blotted out by fog and snow. Air mail was sent by train through the region. Highways were reported open and passable though some in Wyoming were drifted.

Childish I know, but this one made me think of a bad Saturday morning villain named General Snow. That's pretty cold for early in the season, though.

I-Pod Ten - Bob Dylan and Moby

I have 184 Bob Dylan songs. Here are 10 of them.

1. Desolation Row
2. Ballad in Plain D
3. John Wesley Harding
4. A Hard Rain's A Gonna Fall
5. Ballad of a Thin Man (Live)
6. Maggie's Farm
7. Barbara Allen
8. All Along the Watchtower
9. Bob Dylan's 115th Dream
10. Like a Rolling Stone (Live)

Both of the live songs are from the "Royal Albert Hall" performance, and in fact contain the famous Judas call. Barbara Allen is from the Gaslight Tapes.

I have 174 Moby Songs, here are 10 of them.

1. Dream About Me
2. The Sky is Broken
3. Lift Me Up
4. I'm In Love (The Shapeshifters Maximal Remix)
5. In My Heart (new mix)
6. The Rafters
7. Natural Blues
8. Alice (General Midi Mix)
9. In This World
10. Afterlife

That's not a bad mix. They Sky is Broken, Natural Blues, Lift Me Up, and Alice are pretty tight songs. But Moby has never really equaled Play, and at this point I don't really expect him too.

Who Want's Yesterday's Papers?

Reading around Townhall today, on the election. Some of these articles were written yesterday. Larry Kudlow seemed to think that Hoffman was a shoe-in to win New Yorks 23rd District (he in fact lost to the Democrat). Michael Medved on the other hand has written an article urging conservatives to vote for Republicans.

It is very much a plea to the base not to go looking at third parties or at staying home.

GOP victories, in off year elections like those on Tuesday, and especially in the fateful Congressional elections of 2010, can save the country from Obama’s most radical and destructive schemes.

Well nice to see. I think, though, that both Republicans and Democrats are fidgety going into 2010. Conservatives are feeling strong and are not going to want to compromise on a less than conservative candidate. Liberals are feeling let down by Obama and are going to want to see real progress on issues they care about before 2010. Still a lot can happen between then and now.

I-Pod Ten - the Cure

I have 393 Cure songs on my I-Pod. Here are 10 of them.

1. Lulluby
2. World in my Eyes
3. Adonis (B-Side to the 13th)
4. Purple Haze (Virgin Radio Version)
5. Sinking (Live)
6. Freakshow
7. Never Enough (Live)
8. The Only One
9. The Perfect Girl (Studio Demo)(Instrumental)
10. Numb

That's a pretty good list. I like the other version of Purple Haze a lot more (this one sounds like a straight cover, and isn't as good). Freakshow and The Only One are the first two singles from the latest album. Both are pretty good.

Personal Responsibility

Conservatoids like to pretend that liberals are opposed to personal responsibility. Take Ben Shapiro's latest article.

Here is how the free market works: open competition among sellers, informed bidding among buyers. Sellers are responsible for competing; buyers are responsible for informing themselves. When the government pledges to increase competition or keep buyers informed, the market is no longer free.

He argues that Wall Street types were happy taking bad investment vehicles because they assumed that the government would take care of them. You know like how people don't bother preventing fires because we have Fireman. "Why shouldn't I smoke in bed? If my bedsheets catch on fire, Dennis O'Leary will be in here like a flash to put me out."

At any rate, I personally am keen on personal responsibility, but am not keen on letting the crooks and frauds off the hook by blaming their victims.

Interesting but Badly Formatted Article by Cal Thomas

Cal Thomas attempts to declare health care unconstitutional in his latest article, using the 10th amendment to suggest that the states and the people have the power in this case, not the Congress. Kind of a slippery argument.

Roe vs. Wade, a decision he presumably disagrees with, stated that the privacy between a doctor and his/her patient should be kept safe from Federal manipulation. If a woman wanted to have an abortion that is between her and her doctor and no one else. Healthcare reform, of almost any stripe, will be more intrusive than anti-abortion laws. Or at least that is the theory. So if the Court said the state can't get between a patient and a doctor in regards to abortion, maybe the state can't get between a patient and his or her medical bill.

Like I say a slippery article, and it kind of depends on Thomas and other conservatives accepting the logic behind Roe v. Wade, which presumably they don't accept.

Americans who believe their government should not be a giant ATM, dispensing money and benefits to people who have not earned them, and who want their country returned to its founding principles, must now exercise that power before it is taken from them. The Tenth Amendment is one place to begin. The streets are another. It worked for the Left.

It worked for the left in regards to civil rights; hard to see where else it worked.

Does President think Americans are Good People?

Well, not according to Austin Hill's latest article.

. . . can anyone – even Barack Obama’s most ardent supporters – honestly say that our current President believes that Americans are, in a general sense, “good people,” and worthy of defense? Both his words and actions would suggest that America might someday become good, but only if he can first bring us to justice.

And he goes on in this vein. Obama speaking respectfully to the Muslim World, his desire to regulate American Industry, all show that he doesn't love America, doesn't much want to protect her, and is, in fact, inclined to judge and punish her. And us.

This isn't a rare view on the right. I find myself wondering what the implications of a large group of Americans who believe the President doesn't like America and wants to ruin it is. Particularly if they believe that he isn't a legitimate President.

A Generation of Sociopaths

Gosh that doesn't sound good does it? Fortunately it's the name to a lazy half-assed article by Mike S. Adams. In it he references Glenn Beck to agree with him (and to tie into a conservative commentator who is somewhat more famous than Adams himself). Apparently the current generation is pretty bad.

When we replace belief in objective truth with moral relativism we are telling people they are the one true source of morality. And that leads them to believe they are all, in a sense, little gods and goddesses who should not be told what to do. Pretty soon we are spending all of our time dealing with little sociopaths who believe they are the center of the universe.

Yep. And if that's not bad enough for you, here's further proof of our moral decline. Some students use cellphones in class. Horrors. And to make matters even worse, some of them have rap ring tones.

I'm not joking, Mike S. Adams holds these up as examples of our intense moral decay. As well as students using laptops and showing up late for class. And it's all liberalisms fault.

Liberal professors complain constantly about student conduct. And it seems funny that very few of them understand that they are simply experiencing the real-world consequences of their own liberal ideas.

Yep - because before liberalism college age kids weren't self centered.

I find myself fascinated by the concept that without a believe in objective truth, we automatically get sassmouth and sociopaths. So what is the objective truth that Beck and Adams wish us to believe in? I've noticed that Muslim students are generally well behaved; is that a good "objective truth?" Or what is the "objective truth" that we should all believe in?

Of course saying so long as you believe in an objective truth, whether that be the Koran, the Bible, the Talmud, or the Book of Mormon, that's good enough, is kind of like saying that objective truth is subjective.

News from the Past - October 28, 2009

File this under promising title, not as interesting an article. This is from the Daily Courier out of Connelsville PA.

NOVEMBER SET ASIDE
AS LOYALTY MONTH
AT CHRISTIAN CHURCH
Rally day at the Christian Church yesterday resulted in attendance 287persons at the Bible School. In order that the work may still be carried on the pastor ot tho church, Rev. K. N. Duty, has styled November loyalty month anrl tho Lilblc school campaign will go along, with the ultlnuite goal every member of the church a member of the Bible School.
There Is also In progress a drive to have 200 porsons at Prayer-meeting by Thanksgiving.
On November 15, at the church, there will be a dinner for till members
of tho church, to be served by women, at which building up the various departments will be stressed.

Loyalty in this case apparently means willingness to attend Sunday School. Which I guess is nice. But I was hoping it had something to do with fighting communists.

News from the Past - October 27, 1929

Apparently I did October 26 twice - need to change the headings on that. This one is from The Sandusky Register, Sandusky Ohio. Also of note, this was the 7th anniversary of the Fascist takeover of Italy, which this story obliquely references.

PRINCE ANSWERS
ITALY'S CHEERS BY
FASCIST SALUTE
MILAN, Italy, Oct. 26 (IP)—Observers of the mammoth reception, given Crown Prince Humbert today on his return from Brussels noted two facts as significant.
The prince for the first time answered the acclamations of the crowd from the balcony of the Royal Palace with a salute in the Fascist fashion of outstretched arm.
The other was that Podesta Marquis DeCapitanl concluded this short address of welcome with the shout "Long live imperial Italy." It was said this was the first time that the word imperial had been used in official utterances.

Well, I'm sure it's nothing to worry about.

News from the Past - October 26, 1929 (bonus beats)

This is from the Jefferson City Post-Tribune, Jefferson City, Missouri. Among the other articles were a note that the "The University Is Literally Starved to Death Declares a Survey Board Member." I doubt that is literally true. But here's a touching story of why you shouldn't spank hostesses.

COST THAW $79,000
TO SPANK A GIRL
NEW YORK, Oct. 26 - (UP) - A jury has decided that Harry K. Thaw must pay $79,000 damages for administering what probably is the world's most expensive spanking.
The verdict was brought In late yesterday after the jury on the first ballot, decided that Marcia Estardus, night club hostess, was entitled to that sum for injuries she suffered when Thaw spanked her with a hair brush on New Years Day, 1927.

I kind of wonder what happened to Marcia Estardus. And how brutally do you have to spank someone to rack up $79,000 in damages.

News from the Past - October 26, 1929

And here we go - to the Olean Times, out of Olean New York. Lots of interesting headlines here.

NORMAL CONDITIONS
BACK ON NEW YORK
STOCK MARKET NOW

End Is Near
Is Belief Of
Clemenceau

Kahn Is Treasurer
Republican Senatorial
Campaign Committee

I wonder if Republican Treasurer Kahn is particularly wrathful. At any rate let's go with a story about Albert Einstein, still living in Germany.

Einstein Talks About
Claims Of Dr. Miller
Berlin, Oct. 28. (INS)—Prof. Albert Einstein. world famous scientist, today termed claims by Dr. Dayton O. Miller of Cleveland that he had discovered the drift of the ether surround tho earth resulting from "antiquated experiments."
"Miller's experiments arc antiquated," said Prof. Einstein. "They have been contradicted by later and exactor experiments of several other scientists. Professor Millikan of Pasadena. Cal. can furnish the details."

I love that tag. I could refute your claims of ether but I'll leave that to Prof. Millikan. That's what I like about Einstein - he's not a hog. He's willing to share the science around.

On the other hand, maybe he thought dealing with theories of ether was beneath him.

News from the Past - October 25, 1929

I am going to do several of these, catching up to the 30th by the end of the day. My initial goal was to show how things would progress up to the fateful date of October 29th. But fate intervened. Anyway this first story comes from a Trade Union Paper, the Ceder Rabids Tribune. I assume it's a trade union paper as all the stories seem to revolve around unions.

SLUGGING OF CHICAGO
GARMENT WORKERS
INSPIRED BY REDS
CHICAGO. Oct. 24,—(ILNS)—Circumstances surrounding the slugging and maiming of eight members of the international Ladies Garment Workers union while they were engaged in carrying on the organizing work recently inaugurated by the Chicago joint board of that union, indicate that the communists are working with and being paid by the non-union manufacturers in the dress, suit and cloak industry.
Shortly following the opening of drive to unionize large non-union dress manufacturing plants here the Communists opened an office near the headquarters of the joint board and began the distribution of scurrilous literature attacking the Joint board, the international union, the A. F. of L and the legitimate labor movement in general. These attacks, contained in circulars printed in both English and Yiddish were handed out at the entrances of shops which the union was attempting to organize.
Outraged at these unethical traitorous tactics, the union representatives protested to the Communists, and a fracas followed, which apparently was just what the Communists had hoped for. No sooner had the melee started than up drove several machines loaded with sluggers, who, fifty strong, jumped out and waded into the trade unionists with black-jacks, gun butts and knives.
Eight union members went to the hospitals and six of the thugs went to jail
Officers of the joint board say that none of those who participated in the attack have ever worked at the dressmaking trade.

Kind of interesting to me. My Masters Thesis was on the Communist Party in this period, and I would generally say that this is, in fact, possible. Yes the Communists were staunchly pro-union, but they also had the attitude that many of the unions were in fact on the pay of the bosses and were not really serving the interests of the working man. That said this account does seem a bit extreme. A communist party having 50 thugs ready to spring into action does seem a bit extreme.

Net Neutrality

Sorry very busy today but wanted to point you to this article by Stephan Grant - about halfway down he provides a very good summary of the issues around Net Neutrality. This is an issue that will effect you.

Common Areas

John Stossel's latest article is interesting. In it he argues against big government and in favor of local control. Fair enough he's a conservative. But the specific issue is that of the "commons." He seems to champion those areas that are shared in common, referring to the work of economist and noble prize winner Elinor Ostrom.

There is also an "opportunity of the commons." While most politicians conclude that, depending on the resource, efficient management requires either privatization or government ownership, Ostrom finds examples of a third way: "self-organizing forms of collective action," as she put it in an interview a few years ago.

What Stossel leaves out, naturally enough, is the threat to the Commons from Capitalism. Big businesses and private owners have in many cases acquired the commons for themselves, and used their power over the commons to extract a profit for themselves. Other big businesses have fouled the commons (say rivers and lakes) in order to save themselves the costs of preventing pollution. It's comforting for Conservatoids to pretend that government threatens the commons, but the truth is that it's businesses that usually covet those areas.

Your Weekly Rush; The Truth Doesn't Matter

For those who don't know, Rush Limbaugh on Friday spent a lot of time with a fabricated quote, supposedly from President Obama's Senior Thesis. After a bit it was revealed that the quote was fabricated, and Rush admitted it.

So I shout from the mountaintops: "It was satire!" But we know he thinks it. Good comedy, to be comedy, must contain an element of truth, and we know how he feels about distribution of wealth. He's mad at the courts for not going far enough on it. So we stand by the fabricated quote because we know Obama thinks it anyway. That's how it works in the media today.

Interesting response. On the one hand it seems like he believes that the quote was an accurate description of Obama's mindset. On the other he seems to be taking the Media to task for doing exactly what he just did?

My guess is that, in his mind, it's wrong to impugn conservatives with made up quotes but ok to impugn liberals with made up quotes.

Faith and Irrationality

Dennis Prager's latest article isn't that original. It's an old idea, expressed by both Liberals and Republicans about their political enemies, pretty regularly.

How is one to rationally explain the Democrats' belief that the government taking over another one-sixth of the American economy is a good thing?

The answer is religion.

Given the huge economic failures that the left itself attributes to Medicare and Medicaid and given the economic collapse or near collapse of these systems in other countries, the left's prescriptions can only be explained in one way: The left has made its views a form of religion.

Obviously Prager feels so strongly about his position on Healthcare, he cannot conceive of how anybody could disagree with that position. For example he's not apparently aware that many nations do have functioning health care systems. Nor is he aware of how much more our health care system costs compared to others (or he's studiously ignoring that data). In his mind there is no rational reason to support liberal health care reform - the religion explanation is more charitable than some of the others (like insanity or corruption).

The rest of his article is setting up some strawman arguments for us liberals and then knocking them down and pointing out that anybody who believes that must be illogical, and therefore motivated by mindless dogma.

Getting Humble

Carol Platt Liebau's latest article is directed, indirectly, at the base. It explains to them the facts of life; they are out of power now, and if they want to get back in power they need to pull together.

You shouldn't really say that directly to the base. It's a downer message. "You guys can support us and put your ideals on hold or you can not support us and watch Obama and his minions remake America." If you say that directly, the base might not go for it. They might go third party ("The lesser of two evils is still evil") or they might stay home ("Once America sees how bad liberalism is they will elect real conservatives instead of those losers we got in office now").

So Liebau says it indirectly, as a message to both the party and the tea-partiers. The message to elected Republicans and the RNCC is to support Conservatives in areas where conservatives can win (She singles out Charlie Crist as someone Republicans shouldn't be supporting). And then she addresses the Tea Partiers.

On the other hand, Tea Partiers need to be realistic, and understand the limitations of political passion and zeal. Plenty of congressional districts wouldn’t support even a second Ronald Reagan, simply because they are irremediably liberal. Rather than allowing the “best” to become the enemy of the “good enough,” activists could best further their cause by supporting the most conservative candidate who can win, rather than the most conservative candidate, period – when it means that candidate will surely lose.

Those who oppose such a course are prone to claim that insufficiently conservative Republicans are the functional equivalent of Democrats. But they are wrong, for one fundamental reason. Compared to the status quo, every Republican – of whatever stripe – who heads to Washington next year will ultimately empower the most fiscally-responsible wing of the party.

We'll see if the base listens to her, but I doubt it. Not yet. They still have plenty of conservative commentators telling them, again and again, that Americans largely agree with their point of view. All you need is the right conservative message and the Democrats/Liberals will be heading for the hills.

Obama and the Nobel Peace Prize

Well, as you all know, Obama is going to receive the Nobel Peace Prize. For the record, I believe this was premature. It really seems like he is getting the prize for not being George W. Bush, and that's not a good enough reason for getting the prize. And yes there are other candidates, such as Morgan Tsvangirai, Prime Minister of Zimbabwe. I hope President Obama earns the Nobel Peace Prize but, in my opinion, he hasn't yet.

Of course Conservatives have a somewhat different take. Or, they agree with me that he hasn't earned it yet, but they don't agree with me that he can earn it down the road. Kevin McCullough's latest article basically argues that he should return it. And why should Obama return it? Basically because he's a bad president and a bad human being. And that's most of his argument.

Oh and Obama would look humble instead of looking like a braggart. But McCullough confuses being Presidential with being a braggart so you have to take that with a grain of salt.

More on Gender Nuetrality

I wrote about this the other day but think this is a particularly telling example of what I was talking about. The first is the King James Version (according to Conservapedia, at any rate) and the second is the translation, and the third line is commentary explaining the change.

And one of the multitude answered and said, Master, I have brought unto thee my son, which hath a dumb spirit;

But a man from the crowd ran forward and said, "Lord, I've brought you my son, who has a demon of dumbness."

Even the KJV had some gender-neutral verbiage

Yeah. I guess I'd feel a bit better if this person pretended that the actual translation were man, claimed to know Greek or something. But instead, it seems like he changed it simply because clearly a woman of that age, particularly a devout one, would never have the temerity to address our Lord and Savior? Edited to add - in fairness the parable does specify that it is his father later on in the text. Still seems like an odd thing to get worked up about.

Wonder what this guy is going to do about the relationship with Mary and Martha.

Back to the Conservative Bible

They are making fairly regular revisions on the Conservative Bible; it's an ongoing project. Last night I was reading the opening of Mark and noticed that they had shifted the term Pharisee to Elites or Intellectuals (I don't recall which, I'm afraid). Today that has changed again, which was pointed out at Salon's War Room.

Take the following example from Mark 3:1-2.

And he entered again into the synagogue; and there was a man there which had a withered hand.

And they watched him, whether he would heal him on the sabbath day; that they might accuse him.

Jesus returned to the synagogue, and noticed man with a crippled hand.

The Liberals watched Jesus to see if they might catch and accuse him of healing on the Sabbath.

Honestly I expect that calmer heads will prevail, and the Pharisees will go back to being the elites or the intellectuals. Hopefully they will also add in an "a" in verse one between noticed and man.

Edited to add: Well calmer heads prevailed pretty quickly - it is back to being Pharisee, on the grounds that in this context, it's not a metaphor. It refers to an actual group from the time of Christ.

Is Liberal Christian an Oxymoron?

I, of course, say no. Many conservatives would say yes.

There seems to be a continuum from people who accept that Liberal Christians are just Christians who look at politics differently to those who think that Liberal Christians might be sincere, but are sincerely wrong. Consider a post at Southern Appeal on the arguments that Liberals sometimes make that Jesus is a Liberal politically. He takes this argument apart (and in fairness it's not an argument I agree with either, for reasons I'll come back to). However, he then explains why Liberals make such a false argument.

The Christian left can rationalize all they want, but the fact of the matter is social issues are much more black and white, and Church teachings on matters such as abortion, euthanasia, gay marriage and other issues are absolute and unchanging. Left-wing Catholics and other Christians either ignore clear teachings on these matters or give aid and comfort to those who do. Therefore I think that when it comes to economic issues, they are driven by a need to prove their Christian bona fides by asserting that they are the good stewards on economic matters. It’s always rather sad when guilty consciences try to over-compensate for their shortcomings in other areas. But no one should be fooled by what’s really happening here.

And there it is. Liberals ignore Christs teachings in order to cling to their political beliefs.

So you have a continuum.

• Some Christian Conservatives believe that Christian Liberals are just Christians who think different.
• Some Christian Conservatives believe that Christian Liberals are sincere but wrong.
• Some Christian Conservatives believe that Christian Liberals are hypocrites, pretending to Christianity for political or social gain.
• Some Christian Conservatives believe that Christian Liberals are fifth columnists for satanic liberalism, trying to weaken and emasculate the Church.

It's hard to deny that there aren't Conservative Christians in all of those categories, nor is it hard to see the Conservative Bible as fitting into one of those categories. The pertinent question is which direction are Conservative Christians moving. Are they moving towards that last option? Or are they moving towards the first? Or are they largely static?

Certainly the latter two options have many vocal proponents, including such people as Rush Limbaugh and Doug Giles.

Going back to why I think the argument that Jesus is a Liberals has flaws, it's, in my opinion, using the Bible to answer questions the Bible cannot be intended to answer. The Bible teaches one how to live and how to draw closer to God (kind of the same thing). It is not intended as a text on biology, physics, history, economics, or politics. And when you try to use it as a text to answer political questions, well, the Bible isn't quite up to the task of definitively answering them.

In part I suspect this is because God wants us to work it out on our own, to a certain extent. And in part I suspect it's because living well as individuals and drawing closer to God is is more important than the legalities of taxation or even abortion. A woman deciding whether or not to have an abortion is probably of greater interest to God than whether or not a Congress or a Judge makes abortion legal or not. I could be wrong about that, but that's my opinion.

Conservative Criticism of the Conservative Bible Project

Having spent a day curious about the project itself, I am now curious about how it is being regarded in the blog-o-sphere (which as you know is the correct way to spell blog-o-sphere. Your dictator demands it). Bill Barnwell over at the American Spectator, a Conservative site, has taken it apart and found it wanting.

Regardless of the authenticity of this passage, the theme of grace and forgiveness is found throughout the New Testament. This includes loving one’s enemies (Matthew 5:43-48) and being graceful towards people who have made clear mistakes (Matthew 21:23-27). Does this make the Bible and Christ Himself "liberal"? Should these passages also be viewed suspiciously by good Bible-believing conservatives? Time will tell, since the Gospel of Matthew has not yet been re-translated on the Conservative Bible page.

Authors of the Conservative Bible want also declare they want to eliminate other "liberal" words like "government" and replace them with "more accurate substitutes." While a staple of modern conservative and libertarian thought is a belief in limited or minimal government, it is quite novel to want to purge the word itself from one's vocabulary, or from Scripture itself.

The article is worth reading; Barnwell notes that people from across the political spectrum try to use Jesus Christ as a spokesman but his actual life and sayings contain enough to annoy both sides. Which is true.

Back to the Bible

Briefly, at any rate. Slactivist (who does the very good review of the Left Behind books) has taken note of this project as well, and has some thoughts on it.

It may be a bit surprising that the folks at Conservapedia are so enthusiastically transparent about the project -- that they have so few qualms about editing, redacting and altering their alleged scripture so that it no longer condemns their ideology and their idol. But it's not surprising that they've come to this point.

This point is on the line and following that line leads, inescapably, to this point. It was unavoidable.

So I want to take a closer look at this project. It's ridiculous and extreme and brazenly blasphemous and colossally illiterate, but this is the future of the religious right. This is what's next. Don't think of it as a point further out along an ideological spectrum, think of it as a point further along in the inevitable chronology of American evangelicalism.

Now it does strike me that Slactivist takes it a little further than I would think this warranted. However, I have to admit he's part of that community, and I am not. So perhaps he is right.

A Non-Biblical Post

But don't worry, I'm sure I'll be returning to the Conservative Bible eventually. This morning's post comes from an article by Walter E. Williams, who has served as a fill-in host for Rush Limbaugh.

Today's leftists, socialists and progressives would bristle at the suggestion that their agenda differs little from Nazism. However, there's little or no distinction between Nazism and socialism. Even the word Nazi is short for National Socialist German Workers Party. The origins of the unspeakable horrors of Nazism, Stalinism and Maoism did not begin in the '20s, '30s and '40s. Those horrors were simply the end result of long evolution of ideas leading to consolidation of power in central government in the quest for "social justice." It was decent but misguided earlier generations of Germans, like many of today's Americans, who would have cringed at the thought of genocide, who built the Trojan horse for Hitler to take over.

There's an old brainteaser - what if you had a time machine and could back in time to kill Hitler as a boy. Would you do it? Well thanks to Williams, no need for a time machine. We liberals are working to build a Nazi/Stalinist/Maoist state right now. And it's up to you conservatives to stop us. Presumably by peaceful means, if possible.

I should point out that this is very simplistic bad history as well; but I've done that a few times in the past. Suffice it to say that declaring all of the monsters of history Liberal is very satisfying (somewhat like declaring the Bible conservative) but does not make historical sense.

The Emasculation of Christianity

I suspect I can spend a lot of time looking over this Conservative Translation of the Bible. I should note that I first heard about this from Salon's War Room, in which they proposed their own suggestions for Conservative Translations. They are amusing, I suppose, but kind of over the top. The actual work itself is pretty ripe though.

In particular they are keen (or at least one of the translators is) on making sure that all references to men are not changed to the more modern and gender neutral term of everybody or people or what not. From the translation of Mark;

avoid feminist style of seeking gender neutrality by replacing "man" with "one";

. . . avoid feminist change of "men" to "people"

. . . Keep "man" to avoid emasculating Christianity.

That second quotation is from the commentary on Mark 5:20. Let's look at the two possible interpretations - the original and then the conservative.

And he departed, and began to publish in Decapolis how great things Jesus had done for him: and all men did marvel.

So the man left and told many in Decapolis about Jesus's great works for him, to the amazement of all men.

Presumably at one point it was "to the amazement of all people." and the appropriate correction was made. It seems odd because this is an example where men is specifically being used to mean people - it's an archaic way of saying everybody (much like "Hold thy Peace" is apparently an archaic way of saying "Shut up"). And they seem to want to get rid of archaic translations. But not this time apparently.

For some reason it's important to underline that "men" are who were amazed, not "people." And that reason is that "men" are more important than "people." Or so it seems to me.

Kind of an interesting insight into the minds of Conservative Christians. Because of course accepting women as the equal to men (which using people instead of men would do) is apparently emasculating Christianity. If men are not dominant then they are emasculated.

Maybe I should look up what it means to emasculate.

1. to castrate.
2. to deprive of strength or vigor; weaken.

Well that doesn't sound good.

Translation Example

From the Conservative Bible Project, this is Mark 1:25 in the original (according to Conservapedia) "And Jesus rebuked him, saying, Hold thy peace, and come out of him." And this is the proposed revision "Jesus then rebuked the evil spirit, "Shut up and depart from him.""

I do seem to recall many Sunday School teachers who wouldn't have cottoned to the idea of Jesus saying Shut Up. At least they didn't like it when I said Shut Up; maybe they would have been OK with Jesus saying it.

This Reads like Parody, but as Near as I can Tell It's Not

Over at Conservopedia they have started a project to provide a Conservative Translation of the Bible. Or, to be more precise, an accurate translation that removes liberal bias from the translation, restoring it to it's true conservative text. On the notes page, MarkGall explains.

It is important to understand that the retranslation is in no way a new translation based on a political agenda. It is rather a new translation whose primary aim is precisely to remove the influence that political agendas have had on previous translations, and to update certain passages to use new vocabulary that more effectively captures their meaning.

In a sense I don't have a problem with this - they rightly point out there certainly have been previous translations of the Bible with various axes to grind. So why shouldn't they get in on the act? No real reason.

In another sense, however, it is problematic because one of their stated aims is to remove or modify those scriptures that give comfort to Liberal Christians.

Socialistic terminology permeates English translations of the Bible, without justification. This improperly encourages the "social justice" movement among Christians.

For example, the conservative word "volunteer" is mentioned only once in the ESV, yet the socialistic word "comrade" is used three times, "laborer(s)" is used 13 times, "labored" 15 times, and "fellow" (as in "fellow worker") is used 55 times.

Also apparently it's unlikely that Jesus said "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they are doing."

I think this goes back to what I was talking about earlier - moving into an era when Liberals and Conservatives no longer speak the same language. Fortunately this particular project I see as being more of a niche thing; I don't see mainstream churches embracing it wholesale.

Back from the Dead

Been away for a few days.

Over the weekend I saw a van with a collection of Conservative Bumper Stickers. Most were about how Obama is a socialist or a Communist, but right in the middle was one that said "Annoy a Liberal, Be Happy."

I've seen variations on that one that make a little more sense. "Annoy a Liberal, Succeed" for example, is total crap, but you can see where they are coming from. They feel that liberals put up a lot of barriers to success and that we champion societies losers, hence we must be anti-success.

But anti happiness? What sort of human being would be annoyed at seeing a happy person? Well he'd have to be somewhat of a monster wouldn't he?

I mention this because a perusal of the articles at Townhall leads me to the conclusion that I should have taken another day off. Most of them are about Roman Polanski, unsurprisingly arguing that his raping a 13 year old proves that Liberals are morally depraved (Cal Thomas throws David Letterman into the mix, arguing that we should probably get rid of our televisions).

But the one that really gets me is John Hawkin's latest, in which he gives advice to Republican lawmakers. It just reveals that the liberal and conservative world views are diverging more and more, and probably will eventually get to the point that meaningful discussion across the divide will be impossible.

One of the biggest differences between the Democrats and the GOP is that the Dems have worked to legitimize their base.

You see as a member of that base, this statement makes no sense. Democrats don't legitimize their base, particularly not their activist base. If anything they run against us. Clinton and to a lesser extent Obama both ran against the crazies in their party. And look at how the Healthcare debate is going - Single Payer, a big favorite among the Activist Base, was dropped immediately. The Government Option a somewhat weaker position has also seemingly fallen by the wayside. What does that leave us with?

In fairness, this has less to do with politics and more to do with the power of the Insurance Lobby over both parties.

Hawkins also feels that Conservative bloggers aren't being given enough money. Probably true; Conservative donors tend to be, well, conservative. They are spreading the money in traditional ways. He ignores, of course, the power of Conservative Think Tanks in shaping political discourse, as it doesn't fit his metaphor. It's not that Conservatives haven't spent money; they have. They've almost certainly outspent Liberals, George Soros notwithstanding. They just aren't as keen on spending it on new-fangled technologies like the internet.

Hawkins hold up Joe Wilson's yelling of Liar at the President as an example of what Conservative Lawmakers should be doing. Speaking truth to power, I suppose.

Wishful Thinking

Thank god for Wishful Thinking. I mean it's just so damned useful. Take for example David Limbaugh's latest article.

The signature of Obama's (uppercase "D") Democrats is their systematic betrayal of (small "d") democratic principles. Just look at today's news for a flavor of their pattern of flagrantly ignoring the popular will to cram down our throats policies we clearly reject.

See the wishful thinking there? Limbaugh wants to believe that the American people have clearly rejected the Public Option, and frankly any health care reform of any type. That's not true. Even after lambasting it for weeks, there are still significant numbers of Americans who support the creation of a Public Option, particularly when it's explained to them exactly what it is. But of course Limbaugh doesn't want to live in an America that is flirting with "socialized" medicine.

Thanks to wishful thinking he doesn't have to.

The Muslim Menace

Haven't gotten to write on Muslim Menace articles in a while, but here comes reliable old Cal Thomas with a particularly illogical one.

If you are an enemy of America seeking her destruction, you would add to your pursuit of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons the undermining of this nation from within. You would do this largely through deception, putting on a peaceful face while subtly plotting ways to bring America down.

That tactic was on display last Friday in Washington as a crowd estimated at 3,000 Muslims gathered to pray. The organizer of the rally, Imam Abdul Malik of Brooklyn, N.Y., told Americans what we like to hear: "What we've done today, you couldn't do in any Muslim country. If you prayed on the palace lawn there, they'd lock you up."

As reported by The Washington Times Sadara Shaw, a resident of Washington, D.C., was quoted as saying "It's a show of solidarity to show all Muslims are not terrorists but law-abiding citizens." That is probably true, but irrelevant since it takes only a small number of terrorists to cause havoc.

So dumbass Cal Thomas believes that Muslims are putting on a peaceful face while subtly plotting, but at the same time he believes that most of them are law-abiding citizens. Odd. I guess his theory is that since plotting isn't technically against the law, they can be law-abiding plotters?

The article is a pure Muslim Menace one.

Try a little experiment, Google "Islam near" and then type in the name of any city or town. When I tried the small town of Bryn Mawr, Pa., 10 Islamic-related sites came up. In larger cities, there are as many, or more.

Oh my gosh. There are Islamic people right here in my home town. They must be subtly plotting to bring America down. Let's get them!

Unless of course they are law-abiding citizens. Should we be beating up law abiding Muslims? I don't know. I'm so confused.

Case in Point

Michelle Malkin's latest article is entitled "The Three R's in the Age of Obama: Rappin', Revolution and Radicalism."

This is pretty much exactly what Liberals are talking about when it comes to a racist component to the criticism of Obama. Whether or not Malkin is racist, she surely knows that criticizing Obama in these terms will play with her audience.

The overall article is about the Burlington Township school which apparently went a bit overboard in their praise of Obama and thus justifies all of the crazy hysteria Conservatives kicked up around Obama's speech to the schools a few weeks ago. She continues by giving biased biographies of a few of his education picks and concludes, in a time honored tradition, by lamenting that our students aren't learning Reading Writing and Arithmetic. Instead they are learning Rappin', Revolution, and Radicalism.

The Origin of Species

Got this from an article over at Salon - apparently Kirk Cameron is going to be giving away thousands of copies of the Origin of Species with a special introduction explaining how evil the book is. But this lady explains it better than I could.



So yeah. Actually the Dawkins Bible is such an obvious idea, I'd be surprised if it didn't appear at some point.

News from the Past - September 23, 1929

This is from the Hope Star for Monday Sept. 23, 1929 - it has a headline WORLDS LARGEST MELON IN, which seems truncated, but that's not the story I picked.

Bike Tourist Is
Visitor To Hope
Buenos Aires To New
York Is Jaunt Young
Argentinian Making
Victor Seghetti, of Buenos Aires, Argentine Republic, was a caller at this office Saturday afternoon, securing a letter showing he had visited here and the date.
Seghetti is making somewhat of a tour on a bicycle, headed from his native city to New York, visiting a newspaper office in every town he passes through and mailing the letters announcing his arrival on to New York to await his arrival.
Since starting his long journey Seghetti has passed through ten countries and is well on his way through the Estados Unidos. He expects to arrive in New York about Thanksgiving.

That's some serious biking.

Ben Shapiro Grows up and gets less interesting

Ben Shapiro has, it seems to me, always wanted to be a thinking man's columnist. He's more interested in being Robert Novak or George will than being Doug Giles or Ann Coulter. That hasn't prevented him from saying some shocking things from time to time (in most cases shockingly stupid), but most of those were seeming aberrations, not a deliberate style. In contrast, Coulter is aiming directly for the most controversial and hateful things she can say.

The upshot to all this is that in the long run Shapiro is trying to be dull. And as he's grown up he's gotten better at being dull. Which is why I don't write him about him nearly as much as I used to. His latest article compares President Obama to President Jimmy Carter, somewhat ineptly, but also dully.

Shapiro points out that both Carter and Obama hate Israel, which in this context means they disagree with the Israeli right wing. Many Israelis disagree with the Israeli right wing, and one wonders if they also hate Israel.

Then there's this bit.

Carter surrendered Afghanistan to the Soviets; Obama is on the verge of surrendering Afghanistan to the Taliban.

Not exactly. Obama remains committed to Afghanistan despite many in his party and on the left believing it's time to pull out.

The article continues in this vein noting that both Obama and Carter caused inflation (not really), both tried to mess with the economy (sort of true, but not a negative), and both came from racist backgrounds (yeah, that one is pretty convincing if you think Obama hates white people).

News from the Past - September 22, 1929

From the Morning Call out of Laurel Miss, we get this charming fight news.

$18,000 and
Manager of
Fight Gone
NEW ORLEANS, La., Sept. 21.—Frankie Edwards, who last night promoted the Tony Canzoneri-Eddie "Kid" Wolfe fight which drew $21,526.43 was sought tonight by district attorney's office, charged with embezzling $18,000.
Canzoneri got his money but Wolfe, and the referees, were not paid. Sammy Goldman, Canzoneri's manager, got most of Tony's share before he entered the ring and lost the least.

Call my crazy, but I'm going to guess it was Edwards what took the money.

Everybody's favorite subject

John Hawkin's latest article is about how Electing Barack Obama is bad for race relations. It's not very good. He starts off with the unprovable assertion that the main reason Black people voted for Barack Obama was race, showing that they really do judge a candidate on the basis of skin color, not character (yes, Hawkins quotes Conservatives favorite quote from Martin Luther King.

Hawkins then notes that after the election White America has concluded that racism is over, while Barack Obama's supporters have upped the usage of the race card.

So, despite the fact that Obama came to power promising unity, what we've gotten instead is incessant cries of racism over everything. Any effective attacks on Obama? Racism. Any opposition to his agenda? Racism. Any opposition at all to Obama? Racism.

Posters portraying Obama as a witch doctor might actually be racist though, Mr. Hawkins. Let's be honest for a moment - the Tea Partiers have held up some pretty racist posters, and if you read the comments of some on the right, it's clear that race does play into their disdain for Obama.

Hawkins then notes that Obama hasn't stood up to those in his own party.

However, it's also worth noting what Obama DOESN'T DO. He doesn't ask his supporters to stop crying "racism." So, everyone who opposes him politically gets smeared as a racist, while he doesn't have to personally get his hands dirty.

Yeah I remember back when Conservatoids were calling every criticism of the War in Iraq treasonous - President Bush sure stepped up and put a stop to that.

He then concludes that the Obama is no Jackie Robinson; rather the first Black President is a disgrace, in his opinion, and so will set race relations back. Presumably because White Americans will come to hate him more and more for his feckless incompetence while Black Americans will stand by him. Of course, it goes without saying that for Hawkins, Black America just has it wrong; Obama is a disaster and if they can't see it they must be blind. That may not be the truth.

Values Voters vs. Rude Reporters

For those of you who haven't seen this - at the Values Voters Summit this weekend, both MSNBC and FOX were heckled for rudely broadcasting from the floor of the summit (after being invited). Talking Points Memo has the story.

I find interesting the tag at the end of the FOX heckling - "we want to get the word out; a lot of people are interested in this values voters summit." The phrase we want to get the word out is suggestive to me.

Should ACORN sue FOX?

Ken Blackwell thinks they shouldn't, because it would make them look bad. Or that's the argument of his latest article.

If ACORN sues, it would have to sue alleging some variation of defamation or fraud. The problem is that for either allegation, truth is an absolute defense. Nothing could be more relevant to Fox establishing its defense of truth in the lawsuit than having access to ACORN’s office memos, emails, phone records, and bank statements. All of these would have a reasonable chance of providing evidence as to whether ACORN workers had knowledge of any of the topics seen on the videotapes.

I'm not a judge or a lawyer but wouldn't FOX have to convince a judge that there was a general policy of helping pimps set up underage brothels to go after all the records of ACORN?

So ACORN’s legal actions would be its undoing. The resulting exposure would explode into a national story that even sympathetic media outlets could no longer ignore, bedeviling ACORN’s allies at SEIU and even dragging top advisers to President Barack Obama into humiliating legal proceedings.

Methinks the conservative pundit doth protest too much. It is entirely possible that a ACORN/FOX legal struggle could be very bad for both organizations, because some very simple questions would have to be settled. How many times did the pimp and his ho (Doug Giles's daughter, it turns out) try this scheme and fail? ACORN says they did several times; FOX and the Pimp and Ho says they hit paydirt everytime they tried it. What is shown on the unedited videos? Surely they aren't going to want to show that. So it seems both organizations have something to lose.

Correcting Racial Misconceptions

Cal Thomas's latest article is a pretty poor reflection on Race in America in the age of Obama.

As the president's approval ratings fall and rise and fall again, some of his supporters in journalism and politics are returning to days of old when the label "racist" could end any discussion and force the accused either into stunned silence, or groveling repentance. I suspect the tactic won't work this time because Obama supporters will have difficulty explaining how a mostly white country could elect a black man president last November and ten months later become a racist majority.

Sad. Nobody thinks that America is a majority racist country all of a sudden. Some would argue that Conservatism is a majority racist movement, but I'm not even going that far. All I will say is that it's clear that a lot of the most impassioned attacks on Obama are, at least in part, racially motivated. And that these racially motivated people are having an effect on the electorate as a whole; they keep their racism largely under wraps.

According to liberal doctrine, black people can never be racist because they are members of a victim class created by white liberals as a kind of modern plantation to keep blacks voting for liberal Democrats.

This a bastardization of the real argument. Black people have much less power than white people in our society. White Racism keeps black people in Ghettos; Black Racism is mildly annoying for White People. Liberals and Democrats want a society in which Blacks participate equally without being disparaged or attacked because of their race; Conservatives and Republicans want us all to shut up about race.

Not all or even most Conservatives are Racist in my opinion; but most virulent Racists are Conservative.

A Christian Nation?

Nathan Tabor is uncomfortable with President Obama stating that this isn't just a Christian Nation. To be fair many Conservatives aren't. But in his latest article he takes it a step further.

He did away with the annual National Day of Prayer on which the White House traditionally hosted a service in its East Room. When a reporter asked Obama's press secretary Robert Gibbs about Obama's decision, Gibbs replied, "Prayer is something that the president does everyday."

Lets pause here to note some minor dishonesty. Tabor makes it sound like this is something totally new; while President Bush 43 did hold a ceremony every year, President Clinton didn't hold any and President's Reagen and Bush 41 held one ceremony apiece during their tenures.

However, in the midst of a war against radical Islam and his push to takeover health care, President Obama found time to hold a White House dinner honoring the Muslim holiday of Ramadan Kareem. And the guest list did not only include Muslims. Many Washington elites attended the ceremony including some Republicans such as Senator Richard Lugar.

This is a bit like complaining about the President noting any non-Christian holiday, except that, of course, we are apparently at war with Islam. No wait, "Radical Islam." I'll note parenthetically that of course a white house dinner isn't just for Muslims, because presumably the President will attend and he isn't a Muslim.

News From the Past: September 15, 1929

This story is from the Sandusky Register, of Sandusky, Ohio.

Five Sing,
And Saw
Way Out
Deputies and Police seek Es-
caped prisoners Near
Steubenville
STEUBENVILLE, O., Sept 14 (AP) - Police and deputy sheriffs were searching the city and surrounding countryside tonight for five prisioners who sang and sawed their way out of the Jefferson-co jail early today.
Sheriff William Yost was disturbed early today by the sound of song pouring forth from one of the cell blocks. Loud and long the song continued and then it stopped suddenly. Sheriff Yost went to investigate and found that five of his prisoners had sawed their way to freedom to the accompaniment of their songs, which drowned out the noise of their saws.
The prisoners at liberty are James Rice, Pittsburgh, charged with highway robbery; Charles Grimm, Steubenville, charged with chicken stealing; Issac Henrickson, Louise, W. Va., charged with a statutory offense; William Afeaner, Columbus, charged with auto theft, and Fred Yates, Chicago, charged with non support.
The five men sawed the bars of their individual cells, then cut the bars on the tier. They slid down a water pipe to the basement where they cut the bars on a window and escaped.

It sounds like a missing scene from "Oh Brother, Where Art Thou?" I just love all the goofy details - particularly the crimes these gentlemen were charged with and the fact that they made their way to the basement and then sawed their way out of there; kind of implies that the sheriff wasn't exactly quick on the draw when the singing stopped.

Your Weekly Rush - Community Service leads to Fascism

I meant to get to this over the weekend but was too busy doing other things. This is from Limbaugh's Friday show in which he lambasted Obama (big surprise) for his remarks on September 11th.

The problem here, folks, is that 9/11, eight years ago today, we're not remembering it for what it should be remembered for. Obama's hijacking this to push his agenda. He's hijacking this event that he knows is going to get full-fledged media coverage all day long. He's hijacking this for what sounds like a wonderful thing. "Well, community service. We all gotta get together." You gotta understand "community service" is nothing more than community organizing. It is a tactic. Community service is one of the baby steps toward fascism.

So many things that Obama does appear to be isolated, but they are interconnected to organizing the private sector to serve the state -- and that's not the way this country was founded. You have to remember this about Barack Obama. He does not like this country as constituted. He does not like the US Constitution.

Yep. So whatever you do, don't serve your community!

Limbaugh did later back off of this, but it's still pretty revealing.

Strawman

Dennis Prager's latest article takes on the Moral Basis of Taxation. It starts promisingly, acknowledging that Liberal support for higher taxes has its basis in morality, and defending that position. But it falls down nearly immediately by stating that moral principle is simple unfairness.

Left-wing spokesmen, such as New York Times economics columnist and Princeton University professor of economics Paul Krugman, may offer economic arguments for raising taxes in order to lower government deficits, but their real motivations are moral: reducing economic inequality (by redistributing income) and expanding government (because government is the most effective way to help all citizens).

Very simplistic, but then Prager doesn't even really deal with those issues. Instead he offers up five or six problems with the concept of an income tax (presumably he is a fair tax proponent). He is opposed to progressive taxation and doesn't think people who don't pay income tax should get an equal vote (carefully excluding Payroll Taxes and Sales Taxes which almost everybody pays).

My moral argument in favor of an adequate level of taxation is this; it's immoral to let the government fail and it is immoral to shove off onto our children the burden of our own government. If you think the Government should do less, fair enough, lets have that talk. But lets not just throw everything on the nation's Credit Card and hope for the best.

Tort Reform

It's nice, every so often, to point to an article at Townhall and agree with it. In this case, Ken Conner takes on the long held belief that the best way to improve medicine in America is to stop holding Doctor's accountable for their errors.

Instead of focusing on truly conservative solutions to our nation's mounting health care crisis, Republican lawmakers and pundits are playing the same old song-and-dance—blaming ballooning health care costs on trial lawyers. This red herring tactic is a classic example of politicians trampling principle in pursuit of politics. In this case, Republicans moonlighting as "conservatives" seek to use tort reform to shield corporate malefactors (who also happen to be their financial benefactors) from full accountability for their wrongdoing. In so doing, they are undermining a bedrock principle of our nation's justice system.

The article is well worth reading for a thorough debunking of "tort reform."

News from the Past - September 13, 1929

I have not been good at updating this feature, but then I am not good at blogging on Sunday either, so why not take two things and put them together.

SEIZE BAY RUM
IN DIME STORE
Des Moines Jury Pronounces It
Palatable and Intoxicating.
Des Moines, la., Sept. 13.— (AP) — Bay rum from the 5 and 10 cent store has been classified by a Des Moines jury as a palatable and intoxicating beverage and therefore against the laws of the corn state.
Three thousand bottles of bay rum were seized in a raid at an F. W. Woolworth company 5-and-10 cent store. Condemnation proceedings were brought. After three days of testimony devoted to showing that bay rum was both palatable and intoxicating, the jury voted last night that the liquid be condemned.
Judge J. E. Mershon said that today he would issue the condemnation warrant. Attorney Will Riley, defense counsel, declared that he will appeal the case for final decision before the Iowa supreme court.
The verdict will lead to an extensive campaign by the county attorney to curb the sale of bay rum, it was announced.

I love those old timey captions that read like orders from the newspaper.

I also imagine this would have been a fun jury to have sat on.

Acorn Prostitution Story

Doug Giles has the story (along with Beck, Limbaugh and others).

In an espionage adventure that James Bond and Simon Templar would be proud of, two young filmmakers posed as civilians wanting to run a house of prostitution and infiltrated ACORN with video cameras rolling and found the nutty ACORN employees absolutely giddy about helping the characters with the following:

- How to start up their dream whorehouse with 13-year-old girls imported from El Salvador

The footage is available online should you want to see it.

The story stinks to high heaven. The two filmmakers did go around to a variety of Acorn offices trying to get this scam off the ground. The two woman involved were fired; I suspect they may have been provocateurs in on the gag. I don't know if this story has legs or not; I hope it doesn't.

Poor Rep. Joe Wilson

For those who don't know, poor Rep. Joe Wilson interrupted Obama's speech last night.

In an angry and very audible outburst, Representative Joe Wilson, Republican of South Carolina, interrupted President Obama’s speech Wednesday night with a shout of “You lie!”

His eruption — in response to Mr. Obama’s statement that Democratic health proposals would not cover illegal immigrants — stunned members of both parties in the House chamber.

He's sent a formal apology and presumably Obama will accept it. But it does kind of lend to the narrative that Republicans aren't really interested in improving healthcare, but are focused on keeping the status quo.

The best part will be when Rush Limbaugh lionizes Wilson later on today, as a hero for standing up to Obama.

Trivializing Serious Issues

Cal Thomas's latest article is about Israel, in which he presents Obama as, at best, another Chamberlain eager to sell out the Jews. And yet that's not the bad part.

What could the Jews have done seven decades ago to dissuade Hitler from his "Final Solution"? What can modern Israelis do today to keep from being murdered by those who continue to hate Jews simply for being Jews? The answer to both questions is: nothing. Jews were murdered then and now, not for anything they did, but simply for being Jewish.

Thank you Mr. Thomas for trivializing a serious issue with blatant and obvious misstatement, if not outright lie. The truth, as anybody with half a brain knows, is that the Palestinian issue is a real issue; Israeli treatment of the Palestinians has been, at best, mixed. And when you completely exonerate Israel, and chalk up the tension strictly to irrational, Hitler-like hatred, you make it harder to actually solve this problem. And that's pretty damned shameful, in my opinion.

Lessons from History

John Hawkins latest article covers lessons we can learn from the rise of Hitler. Unlike Pat Buchanan, Hawkins seems to see Hitler as a bad person and something to be wary of. That said it's not hard to read his article as a suggestion that President Obama might be another Hitler, and, ironically enough, another Chamberlain. Take this section.

Take even non-reasonable claims seriously: Margaret Thatcher once said,

"It is one of the great weaknesses of reasonable men and women that they imagine that projects which fly in the face of commonsense are not serious or being seriously undertaken."

And of course conservatives are pretty convinced that Obama has repeatedly said that he wants socialism or communism or fascism. So I guess we should take those claims seriously?

And then of course Hawkins gives Chamberlain the same kicking he always gets.

So, when a belligerent nation or group benefits from its belligerence, it should surprise no one when it continues to be belligerent. That principle applied to Hitler and it most certainly still applies today.

Of course original appeasement involved actually giving Hitler what he wanted. Modern appeasement just implies not starting a war to invade another country.

Now in fairness to Hawkins he does have a paragraph about how everybody's not another Hitler, which would seem to protect him from the suggestion that he's arguing that Obama is another Hitler. Pity his examples come from the townhall disrupters.

News from the Past - September 4, 1929

Well this is an interesting one, from the Morning Herald out of Hagerstown, Maryland

PALESTINE QUIET,
DISPATCHES SAY
Jerusalem, Sept. 3, (AP).—Palestine in general today was quiet with the authorities pushing their inquiries into the causes of the recent rioting and taking Into at least temporary custody.
Tiberias in upper Galilee was the only source o£ anxiety, for telephone communication with that district had failed after reports had been received of scattering Moslem attacks which, had caused a few casualties.

Of course this was before the Holocaust and the founding of the nation of Israel. But that part of the world has always been a bit rough. Like all the other parts.

What is our Message

The Daily Howler is a website I've been a fan of for a long time and they are on fire this week. They are asking a simple question; why are Democrats so bad at messaging, while Republicans are so good at it (among other conclusions, the Democrats are beholden to the same moneyed interests that the Republicans are defending).

He then suggests two counter messages, that we Democrats might pick up.

But if we ever do build such a narrative, it would probably turn on these points:

First, it would turn on some well-crafted statement of an obvious fact: Big Moneyed Interests will try to loot you. They’ll do it every time—till they’re stopped.

Second, it might turn on a second obvious fact: Big Moneyed Interests will send tribunes out to deceive you. They will lie in your faces—till they’re stopped.

I think he's right; these are clear statements of fact. The reason we need a well-regulated capitalism (and I'm in favor of capitalism) is because the moneyed interests will do exactly what he says they are doing. And they are doing it right now, and we seem powerless to stop them. I don't know what the answer is, but part of it as to be explaining to the American people exactly how they are getting screwed and pledging to help them.

The Playing Field

This is from Charles Krauthammer's latest article, in which he notes that Obama is having some troubles lately; in particular he seems to be dropping the polls. He basically argues that this is Obama's fault.

Unbidden, unforced and unpushed by the congressional leadership, Obama gave his most deeply felt vision of America, delivering the boldest social democratic manifesto ever issued by a U.S. president. In American politics, you can't get more left than that speech and still be on the playing field.

In a center-right country, that was problem enough.

What I find fascinating is that according to Krauthammer, Obama is as leftist as you can get and still be viable. That's pretty frustrating; because Obama is not all that far to the left. He may not even be as far left as Bill Clinton. And if he is the most liberal person we are allowed to have, we will always be enacting center right proposals at best.

While we are at it, by Center-Right, Krauthammer means that the range of reasonable Americans runs from extreme right wingers like Limbaugh and Glenn Beck to Moderate Right Wingers. Liberals may as well not even show up. Fortunately I think this particular fantasy of the right is just that, a fantasy.

The Risk of Infection

Reading Ann Coulter's latest article, on the lies that liberals tell about Healthcare; getting into the spirit Ann Coulter doesn't play it exactly strait herself. She writes about the suggestion that illegal aliens will not be covered under the new plan and argues that, of course, they will be covered under the new plan. So Obama is lying when he says they won't be.

Of course Obama isn't lying; she merely restructured the question. President Obama is saying that the new plan isn't intended to cover illegal aliens. She pretends that that means Obama is guaranteeing that there will be no illegal aliens getting healthcare under this plan. Well, there's no way that Obama can guarantee that.

It's kind of like how Obama apparently promised that his election would end all racial divisiveness and then we still have racial divisiveness. The pretended promise is set so high as to be impossible for any mortal to live up to.

Then there is this bit.

Liberals never, ever drop a heinous idea; they just change the name. "Abortion" becomes "choice," "communist" becomes "progressive," "communist dictatorship" becomes "people's democratic republic" and "Nikita Khrushchev" becomes "Barack Obama."

It doesn't matter if liberals start calling national health care a "chocolate chip puppy" or "ice cream sunset" -- if the government is subsidizing it, then the government calls the shots.

Hence the title of this post; even the slightest move towards liberalism is, for Ann Coulter and many conservatoids, the equivalent of enacting the entire liberal/leftist/socialist/communist platform. Because then you see we have our foot in the door. You give us an inch and we'll destroy your whole society. Or such is the demented way many conservatives think.

Liberals are perhaps too willing to compromise (which is why the Public option seems to be dead) and conservatives are totally unwilling. Or, to put it another way, "The best lack all conviction, while the worst / Are full of passionate intensity."

Teach the Children

Apparently President Obama is going to speak to the nations students next Tuesday (Sept. 8).

President Obama announced that on September 8 — the first day of school for many children across America — he will deliver a national address directly to students on the importance of education. The President will challenge students to work hard, set educational goals, and take responsibility for their learning. He will also call for a shared responsibility and commitment on the part of students, parents and educators to ensure that every child in every school receives the best education possible so they can compete in the global economy for good jobs and live rewarding and productive lives as American citizens.

Naturally this move has engendered suspicion from Conservatives who see this as the forming of a sort of Obama Youth movement. Michael Medved in his latest article takes this tack.

Imagine the reaction of one of these anti-Obama parents to a first grader who comes home proudly announcing that our whole class made promises about helping President Obama.

He also notes that had Bush tried this, many on the left would have slammed into him in exactly these terms. That's still sad; since I am not of a mindset to assume that everything Obama does is suspicious, the idea of the President speaking to students and telling them to, well, study and work hard seems OK to me.

News from the Past - September 1, 1929

This is one of those stories that just reads oddly because the meanings of words have changed. It's from The Sunday Register, out of Buckley West Virginia.

Lego Man's Foot is
Crushed by Car Wheel
Charles F, Clark, 19, was brought to the Baleigh General hospital yesterday afternoon for treatment of injuries to his left foot sustained when a motor wheel passed over it at Lego earlier in the day. He was brought lo the hospital by his father S B. Clark.
While young Clark's injuries are not considered serious, indications are that he will be unable to work for several weeks.

As near as I can tell the town of Lego has no connection with the popular plaything.

A Persistent Question

The Daily Howler has a tendency to settle on a theme and then bang on it for a quite a little while. Sometimes it's annoying but right now, it's asking a pretty good question.

Total spending on health care, per person, 2007:
United States: $7290
Japan: $2581

. . . In fact, the Japanese system provides health care at vastly lower cost! Per capita, the Japanese spends barely one-third what we Americans do! But last Thursday, readers of the New York Times didn’t wonder why that is. Arnquist seemed to work rather hard to keep that fact from their view.

On a per capita basis, the United States spends vastly more than other developed nations. Again and again, we’ve marveled at the way the mainstream press seems to keep hiding this fact. The spending data are simply stunning—and readers are constantly shielded from them.

Yeah it's worth thinking about. Why are Japanese paying less for better care?

I'm Bored

I am unable to find much to write about today, so may as well point you to Buchanan's latest attempt to rehabilitate Hitler.

But where is the evidence that Adolf Hitler, whose victims as of March 1939 were a fraction of Gen. Pinochet's, or Fidel Castro's, was out to conquer the world?

I kind of imagine Buchanan putting more emphasis on Castro rather than Pinochet. That said, the obvious response is that we have historical perspective on what Hitler did. Even at the time, regardless of what he had done, his ability to mess with Western civilization was far greater than Pinochet's Argentina or Castro's Cuba. For one thing, Hitler was right in the middle of it. For another, Germany was a nation with enormous technological and military strength.

Pat Buchanan then invokes Winston Churchill to support his view that England shouldn't have provoked Hitler. Interesting choice there; of course Churchill is well known for having been one of the main voices against Chamberlain's appeasement policy.

Winston Churchill was right when he called it "The Unnecessary War" -- the war that may yet prove the mortal blow to our civilization.

How exactly will World War 2 prove the mortal blow to our civilization? What civilization, exactly, is Buchanan talking about? Which civilization? The questions are unexplored; I suppose that if they were explored either Buchanan would have to blow on his dog whistle so loud it would deafen us or he would come clean and admit some pretty ugly things.