Give them an Inch

Dennis Prager, in his latest article about how Jordanians deserve to be blown up for being insufficiently angry at Palestinian terrorism, poses an interesting question to those of who oppose the war.

In a previous column, I proposed that supporters of the war in Iraq ask opponents of the war just one question: Without in any way compromising your opposition to the war, would you at least acknowledge that the people we are fighting in Iraq are evil? Virtually every one of the many letters I received from readers opposed to the war was incapable of answering in the positive. By fighting America and George W. Bush, the "insurgents" are essentially inoculated against moral judgment.

A few points.

Who are you talking about when you ask who we are fighting in Iraq? Well some of them are foreign terrorists, who are presumably evil. Some of them are Iraqi insurgents, angry at the foreign occupation of their country, who may or may not be evil.

Consider for a moment; if during the Bill Clinton years, Canada had determined that Clinton was a bad man and had to be removed from power, and had taken successful military action to do so; would you have fought for America's right to determine it's own future. Now I admit Clinton was no Saddam Hussein (although to listen to some of your colleagues on the right talk, you'd think he was pretty close), but you'd think a lot of Americans would fight the Canadians, and I doubt you'd blame them all that much.

Now the choice to indiscriminately slaughter their fellow citizens is evil, no matter how you look at it. But that's not the only tactic these insurgent groups are using.

Pretending that our nuanced position on the Iraqi Insurgents is due solely to our hatred of President Bush is nonsense. And I am pretty sure that you know it's nonsense. And of course pretending we support them (insofar as we do support them)because they fight America is double nonsense.

Al Gore

Just caught a few minutes of Rush's show for today; they have a guest host who mentioned Al Gore has said that global warming is a bigger threat to the world than terrorism.

Yeah, if you believe in global warming, that's pretty much undeniable. If you don't believe in global warming, it's laughable.

The conditions that have created the rise in Terrorism over the last three decades will undoubtedly change over the next three decades. Could get worse, could get better, but Terrorism is largely a social problem. And people can change pretty quickly.

On the other hand, the forces creating global warming (assuming you believe they exist) are environmental factors that may be very difficult to isolate let alone eliminate. And they seem to be operating on a global scale.

Of course the fill in jerk for Rush doesn't believe in Global Warming; so he naturally embarked on a self righteous rant about the families of the 9/11 victims. Apparently believing that global warming is a big threat also implies you believed that global warming is responsible for the twin towers being destroyed.

Um, ok.

The 2004 Election

Was the 2004 election stolen?

Some people would say 100% yes. Others would say 100% no. I would say a 100% maybe. I would certainly put it within the realm of possibility, but as to where it fits (a high possibility? A low possibility?) I cannot say.

Farhad Manjoo, who had written a bit about the potential for election fraud before the election and who had then been taken a lot of crap for declaring the 2004 election more or less clean. Or, to be more precise, he took a lot of crap for suggesting the proof that the election was stolen was much less the an solid.

Well it looks like he's preparing for another batch of crap with his latest article, a review of Mark Crispin Miller's "Fooled Again: How the Right Stole the 2004 Election and Why They'll Steal the Next One Too (Unless We Stop Them)."

Mr. Miller claimed last week to have presented a copy of his book to Kerry, who blurted out that he believed that the election was stolen. The Kerry camp has since denied this memory as a half truth at best. So take that for what it is worth.

Anyway Manjoo's take on the book is that it makes a lot of claims, but when it gets down to brass tacks, it's claims aren't supported by the evidence. Rather Miller is more interested in proving that the Republicans are so driven to seize power (and to keep Liberals out of power) that they wouldn't' hesitate to rig an election.

Manjoo quotes Miller's appearance on Democracy Now!; a quote I find quite interesting.

This is not a criminal case, OK? We don't have to prove guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt. This is our election system, right? This is a system based on consent of the governed. If many, many millions of Americans are convinced that they got screwed on Election Day and couldn't vote, or if 3.4 million more Americans claim that they voted than the actual total of voters -- this is what the Census Bureau told us last May -- this is grounds alone for serious investigation ... We have to have serious investigation.

As Manjoo points out, we do need to have a serious discussion about these issues; certainly there are necessities like Paper Trails that need to enacted in every county in America (and to hell with the expense, this is our Democracy we are talking about).

But to suggest that actual proof doesn't matter, because people think there is a problem? That's not a good standard on which to build a movement or on which to build a Democracy. Rather we should insist on a scrupulous researched, airtight case, before we make accusations of this nature.

Ugly Words

It's interesting to me how the left wing totally dominates the media and yet we can all name at least three conservative commentators for every liberal commentator (assuming you are not counting reporters and anchormen (because, liberal bias or not, they have to pretend to be unbiased) or Hollywood types (because, well, that's stupid). If the media is so 100% liberal, why do they let so many conservatives on the air?

This creates a second problem for conservatives. Say I bring up the latest monstrous quote by Bill O'Rielly. In case you didn't hear it, here it is.

Hey, you know, if you want to ban military recruiting, fine, but I'm not going to give you another nickel of federal money. You know, if I'm the president of the United States, I walk right into Union Square, I set up my little presidential podium, and I say, 'Listen, citizens of San Francisco, if you vote against military recruiting, you're not going to get another nickel in federal funds. Fine. You want to be your own country? Go right ahead. And if al-Qaida comes in here and blows you up, we're not going to do anything about it. We're going to say, look, every other place in America is off limits to you, except San Francisco. You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead.'

The natural reaction to being presented with a quote like that is to suggest that liberals have said just as many ugly things. They pull out a few quotes by actors or Michael Moore to suggest that we Liberals hate them just as much as they hate us, right? But then I pull out some old gems like, "You people are walking around in the biggest fog that I have ever seen. You people need therapy! You people all need to be sequestered somewhere for a couple of months to get your minds right because you people can't even be honest with yourselves. You are walking delusions." from good old Rush Limbaugh.

Or maybe "We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors." from sweet Ann Coulter.

Or Dennis Prager calling for a second Civil War. Or Michael Savage hoping one of his listeners gets aids and dies. Or G. Gordon Liddy giving instructions on how best to take out a federal agent.

And so on and so forth. So my plea to the Liberal Media is to let more liberals on the air. It's only fair; I mean we liberals have a banquet of insanity to choose from; conservatives are stuck with Michael Moore.

What He Said Redux

Continuing my theme from Friday, I'm also going to link to Random Goblin's Blog on how Democrat can support the President when they are deceived and then stop supporting him when they realize they've been deceived.

And don't even get me started on the "who voted to send them there in the first place." People supported the invasion of Iraq because they were still reeling from 9/11, and because they were systematically lied to.

Go read the rest of it; he makes some key points and has a very good analogy as well.

Defenders Saturday

Marvel Feature Presents The Defenders #1

Dr. Strange has just returned to his life in Greenwich Village, and as the scene opens, we see Wong bringing him tea. But then a mystic voice calls out to Dr. Strange. It takes Dr. Strange a few seconds to catch on; in the mean time he accuses Wong of calling his name repeatedly (which would be a strange joke for Wong to play on his boss). After realizing it must be a mystic voice, Dr. Strange sends his astral body out to look around. He visits a hospital where two doctors and a nurse are discussing a patient who is about to die. Dr. Strange identifies him as Yandroth an Evil Scientist he met in another dimension.

Yandroth reveals his master plan. He has constructed a mystic computer that will ignite all the worlds stockpiles, and destroy the world. As he puts it, “EVERY man wants the world to END when he dies but only I shall FULFILL that dream!” I don’t know. I’ve never really dreamed of the world ending when I die. I dream more about eating a really big sandwich.

Anyway Dr. Strange quickly determines that the world ending would be a bad thing, so he commands the Doctors in the hospital to stop their lunch break, and march robotically into cure Yandroth. Unfortunately they can’t save Yandroth, but they do give an important clue to Dr. Strange (his mailing address). Dr. Strange flies his astral form back to his body.

Dr. Strange in a strange fit of humility, realizes he needs some help to take on this machine; and so seeks out the Sub-Mariner (who is swimming with his head out of water, luckily). They have a short palaver, and the Sub-Mariner is persuaded that the world being destroyed by atomic bombs would be bad. After that they try to find other allies (Namor references his recent adventures with the Hulk and the Silver Surfer). The Silver Surfer is unavailable (he has been hurt; not badly, but enough that he will be of no help). Thor is doubtless “battling menaces on world’s beyond our ken.” Dr. Strange jut pretty much jumps to that conclusion immediately.

That leaves the Hulk. So Dr. Strange sends out his astral body to talk to the Hulk. And by talk, I mean trip and then insult. This mildly upsets the Hulk who promises to follow Dr. Strange to the end of the earth (out of anger). Once Dr. Strange leads him back to the Sub-Mariner, they cage him and he agrees to listen to them. Dr. Strange explains that there is danger coming, that only the Hulk can help with. Hulk reasons that if Dr. Strange wants to be his friend he will go along with it. Then we have a meaningless display of Dr. Strange’s powers as two old people see Dr. Strange in his costume, but he then makes them see him in a business suit (looking quite sleazy). The oldsters direct them to a lighthouse where the evil machine lurks.

The Hulk and the Sub-Mariner burst in (Hulk from land, the Sub-Mariner from under the ocean), defeating numerous traps along the way. Then Dr. Strange goes in in his astral form and is told by the machine (which is ugly by the way) that when the Hulk and Sub-Mariner punch the machine, their awesome power will fuel the machine, giving it the power to accomplish it’s evil plans.

So, let’s summarize Yandroth’s evil plan. He constructs an Evil Machine, then gets himself killed. He summons Dr. Strange before he dies so he can tell Dr. Strange about the Evil Machine. Then he trusts Dr. Strange to take along enough muscle to provide the energy to power his Evil Machine. Yeah that seems overly complicated to me.

Anyway Dr. Strange keeps the Hulk and Sub-Mariner from attacking the Machine by casting illusions that make them see the other as super threatening. So they attack each other, instead of the Machine. Then Dr. Strange defeats the machine, by summoning the awesome power of time; so that each second takes an eon for the machine. And then he un-illusions the Hulk and the Sub-Mariner.

So let’s summarize the Hulk and Sub-Mariner’s contribution to this story. Dr. Strange goes and finds them, which fills up a few pages. Then they crush through the Evil Machine’s defenses. Then Dr. Strange has to keep them from destroying the world, by forcing them to fight each other. Then they go away. There’s a reason the Defenders are called the “un-Team.”

Anyway they conclude with this final conversation.
Sub-Mariner – “Aye It’s best that we part. For, we all but caused the Earth’s DESTRUCTION– while we sought to be it’s valiant DEFENDERS.”

Dr. Strange – “DEFENDERS! A fitting NAME for such a grouping as we – if ever we’ve need to meet AGAIN.

Hulk – “Hulk NEVER wants to get together again. NEVER! Hulk was IN group once – called AVENGERS. Didn’t LIKE it.”

There’s also a back up story involving Dr. Strange returning to being a hero, but it’s not very interesting. Oh and sorry for the panel this time. It didn't scan very well, and I couldn't get it to look that much better.

What he said

I was going to write a post about how the current argument (reiterated by the President today) that all the Democrats agreed that Saddam had WMDs and so are hypocrites for saying he lied us into war is BS. But Realign This! has a good post covering this subject, so I'm just going to quit a bit of it and link to it (well already did that part).

If the administration did manipulate the intelligence, and if said manipulated intelligence was the basis on which people made decisions, then the fact that they supported the war does not mean they are hypocritical in their criticisms of the decision to go to war. In fact if anything it gives them more of a right to criticize, not less. If seeing the unmanipulated intelligence leads to a different conclusion, its quite clear that the manipulation was a decisive factor in the direction of their vote.

So go read the rest.

Abu Ghraib

I know we are pretty comfortable putting Abu Ghraib and what happened there out of our minds. It doesn't fit with our picture of what we, as a nation, are all about. But given the current debate over torture, perhaps we should keep it in our minds just a bit.

As it turns out, Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, who has been held responsible for what happened at Abu Ghraib, has a book out abuot her experiences, and she sat down with Salon magazine for an interview. Some of what she has to say is clearly self serving (she largely shifts the blame away from herself), but she does paint a picture of an Iraq in chaos and a command unconcerned with the rights of Iraqi civilians.

In late August [2003] they started these very aggressive raids. The first operation, up in Mosul, resulted in 37 security detainees arriving in Abu Ghraib. Within about 30 hours, the military interrogation teams had interviewed each one of those 37 and determined that only two of them had value and needed to be held. The other 35 were eligible to be released. And that was a firestorm, because nobody was going to be released.

I was at a briefing over at [Lt. Gen. Ricardo] Sanchez's headquarters [as the head of coalition forces in Iraq] and the deputy commander, [Maj.] Gen. [Walter] Wodjakowski, turned around to me and said, "You are not to release any one of them, Janis." And I said, "Sir, that information came from the military intelligence." And he said, "Get me somebody from the military intelligence." So this captain comes over and is trying to explain that none of these 35 had any further value. They were in fact in the wrong place at the wrong time, [gathered] up with the target individuals. So, Gen. Wodjakowski now turns on this guy and tells him, "You are not to release any of them. Do you understand me? Am I making myself perfectly clear? You are not to release any one of them." And this captain tries valiantly to explain that we'll be holding innocent people, and Gen. Wodjakowski says he doesn't care.

Obviously one of the strongest arguments in favor of torturing people is suggesting that they would do the same or worse to us. "These are people who would like to kill as many Americans as possible and you feel bad that they have to go through a little discomfort?"

The dynamic changes when you think about them as innocent civilians, and you try to imagine what it would be like to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, going through this kind of abuse. Unless you don't see much difference between an Iraqi civilian and a terrorist, I suppose.

This Doesn't Add Up

You need to check out this exchange between reporters and Scottie McClellen (White House Press Secretary), presented by First Draft.

A little background; the President has said that under his administration we don't do torture. Vice President Cheney has gone to the senate and asked for an exemption for the CIA to a proposed bill outlawing torture. How does the Bush Administration reconcile those two events?

The real answer, of course, is that the White House has a very narrow definition of torture. There are all kinds of things you can do to prisoners that don't fall under the heading of torture in their mind. But McClellen can't say that (because the American people might disagree with the Bush Administrations on what actually constitutes torture). So he dances. And dances. And then he dances some more.

What Yesterday's Elections Mean

As you all know, yesterday's off-year elections didn't go exactly as the Bush Administration and the Republican party had planned. The GOP lost Governors races in Virginia (where Bush campaigned for Republican Jerry W. Kilgore) and in New Jersey. Governor Arnold out in California lost four ballot initiatives he claimed were necessary to reform the state. So kind of a bad night for the Republicans.

So what does it mean? Well I think it means that the bloom is off of the Republican Apple. I think it means that soon Republicans will be embarrassed to show their faces in public. I think it means that a coming era of unbridled Democratic Power will reduce the Republicans to clandestine meetings in the middle of night for fear of societal disapproval. I think it means that Republican politicians will be about as popular as a punch up the conk. Democrats will rule! Republicans will cower! Republicans will flea the sunlight of Joyous Democratic Rule like boll weevils afraid of the light! It will be a glorious day for all Democrats, a glorious day coming soon! And a very bad day for Republicans, for the tide has surely turned and they will soon be three kinds of doomed!!!

But, you know, it's important not to read too much into this.

Google and the Library

This situation with Google scanning the world's libraries is pretty interesting. Salon has an interesting article on the pros and cons of what Google is doing (or to be more accurate, the people who think it's cool and the people who think it's wrong). In the middle there is this argument against what Google is doing.

Aiken compares Google's plan to use books with the way Hollywood uses novels as plots for its movies. When film producers first started making movies from books, "They could have said, 'Hey, how does it hurt the author if I make a movie from his book?'" Aiken points out. "You could argue, after all, that more people would buy the book because of the movie." But that's not the way the world works, Aiken says. Hollywood pays publishers for the rights to novels they want to use, and in the same way, Google should pay publishers -- who would then distribute money to authors -- for the right to add books to its database.

That comparison just strikes me as apples and oranges. Yep, it's like some cranky monkey throwing apples and oranges at me. At my head.

See the thing is that movies, even back in the early days, made and make a ton of money. It's hard to imagine Google making a ton of money off of this particular project (the article is pretty murky on where the profit motive fits in here, except in so far as Google wants to retain it's position over Yahoo and Microsoft). The assumption on the part of some publishers and some authors seems to be that Google wouldn't do this if it wasn't going to make a ton of money for them. So the author's and publishers want their share of the pie.

Which, I have to admit, is understandable if not admirable.

Beating a Dead Horse

In this case a dead horse named Ben Shapiro, I'm afraid.

Ben's latest article is about the Riots in France, and Ben displays his usual hateful ignorance on the subject. Let's get to hateful right away.

When Muslim terrorists murder 3,000 Americans on Sept. 11, the European response is to lecture Americans about their "intolerance"

Actually the response from Jacques Chirac, President of France was somewhat different than Ben portrays it.

In these horrific circumstances, the French people stand as one, side by side with the American people. They want to express their friendship and solidarity in this tragedy. Their thoughts go especially to the injured and to the families of the victims.

France condemns totally this terrorism against which we must fight with absolute determination.

Le Monde, France's leading newspaper, ran with a headline "Today We Are All Americans." There were massive demonstrations through out the world in support of America in our time of need.

But that doesn't fit the story Ben is telling so he skips over it. He also skips over why the rest of the world has felt to lecture us. We invaded Iraq under false pretenses and with little provocation.

Now let's get to ignorant; the reason the Muslims are revolting is that the French government has been to lenient with them. This is, as I'm sure you know, total nonsense. France has no affirmative action, and a policy of enforced assimilation. If a Muslim youth from North Africa or the Middle East cannot become French fast enough he is marginalized and given little opportunity to improve his life. This creates resentment. As Mahablog points out, this looks a lot more like the Watts riots than any sort of terrorism.

Presented without Comment

The Democrats' desperate attempts at gaining political advantage, regardless of the cost in human lives, is disgraceful and treasonous. When will they learn that partisan politics ends at the water's edge? I pray that the American people can see through their vicious campaign of lies and partisan propaganda and will vote accordingly in the next elections.

We must ensure that America does not burn with Europe. It's way past time for Reid, Kennedy, Schumer, Howard, Pelosi, et al, to sit-down and shut-up! You're either with us or with the terrorists.

For more thoughts along this line, go here.

Townhall Still Wants Your Money

They want it so bad they got Ben Shapiro, Boy Prognosticator, to proclaim that Townhall is "The ultimate conservative tool for change."

The ultimate conservative tool for change. In support of this position, Ben notes that Townhall now has a blog and a message board (called Soapbox). I don't know if those actually mean as much as young Ben seems to think they do.

At any rate if you want to support "The ultimate conservative tool for change" (and isn't that a mouthful) send Townhall some money.

On another note, I think it's interesting that my spell checker keeps wanting to replace Townhall with Downhill.

Taking Pleasure in Other's Suffering

I caught a bit of Rush Limbaugh's Morning Update this morning. This is a three minute spiel he does on whatever strikes his fancy. Today it was on how happy he is to see human suffering in France (and, tangentially, how the Kyoto Pact is a bad thing). Basically his thesis was that the French people deserve to suffer. Frankly he sounded rather pleased with himself. And check out these comments from yesterday's show.

The riots have spread to within the city limits of Paris, and the fires are raging, and the French, the good old French, the cops are still ordered not to shoot back. It's just a question of how long it's going to be before the French surrender.

The story in the Right Blog-O-Sphere is more or less the same. They are pleased as punch to see France suffering. The Mahablog has a piece on their glee.

What's interesting to me is how, well, un-Christian this sort of behavior strikes me. This is a crowd that is pretty regularly reminding us all of how much better they are than us, mainly because they call themselves Christians. Is this the way Christians act? Happy at the suffering of others? If so, than boy have I been barking up the wrong tree.

A New Blog on the Blogroll

I don't know if Presstitutes will replace Media Matters, but it's quite good so far. And certainly you can't have enough blogs watching the Media.

Townhall wants your Money

Townhall, responsible for reprinting the words of Ann Coulter (among others), would like your money. I'm planning on keeping my money, but if you want to hear the ugly hateful rhetoric of Ann Coulter, you might send them a few books.

This is the main gist of an article by Jay Bryant over there. His main theme is that for a long time the American Press was a lot like Soviet Style propaganda efforts (which seems a little delusional, but there you go. It's an article of Conservative faith). He then goes into this hopeful news.

In the sphere of politics and public affairs, the big bang of the information explosion has had the effect of destroying the bland liberal consensus, personified by the dominant Democratic Party, that dominated American politics for the previous half century. The good news is that it has released the conservative viewpoint from its old constrictions. The bad news is that it also released the most frightening and toxic left- wing extremism too.

Boo Mr. Bryant. I'm a toxic frightening liberal.

Oh wait, Halloween was last week.

Is there anybody on the left wing as toxic and as prominent as Ann Coulter? I don't doubt that you can find some hateful rhetoric by some liberal websites or Hollywood morons. I have no doubt of that. But is there anybody of her stature that pours out hatred every week?

Don't all get up at once.

President Bush doesn't like to be graded

But I mean, come on! Who likes to be graded? I don't. Grades suck.

So when someone like Senator Russ Feingold suggests that President Bush and his administration come up with plan to leave Iraq at some point in the future; well, President Bush doesn't cotton to such a plan.

A military timetable won't solve all our problems in Iraq, nor will it signify American disengagement from that country. Intense American diplomatic and political efforts will likely be needed long after the troops' mission is accomplished and they are withdrawn. I expect that we will also continue military and security cooperation with the Iraqis, as we work with them and with others around the world to combat terrorist networks.

But a flexible, realistic timetable could undercut the insurgency that rages in Iraq, an insurgency that thrives on conspiracy theories and suspicions regarding American intentions. A timetable would also encourage Iraqi ownership of their country's political process, moving Iraqis toward real political independence by making it clear that the U.S. will not be there indefinitely. Finally, a timetable would enable us to devote more resources to the most pressing national security issue we face -- combating the global terrorist networks that continue to threaten this country.

Well, yes, but if you set a time table; people would be able to judge how the war in Iraq is going, and that would be a major downer. It would suck. You'd presumably have to actually meet the goals of such a timetable.

But of course you don't want to look like you are afraid of failing; so what is the best way to defuse this situation? Pretend like the timetable is will require US troops to pull out before the mission is done. Clever. Paint imaginary scenarios and then make fun of them.

"Sarge, the Insurgents just blew the hell out of that gas station. We should go fight them."

"Sorry son. The timetable says that it's time to go, so we have to abandon them to their fate."

See how ridiculous that situation is? Of course that's not even close to what Feingold is proposing; but let's pretend it is. Then we can attack the ridiculous scenario we invented as ridiculous, and Feingold gets the blame.

You might think this sounds far-fetched. You should try listening to Rush Limbaugh sometime if you do.

Defenders Saturday

The Sub-Mariner 35

OK, the last issue had the Hulk and the Silver Surfer as guest stars. Well that was a nice start, but it was only the beginning. Now we have some avengers too (Thor, Iron-Man, ol’ high-pockets himself, Goliath). As we open, the Hulk, Sub-Mariner and Silver Surfer are flying in outer space, when the Hulk says, “Tell Hulk AGAIN - - Why we’re all three here!” Of course you know the Hulk threw that three in there to show off his intellectual skills. Apparently the plan is to talk the United Nations scientists (who are creating the evil weather machine) and talk them out of it from a position of strength. So the Hulk has to serve as a sort of diplomat. Let’s see how that works out for the Sub-Mariner.

They land in front of a scientist who boasts that not even a hurricane can prevent their testing of this device. Hulk decides to teach this person a lesson on the curveballs life throws us at times, by landing in front of him and saying “Maybe a BIG WIND can’t stop you - - but the HULK can!!” He holds a boulder over his head to emphasize his point, but the Sub-Mariner smashes it. They remind Hulk of his role as a diplomat, but he doesn’t seem completely happy about it. The General in charge gives them five seconds to explain themselves. It’s kind of too bad I used General Stupid and Unlucky in the last recap. They explain that the weather machine is dangerous. The General seems unmoved so the Silver Surfer destroys their weapons. The General, showing himself not to be as stupid as General Stupid and Unlucky, flees the island and he contacts the Secretary General of the United Nation.

The scene switches to an establishing shot of the United Nations where the Secretary General says, “This is the GRAVEST crisis in the HISTORY of the United Nations!” So he calls in the Avengers. Scene change to Avengers Mansion where Captain America says, “Then It’s AGREED! Five of us dash of to make that charity TV spot - - the other three remain HERE on call to the U.N. as we promised!” Yeah everything Captain America says warrants exlamation points (I should not that in this issue, they have Clint Barton, former Hawkeye, serving as Goliath) and they aren’t very happy about it. Fortunately they soon get the call to journey to the island, which prompts some remembrances of thrashings past, particularly about the Hulk and the Silver Surfer.

Meanwhile back on the island, the Atlantean scientist from last episode shows up, along with Lady Dorma (Namor’s lady love). They also see the Avengers coming – and spring into action. They meet the Avengers some distance away. Namor and Thor agree to talk over Namor’s reasons for taking these actions. But then the Hulk (and who could have predicted this) says “Bah! It’s all a Trick! Is Hulk the only one who can see it. . . . Time to fight! Time to SMASH!” Goliath and Iron Man quickly attack Namor and the Silver Surfer respectively. They fight for a couple of pages. There’s the old gimmick where even the Hulk can’t pick up Thor’s Hammer.

The Soldiers return to the island and take this moment to attack the Atlantean scientists. Fortunately the site of Lady Dorma causes them to not attack (because they are gentlemen, apparently). This, coupled with Namor’s rescue of a drowning Goliath, ends the fight. Ikthon shows what the smallest amount of radioactivity could do to the weather machine (namely cause a huge explosion). This convinces the Avengers and General Not That Stupid that the three were in the right. The Sub-Mariner, in his statesmanlike way, calls for more study before the device is finished. Hulk has a different idea. “MORE STUDY? BAH! Machine is BAD, that’s all! But, Hulk will turn it into - - SCRAP METAL!” Namor and the Silver Surfer have to restrain him, which he doesn’t like. So he hurls them away and leaves without destroying the machine. And then the Surfer flies away, angry that humans don’t seem very good at getting along, leaving Namor alone with his lady love and the Avengers. He bids the Avengers fare well and takes a panel to remind us that the next issue involves his wedding.

The Loneliness of the Silver Surfer – “I could not endure another MOMENT among a race of MADMEN - - who rail at each other in name of PROGRESS”

The Ears of the Sub-Mariner (to Goliath) - "Your frail human ears are more delicate than mine, Avenger!"

The Simple Honesty of the Hulk - "Let the HUMANS fear - 'cause Hulk will SMASH them - them and the thing the BUILD!"

Your Weekly Rush - In Defense of Gouging

Listening to Rush while driving around today; he was talking about gas prices. Apparently some of his fans and some of his staff feel that gas prices are too high. Rush Limbaugh disagrees. He spent some time on this yesterday and he's spending time on it today. Trying to convince people that gas problems are no problem. It is admittedly a hard sell.

Fortunately he has statistics from the American Petroleum Institute. I mean if anybody knows what's going on in the Petroleum industry, well, it would be the Petroleum institute. And certainly they would have no reason to hide such gouging from the American people. I mean if you can't trust industry spokespeople, who can you trust?

But my main curiosity is why Rush is focusing on this right now. He has to know, going into the winter months, that his fan base isn't going to be too enthusiastic about arguments that they have to shell out more money for Gas and there's nothing that can be done about it (except scrap environmentalism). Plus there's plenty of other news going on. Maybe Rush has gotten a phone call of sorts; and feels he has to zero on in this issue. Hard to say.