Did You Know?

The perfect kiss is dry as sand and doesn't take your breath
The perfect kiss is with the boy that you've just stabbed to death

According to the Beautiful South, at any rate. Who may have been joking.

I am the Greetest

You Passed 8th Grade Math

Congratulations, you got 10/10 correct!

Could You Pass 8th Grade Math?

Now I am leaving Earth for no raisin!

Who is to Blame?

Dennis Prager's latest article is all about how Liberals and Conservatives look at wrong doing. According to Prager, Conservatives blame the wrong-doer; Liberals blame the victim or the situation.

This is not true.

Prager makes reference the fact that many liberals have criticized Israel's policies in regard to Palestine or France's assimilation policies or the choice of European papers to print offensive cartoons. This is the same as blaming the victim, in Pragers mind.

What Prager neglects to mention, because it doesn't fit his thesis, that almost all of these articles in questions contain some variation on the phrase "Of course, none of this excuses those who commit violent acts."

But to make sure there is no confusion, allow me to say I think terrorism is bad. And I think rioting is bad.

But I think willfully refusing to analyze why such crimes might occur is just as bad. Sticking to a simplistic "terrorists are evil and that's all you need to know" theory is a recipe for suicide, and this is the path that Prager urges.

This is why Conservatives can't be trusted on National Security.

Keep Moving

This is an inspirational video. It is exceedingly inspirational.

Every Character has Someone Who Likes Him or Her or It

I should have just titled this "Everybody's Got Something To Hide (Except for Me and My Monkey)" and been done with it.

Anyway reading Comic Book Resources rundown of the New York Comic Con this last weekend. Lots of interesting stuff, but what strikes me is that most panels seem to take a gratuitous shot at a character nobody gives a crap about. Maybe it's Speedball. Maybe it's Golden Age DC characters.

The problem is that every comic book character has fans, even the ones that I think are really lame. Rocket Raccoon has fans. Shining Knight has fans. Werewolf by Night has fans (and I'm one of them). And most of those fans think that "If the comic was done right, it would sell."

I just can't think it would be very pleasant for a fan of character X to hear creators, the ones that Marvel and DC trot out to represent themselves, to hear those creators making lame jokes about how lame their favorite character is (and very few of these jokes rise above "Character X is soooo lame.")

Anyway just something that crossed my mind. If you are interested in what is coming up for the Marvel and DC Universes, though, it's still worth reading.

Even More Conservative Commentary on the Port Deal

Diana West isn't so keen on the port deal.

Well, one overwhelming reason is that it was spawn of the Middle East, not Great Britain, that hijacked four American passenger planes on Sept. 11, 2001. And it was United Arab Emirates, not Great Britain, that served as a financial and operational base for the Sept. 11 hijackers (two of whom came from UAE), and a hub for Pakistan's rogue nuclear export business. As Great Britain is Islamized, the distinction narrows; for now, it's reason enough to hold a UAE company to that "different standard." But such evidence -- and there's more -- is obvious; hardly the stuff of great debates. The fact that the president even begs the question is what requires deeper consideration.

Bush threatens to veto any legislation drafted against the port sale. Why? The only explanation I can think of -- and it spells disaster -- is that George W. Bush has decided that international feelings trump national concerns; that upsetting the UAE is worse than upsetting Americans: "I am trying to conduct a foreign policy now by saying to the people of the world, `We'll treat you fairly,'" he said. Fairly? That's how you treat people after the war, not while the outcome remains undecided.

Of course one chilling thing about the current War on Terror is that it's not really expected to end. So I gather we won't be dealing with the Muslim World for quite a while.

Robert Novak, on the other hand, is in favor of the Port Deal. And of pointing out the political opportunism of the Democrats in congress.

. . . deeper problems are reflected by overwhelming public opposition to a company owned by the government of a close Arab ally operating U.S. ports. Polls suggest the darker side of the American mind: isolationist, protectionist, nativist and xenophobic. Bush's ceaseless efforts to rouse his countrymen to support the war against terrorism may have unleashed the dogs of anti-Arab prejudice.

The firestorm over whether Dubai Ports World should be permitted to replace a British company in control of U.S. ports is unexpected largesse for Democrats, desperate to regain control of Congress this year. Left-wing Democrats led by Schumer and Sen. Hillary Clinton seek the opportunity to trump Bush and the Republicans on their strong suit of national security.

Armstrong Williams goes a step further, to comment on the growth of American racism against Arab Americans.

This new strain of anti-Arab racism is exemplified by the hubbub that greeted the United Arab Emirates plan to take over shipping operations at six U.S. ports. The operations had previously been rented out to a British navigation company. No one had a problem with that. Nor does anyone have a problem with ports being rented to other countries, which they are. Legislators are only exhorting the President to block Arabs from taking over operations at the ports. To his credit, the president has said those who oppose putting the United Arab Emirates in charge of operations need to "step up and explain why a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard."

Williams does not see fit to comment on how his fellow Conservative Commentators (people like Ann Coulter or Cal Thomas) have fed this racism to the best of their abilities. Larry Kudlow takes a similar tack in his article, laying the problem completely at the feet of Democrats and calling the hullabaloo a symptom of Islamophobia.

Kathleen Parker responds to this line of defense in her article opposing the sale of the ports.

That distant thunder you hear is the sound of thousands of harrumphing pundits and politicians clearing their throats.

"Ah, what we really meant to say was that we love all G-d's people, but we'd really rather not have Middle Easterners managing our ports. If it's not too much trouble."

But trouble it is to admit what's really got Americans in high dudgeon over the pending sale of shipping operations at six major U.S. ports to the United Arab Emirates (UAE). It's not just the sale itself, but the Bush administration's apparent lack of respect toward American citizens concerning a business deal that at least seems untimely and counterintuitive.

David Limbaugh straddles the fence on this one, which is odd since his brother has been so supportive of the deal.

On the other hand, there are legitimate reasons to be skeptical of this deal and to urge that we err on the side of caution in these dangerous times. It is not just xenophobes and bigots who recognize that all of the Sept. 11 hijackers were Muslims, two of which came from the UAE, that Palestinian Muslims danced in the street upon the news of the murders, that terrorist activities in Iraq and elsewhere around the world are overwhelmingly committed by Muslims, and that we see so little condemnation from "moderate" Muslims of suicide bombings and other atrocities repeatedly perpetrated by Islamic terrorists.

. . . I'm not yet completely convinced we should oppose this transfer for security reasons, but I'm confident it raises sufficient red flags that we ought to take more time to scrutinize before finally deciding.

So let's tally them up (so far)

In favor of the Port Deal - Stuart Rothenberg, Tony Snow, Oliver North, Robert Novak, Armstrong Williams, Larry Kudlow,
Opposed to the Port Deal - Ann Coulter, Kathleen Parker, Cal Thomas, Charles Krauthammer, Robert Spencer, Diana West,
On the Fence - David Limbaugh
Disinterested - Tim Chapman

So that's 6 in favor and 6 opposed with 2 abstaining. Looks like they haven't got this one figured out quite yet. It is interesting that the braniacs who stress about economic issues seem to be in favor of this deal while those rubes who are more concerned with social issues are opposed.

Defenders Saturday (A Day Late)

Once again, this is the second of three parts of Marvel Comics Presents the Defenders, because this story is so strange. Actually this middle part makes a bit more sense than the first part, but the third part will ramp up the wackiness factor again.

When last we met, Xemnu (from the Magic Planet) had a crappy TV show and was saying he was going to take the children of earth with him. Well one of those kids is none other than Jim Wilson (young black kid who is friends with the Hulk). General Thunderball Ross who’s kind of like Grandpa when he’s not obsessed with the Hulk switches the program off and says it’s crap. Jim agrees and realizes that he needs to talk to someone arrogant. So he goes out and heads down to Greenwich Village to talk to an annoying cabbie.

But then Dr. Strange shows up. It turns out that Dr. Strange has a TV set (presumably he mostly watches cooking shows on it). Jim notes that the TV is set to Xemnus show and explains that he, for a moment, wanted to go with Xemnu back to the Magic Planet. And frankly, who wouldn’t. Anyway Dr. Strange looks pensive, but we are spared a long explanation of his thoughts by the miracle of a cut.

Let’s check back in with our astronaut buddies. They are still jerks. Then the Hulk shows up with Jim Wilson and says “Hulk wants to come on your SHOW - - make the world see he’s NOT as bad as they THINK.” The two astronauts realize that having the hulk on the show could be incredibly dangerous, but then realize that the Hulk rarely does much more than property damage and so say “Sure” Jim Wilson and the Hulk exit (by means of a flying carpet), and, in a nearby ally, the Hulk transforms into Dr. Strange. Jim Wilson says that they will return to the studio in four weeks.

As the weeks pass the show continues to get high ratings, and kids buy little fluffy Xemnu figurines or dolls. Finally the big day arrives, and the show the Hulk is going to be on is timed to coincide with a manned space launch. Yeah, NASA had ratings problems even then.

Apparently, being the Hulk is very tiring for Dr. Strange. But that’s ok because the real Hulk in his puny Banner form walks by a TV and sees himself on TV. This is upsetting to Banner and even more so to the Hulk Hulk gets a little bit upset and destroys the tv shop he was walking past, saying “SO! Even when Hulk does NOTHING some human makes himself LOOK like Hulk. Tries to make other Humans MAD at him.” Hulk leaps into the air to avenge this injustice.

Did You Know?

According to sources, one in four morticians is a necrophiliac.

David Limbaugh

I've pointed this out before, but it hit me again (and I'm about to have to go to a meeting so won't post for a while). Here is the first line of the guy's biography at Townhall."David Limbaugh, brother of radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh, is an expert in law and politics who writes engaging columns from a fresh, conservative point of view."

Yeah that's really kind of sad. His claim to fame, after having written several (terrible) books and published a column for several years is still "Well, I'm Rush's brother."

I almost feel sorry for the guy, but then I remember who he is.

More Conservative Commentary on the Port Deal

Tony Snow (who has some connection with Fox News, I am given to understand) writes an article about how ludicrous it is for us to question the port deal and the United Arab Emirates intentions.

Many critics of the deal also seemed to know nothing of the security cooperation between the United States and the UAE. To reject the deal would be to slap a government that has provided on-the-ground intelligence from the opening salvo of the war on terror. Gen. Tommy Franks notes that the UAE's much-criticized "recognition" of the Taliban actually enabled the country to do first-rate spying. The UAE provided maps and information for the opening invasion of Afghanistan.

The UAE since has put troops on the ground in Afghanistan and Iraq, in active and humanitarian missions. It trains Iraqi forces on its soil. It lets the United States conduct flights through its airspace. It has housed servicemen -- and women -- from the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force. It maintains the largest U.S. naval facility outside the United States, and Dubai Ports World performs contract service at the port.

Oliver North takes the same tack in his article, and also throws in the suggestion that those who oppose the deal are racists.

Perhaps most importantly, the UAE is much more than just "an Arab country that has supported terrorism in the past," as some of the more racially-tinged rhetoric has it. Unfortunately, the accusation -- repeated almost hourly now on talk-radio call-in shows -- has a grain of truth to it. Two of the Sept. 11 hijackers were from the UAE. And al Qaeda money was laundered through Dubai banks. But since then, the UAE has become one of America's closest allies in the Global War on Terror, apprehending terrorists, shutting down their financial networks and providing tangible support for U.S. military operations in both Afghanistan and Iraq. It was this close cooperation that led the multi-agency Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) -- to green-light the transaction.

Charles Krauthammer has a piece that takes a bit more pessimistic note, although he also denounces the Democrats for opposing racial profiling while opposing this deal.

The greater and more immediate danger is that as soon as the Dubai company takes over operations, it will necessarily become privy to information about security provisions at crucial U.S. ports. That would mean a transfer of information about our security operations -- and perhaps even worse, about the holes in our security operations -- to a company in an Arab state in which there might be employees who, for reasons of corruption or ideology, would pass this invaluable knowledge on to al Qaeda-types.

Over at Front Page Magazine they reprinted Ann Coulters article and have another one by Robert Spencer on why this deal is such a bad idea. You can kind of predict this response from Front Page Magazine given the rampant Islamaphobia over there.

After all, no one even in Washington is yet even asking the right questions of self-proclaimed moderates about where they really stand on jihad and Sharia issues. Officials in Washington and Europe have shown no awareness of the fact that it isn’t enough to have no ties to terror groups; a Muslim who nonetheless believes in the jihad ideology of Islamic supremacism and the subjugation of infidels is still susceptible to jihadist recruitment. Is it possible to determine whether such recruitment is likely or not in the case of any particular individual? No -- and that’s why turning over any ports to Dubai Ports World is ill-advised: the potential for jihadist infiltration is just too great.

And that's the big ones - interesting that David Limbaugh hasn't weighed in on this one yet. His brother sure has (very pro Bush plan to turn ports over to UAE), but to listen to his callers, I'm not sure he is convincing them.

Something doesn't add up

Archy has a post comparing two comments by Bill O'Reilly that have to be read to be believed.

Assuming you have a hard time believing Bill O'Reilly is an inconsistent hypocrite. Frankly I got no problem believing them, myself.

For those fans of Firefly and Serenity

I am a fan of the website Television Without Pity, as some of you know. To be more specific, I am a fan of some of the writers there. For those who don't know they specialize in providing snarky recaps of television episodes).

Basically there are two types of good recaps, the funny ones about shows I don't care much about (see The Apprentice and Boston Public) or there are smart recaps about shows I do care about (see Battlestar Galactaca). Smart Recaps make you think a bit more about what you are watching, bringing elements of the show into sharper focus.

Jacob (who also does recaps on Battlestar Galactaca) has done a recap for Serenity the movie, and it is definitely in the Smart category. He pulls in a lot of stuff that one senses pretty intuitively and makes it plain. If you are a fan of the movie, I strongly encourage you to check this recap out. I had a hard time enjoying their recaps of the series (largely, I think, because I knew the ending which was that the show hadn't survived. Which made their snarky comments a bit like kicking a dead horse, however funny they were without knowing the end).

Anyway it's very well worth reading and it will tug on the old heart strings if you enjoyed the movie.

Conservative Commentary on The Port Deal

Ann Coulter is against it, for about the reasons you would expect.

There are at least 3,000 reasons why a company controlled by a Middle Eastern Muslim emirate should be held to a different standard than a British company. Many of these reasons are now buried under a gaping hole that isn't metaphorical in lower Manhattan.

. . . Isn't it enough that we're already patronizing the savages over the cartoons? Do we have to let them operate our ports, too?

Kathleen Parker also finds this deal baffling, but is just as interested in what the deal reveals about President Bush's psychological make-up.

The final throes of Bush's journey toward self-destruction may have found expression with the apparent sale of operational rights to six of our nation's largest ports to a company owned by the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Approved by the Bush administration against all reason, the $6.8 billion sale includes the ports of New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.

Despite bipartisan condemnation, the Bush administration has defended the sale to Dubai Ports World as not only safe, but prudent. The UAE, which incidentally served as a financial and operational base for the Sept. 11 hijackers, is an important ally in the fight against terror, we're told.

Cal Thomas, given his strong anti-Muslim feelings, takes the tack you would expect.

There have been some dumb decisions since the United States was attacked on Sept. 11, 2001, including the "welcoming" of radical Muslim groups, mosques and schools that seek by their preaching and teaching to influence U.S. foreign policy and undermine the nation. But the decision to sell port operations in New York, Newark-Port Elizabeth, Baltimore, Miami, Philadelphia and New Orleans to a company owned by the UAE may be the dumbest of all.

Tim Chapman seems mostly interested in the politics of the situation.

Of course, the irony of this situation is that the bipartisan opposition to the president comes on an issue that he polls strongest on. The latest ABC News/Washington Post poll shows President Bush receiving strong approval ratings for his handling of the war on terror. Clearly, Democrats have sensed an opportunity with this news story to move to the right of the President on an issue that has traditionally been his ace in the pocket. Republicans in Congress must agree, because they are ceding no ground on the issue to the Democrats.

Finally Stuart Rothenberg, who is not a name I'm very familiar with, trots out to defend the administration's position.

While Democrats and Republicans vent their anger over the Bush Administratios decision to allow a United Arab Emirates-based company from taking "control" of America's east coast ports (from a British company), I have a question: Exactly what responsibility and authority does this UAE company have? Specifically, how is U.S. security weakened?

I don't know, and I bet 99.5% of the people discussing the "threat" don't know. As a matter of fact, I'll bet most of us have no idea what managing a port entails.

But that hasn't stopped people from ranting about the Administration's decision to approve the British-UAE deal.

Actually when I say that is the administration's position, I get the impression it won't be for much longer. Anyway it's interesting to me how many big conservative columnists haven't seen fit to write on this. Presumably they have their fingers in the air for the moment, and will speak when the time is right.

Liberals are Gutless Socialists

I'm really tired of life today - but let's do this anyway. Herman Caine is upset because liberals are gutless socialists. We are socialist because we favor programs like income tax and Social Security. We are gutless because we get those programs through democratic procedures rather than through violent coup.

Yet unlike the tyrannical dictators who ruled communist nations in the 20th Century, congressional liberals lack the guts to tell the public their true intentions. Those intentions are motivated by the Marxist philosophy of “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.” Instead of conducting a deadly revolution, liberals are waging their war on capitalism through public policy, assaults on our free-market system and socialistic rhetoric.

Get that? But then in beginning his assault on Modern Democrats he starts in 1913. Income Tax. Then he hits Social Security (and other New Deal ideas), witholding of income tax and up to the modern day.

If only we liberals had had a violent coup, put Herbert Hoover's head on a pike, and taken over. We woudln't have to hear all this conservative crap today . . . actually I'm sort of coming around to Cain's way of thinking.

But nonetheless let's look at conservativism's gutsiness. How many in your party are open about their desire to take this country back to 1913? Even President Bush's intentions in regard to Social Secruity were covered over with a gauze of "fixing Social Security" rather than the more honest description (fundemantally changing Social Security). Why is that?

Turnabout

I've commented to myself in following the Cheney story and this new UAE / Ports story how if the shoe were on the other food, 90% of the participants would just change seats and be mouthing the same arguments. Upon further reflection, I'm not sure.

I think Republicans would be nastier.

If a Democrat had shot a hunting companion, it wouldn't just be what Vice President Cheney is going through. Rather Conservative commentators would throw on the additional suggestion that liberals are effeminate. We'd be hearing about how liberals are girly-men and feminine and weak. Over and over again. So naturally they don't know to handle a gun.

If a Democratic Administration put UAE in charge of our ports, it would be just greed and poor judgement they'd be talking about. It would be treason.

So yeah, there is a difference between Democrats and Republicans.

Port Security

For those of you who do not know, the Bush Administration has brokered a deal to turn 6 ports over to a company owned and operated by the United Arab Emirates. I originally wrote this story off as pretty political (the Republicans base, fed a steady diet of Ann Coulter and Cal Thomas, aren't going to like him letting the Arabs in, so lets hammer this), but it turns out my initial estimation was wrong. There are valid reasons to be concerned about turning our ports over to this company and over how this deal was worked out.

For a good rundown of the issues involved, I'd advice checking out firedoglake's typically brilliant rundown on the issue.

Vice Presidential Judgment

One possible scenario that has been floating around my mind since the shooting is that the white house takes this opportunity to drop Cheney and bring in someone new. I figured that there was not much of a chance that the White House itself would buy into this theory, but the logic of such a move would animate some within the larger movement. As it stands now, Bush has no heir. This means in 2008 both the Republicans and the Democrats will have fights over the nomination.

So some within the party must be thinking that getting rid of Cheney gracefully might be well worth considering. And with that in mind lets look at Paul Greenberg's latest article.

Leaders who are trusted tend to be those who trust the rest of us to be fair. Which is why the best way to manage the news may be not to try so hard to manage it - just tell it the way it happened. And don't wait till you've got all your quail in a row for Fox News.

Candor can be a virtue in a politician. In a society in which trust has eroded, it can be an especially valuable character trait. There was a time, circa the 2000 presidential election, when character was regularly mentioned as an important element of leadership, at least by the Republican candidates. That time seems to have passed, which is another troubling little detail.

I will say that while "Character" was an issue in the 2000 elections, candor has never been this administrations strong suit. Still that doesn't sound like a ringing endorsement. Kind of the opposite really.

I have to say, it's nice to see a conservative acknowledging the nature of Fox News.

Anyway this is just one article, and I don't really expect the White House to cut Cheney loose. Still it's worth keeping in mind.

Annoyance

I can't log on to World of Warcraft - it's very annoying, and also annoying that I am annoyed. There's something childish in being pissed that I can't play a computer game. A video game that I am paying for of course, so I do have a legitimate reason to get annoyed.

Still . . . it is annoying.

80's Remixed

Having listened to Future Retro a few more times and being willing to declare it good (more or less) I would like to recommend some tracks for Future Retro two.

First of all steer clear of "Tainted Love" by Soft Cell and "She Blinded Me With Science" by Thomas Dolby. Yeah they are iconic songs - but hard to remix because the beat is so memorable. If you are looking for songs by these bands to remix try "Bedsitter" "Torch" or "Down in the Subway" by Soft Cell and "One of Our Submarines" or "The Flat Earth" by Thomas Dolby. Actually I'd really like to see a good remix of "The Flat Earth"

Other possibilities.

Pet Shop Boys - Suburbia
Simple Minds - Theme For Great Cities
Orchestral maneuvers in the Dark - Genetic Engineering
The Clash - Lost in the Supermarket
The Police - Wrapped Around Your Fingers
Thompson Twins - Sister of Mercy (Or Lies)
The Art of Noise - Close (To the Edit)
The Psychedelic Furs - Here Come Cowboys
U2 - Gloria (or I Will Follow)

These are bands who appeared on the first one - but obviously bands who's songs lend themselves to remixes.
New Order - Everything Gone Green (Remixed by the Chemical Brothers (and this is the only one I'm going to suggest a remixer for, but think this would be hot).
Depeche Mode - Get the Balance Right!
Erasure - Oh L'amour
The Cure - Why Can't I Be You?

Do you have any suggestions for 80's tracks you'd like to see reworked in the modern style?

Gay Marriage

For those interested, Random Goblin has posted his thoughts on Gay Marriage and they are well worth perusing.

I am of the same faith as Mr. Goblin. I do not have my thoughts completely sorted out on the subject, but I find Mr. Goblin very persuasive.