Movie Moment

Went to the movies, not once, but twice this weekend. Saw X Men 3: The Last Stand, and The DaVinci Code.

Also saw the trailer to the new Omen movie, which, frankly I could have done without. Interesting though that the first Omen movie came out in 1976, at a time when the Republican Party was going through a bit of a down period (a very brief down period, as it turned out). I guess lying Republican Presidents prepare the market for films about the Antichrist.

X-Men 3 was good, but a little pinched. It felt like they felt they had to get it to 1 hour 45 minutes. It's rare to say it but it might have been better if had been about 20 minutes longer to give a few of the storylines (particularly Angels and Rogues) time to breath.

On the other hand seeing the Beast in action was excellent. And the movie had a lot of very enjoyable moments and excellent fight scenes. Oh and the use of Jamie Madrox was super - cool.
As for the DiVinci code it's a movie with an ideology. And that sort of gets in the way of the story telling.

An ideology is a "truth," and once you understand the "truth" you either accept it or you don't. Why don't people accept a "truth?" As I've said before, because they are dumb or crazy or they have ulterior motives. Or, in the answer the ideologue never acknowledges, you have another "truth."

So the badguys end up being cardboard cutouts, because you'd have to be a cardboard cutout not to accept the clear "truths" of this Gnostic ideology.

A non-ideologue who wants to create a meaningful villain gives him his own truth and let's his actions spring from that. In a real examination of this half baked conspiracy, the villains would have a motivation beyond maintaining the Catholic Church's awesome power. They'd have their own truth and would express them.

But the ideologue does not wish to confuse the issue by giving the villains a point of view. So they remain cardboard cutouts, in the service of explaining the "truth."

That also explains why the movie seems paced poorly. In a traditional narrative sense the movie wraps up 20 minute or so before it actually ends. We then get not one but two codas to make sure we get the point. Because, at it's heart, the DaVinci Code isn't a story. It's an argument.

Also one other niggling point - which I will put in invisio-print for those who haven't seen it or read it. Simply select it and the words will appear as if by magic.

OK, the movie seems to posit Sophie Neveu as the last descendent of Jesus Christ. That doesn't strike me as very logical. The most logical way for it to have gone (once you accept the postulate that Jesus Christ had a child) is for the line to die out relatively quickly, or for him to, by the year 2006, have many many descendents. Very romantic, but kind of illogical.

Anyway, until the last 20 minutes or so I quite enjoyed the movie, and even the last bit wasn't particularly bad, just kind of seemed long. You just have to know what it is going into it.

If Gay People Really Wanted Freedom they Would Be Conservative!

Or at least that is the argument Star Parker puts forth in her latest article.

If gay activists really wanted freedom, as opposed to advancing a particular political agenda, they would be hard at work moving government control out of areas of our society that limit their as well as everyone else's freedom.

They should be fighting for nationwide school choice, so they can send their children to schools that teach what they want. They should be fighting for private social security accounts and so they could stop complaining about discrimination in survivor benefits. They should fight for private health care accounts and getting corporations out of the benefits providing business and so they could stop complaining about discrimination in benefits toward gay couples.

This almost reads like a parody to me. I mean I understand that Ms. Parker believes that the answer to all of America's problems is more conservatism. But does she really find it reasonable to expect Gays, if they really wanted freedom, to fight, not for legalizing Gay marriage, but for private social security accounts?

I'm Angry Just Now

I don't want to guarantee that this post won't involve some swearing - because it very well might.

Reading Natheniel Blake's latest article about the Christian Left - like most Conservative Christians he's uncomfortable with the idea that a person can be a Christian and yet come to a different conclusion on political matters. So he has to prove that people he doesn't agree with aren't really Christians. Take this passage on Senator and former Presidential Candidate Kerry.

This hypocrisy was displayed for all to see in the third Bush-Kerry debate. In response to a question on abortion, Kerry replied, "I think that everything you do in public life has to be guided by your faith, affected by your faith, but without transferring it in any official way to other people. That's why I fight against poverty. That's why I fight to clean up the environment and protect this earth. That's why I fight for equality and justice. All of those things come out of that fundamental teaching and belief of faith." So he would advance socialism because he thinks that is implicitly encouraged by his faith, but won't oppose the legal killing of babies even though his faith explicitly commands him to. Clearly what he claims is his faith serves him as nothing more than a prop, to be pulled out or put away as it serves his own agenda.

I guess there might be a difference of opinion on what the word faith means in this context, but I assume he means that the Catholic Church is opposed to abortion so Senator Kerry must be opposed to abortion. But since he does not support criminalizing abortion he is a hypocrite.

Newsflash Blake (and other Conservatives who think this way), Kerry does oppose abortion. He has determined, however, that criminalizing abortion is not the solution to the abortion problem. Can't we have even a hint of honest debate with Republicans? Nope.

Then there's this interesting passage.

As in C.S. Lewis'’ wily devil Screwtape wrote, "We want very much, to make men treat Christianity as a means-even to social justice-For the Enemy will not be used as a convenience." Of course, there are many on the right who view Christianity in the same way, as a falsehood useful for advancing an agenda, but the proportion to sincere believers is much higher among the conservative ranks.

Some of you might be wondering how Blake determined this little nugget of "information." Well I'll let you in on his secret - wishful thinking.

You might try it yourself; just imagine Blake as an escaped mental patient who wandered into the hallways of the Heritage foundation and was immediately given a column to write (that's how Ann Coulter got her start, you know).

At any rate, despite some meanness I got through the article without swearing. I'm damned proud of myself.

Darn.

Good article on the Fall Elections

This is by William Pitt writing at truthout. William Pitt is a guy who used to post at Democratic Underground, and now, I believe, no longer does. I don't know the full details, and hesitate to comment. But I always found him to be a sharp mind, even when I disagreed with him (which was pretty regularly), so would like it if he came back to DU.

Anyway he just wrote an article at truthout about the Republicans strategy for keeping the House in the fall. Not very inspiring.

The abandonment of Congressional oversight is a lot of the reason we are in such a sorry state, and that abandonment was authored by Republicans who were stupid enough and opportunistic enough to trust that Bush and his people would lead them to the promised land of a permanent majority. This won't be forgotten by November.
Beyond that, few people are going to rise in response again to the waving of the bloody shirt of September 11. The Cunningham and Abramoff scandals continue to grow, chopping down Republicans left and right. The GOP's usual electoral strengths - morality and security - are gone, and the Republican base is abandoning them. The cupboard is just about empty.

What's left? Vote for us, or else we'll be held accountable! That's just funny.

It is pretty funny, actually.

Another American Idol Suggestion

Maybe some of you think repeating "I am a Robot" is a little too far out there. For those of you who feel like this I suggest, instead, singing "The Richest Man in Babylon" by Thievery Corporation (with Notch). Great track.

There is no guidance in your kingdom
Your wicked walk in Babylon
There is no wisdom to your freedom
The richest man in babylon

Your beggars sleep outside your doorway
Your prophets leave to wonder on
You fall asleep at night with worry
The saddest man in Babylon

The wicked stench of exploitation
Hangs in the air and lingers on
Beneath the praise and admiration
The weakest man in Babylon

There is no hope left in your kingdom
Your servants have burned all their songs
Nobody here remembers freedom
The richest man in Babylon
(scat)
babylon no get rich again
but to end up sick again
and you end up weak again
babylon
(scat)

babylon you run
you better know you you better understand
the rancher man you better hear what we say
babylon this is your final day
babylon this is your final call
read the writing that's on the wall
see divided we stand
and together we fall
you never know that
you not gon' catch me in a rat pack
we not gon' fall away from it jah

Contest Time!!!

I'd just like to announce a new contest here at Make Me a Commentator!!!

The rules are quite simple. They are beginning auditions for the next season of American Idol. All you have to do is participate in said auditions. When your time comes simply say in a clear voice, "I am a Robot."

Repeat the phrase "I am a Robot" until you are escorted from the studio. The person who repeats this phrase ("I am a Robot") the most wins.

And what do you win? My respect (this explains why I won't be participating in said contest; I know myself far too well to ever respect myself). That is a precious commodity, or at least extremely rare.

You can say "I am a Robot" in any way you like. You can even sing it if you want. I personally favor the semi-lombotomized glassy eyed deputy mayor style myself.

Also remember, participating in this contest isn't just a good idea. Frankly, it isn't even a good idea. But it's the law. So there you go.

Separation of Powers

As you know Rep. William Jefferson, Democrat, had his office was raided over the weekend by the FBI. They found that he was guilty of freezing his bribe money, and he has been asked to resign from Ways and Means committee. As it turns out, however, this is being seen as a question of the separation of powers, by such Republicans as Newt Gingrich and Sen. Bill Frist.

Tim Chapman's latest article praises Republicans for taking a stand on principle (for once).

It is worth examining the position that GOP leadership has taken. In 219 years the Executive branch has never infringed on the Legislative branch in this manner. This week's raid was a first. Now consider if the situation were reversed. Can you imagine what would have happened if House impeachment investigators had sent a team to President Clinton's White House to search for subpoenaed documents?

The FBI claims that it raided Jefferson's office with extraordinary safeguards in place. But did it? The historical practice of allowing a representative of the House such as the general counsel to observe the search was not honored. Quite to the contrary, in fact. The general counsel was not allowed in the room at the time of the search and was instead given assurances that the FBI would police itself in regards to privileged and unprivileged documents. Police itself?

Critics of congressional leadership certainly have a point regarding the politics of the situation: This is messy, and it appears silly. But critics should concede that a principled argument is being made here. Those critics are free to critique that argument, but they should recognize that those legislators who are making it are not in any way motivated by politics . . . for once.

This conservative would like to see Republicans stand for principle on a much broader range of issues. But hey, beggars can't be choosers.

I don't know if we should tire ourselves out patting Republicans on the back for this. Most people want to protect their turf. It's human nature.

I got nothing to say

I'm sorry - I've been reading articles and trying to come up with something - but just out of it.

Political Advice from Republicans

Boy am I tired of hearing political advice from Republicans (such as Ben Shapiro provides in his latest article). It all boils down to the same damn thing. "Real Americans are Conservative. If you want to appeal to real Americans you need to be more Conservative."

I don't think that "real Americans" exist. I think that's a rhetorical ploy. Simply pick the qualities you like in a voter and claim that those qualities are shared by all voters. Simple, but pretty much crap.

Plus of course, such formulations from a Conservative always seem to crap on California and New England (Case in point - Shapiro saying "Most of the country isn't like California and Massachusetts.").

Shapiro says that in relation to Gay Marriage, underlining that Liberal support for Gay Marriage will hurt them with "Real Americans." He also notes that Democrats, like President Bush, don't seem to want to demonize Latinos as much as "Real Americans" would like.

Then of course he makes fun of Al Gore. Al Gore takes global warming seriously. Ben Shapiro and many Conservatives do not believe in global warming, largely because global warming would not be profitable. So every time Al Gore describes the seriousness of the threat Global Warming proposes, they snicker up their sleeves, in much the same way you would if someone were to take the national stage and warn against an attack by the Loch Ness Monster.

But of course Global Warming has a bit more scientific evidence behind it.

At any rate, as these articles always do, Republicans think we would be more successful if we were a bit more like them. I think if we were a bit more like them, there would be little point to being successful.

More on Making English our National Language

E. J. Dionne has written a solid article on this subject.

There is no point to this amendment except to say to members of our currently large Spanish-speaking population that they will be legally and formally disrespected in a way that earlier generations of immigrants from -- this is just a partial list -- Germany, Italy, Poland, Russia, Norway, Sweden, France, Hungary, Greece, China, Japan, Finland, Lithuania, Lebanon, Syria, Bohemia, Slovakia, Serbia, Croatia and Slovenia were not.

Immigrants from all these places honored their origins, built an ethnic press and usually worshiped in the languages of their ancestors. But they also learned English because they knew that advancement in our country required them to do so.

Here's a question for you to consider. Why, in the middle of a debate on reforming illegal immigration, are we stopping to discuss this? Will this make our borders more secure? Seems unlikely.

Mental Laziness

Dennis Prager decries liberal laziness of thought in his latest article. According to Prager, Liberals don't think issues through. Rather we have a list of negative words to attach to Republicans and a list of positive words to attach to Democrats. Prager uses as his example, Harry Reid who recently characterized an amendment offered by Senator Inhofe as "racist."

Prager illustrates another mental time-saver. Rather than grapple with what your political opponent is saying, simply assign him a position, and attack. For example, rather than come to terms with what Reid actually said, simply claim all he did was throw around the word racist and leave it at that.

Sen. Reid did use the word racist in his attack on Senator Inhofes amendment making English the National Language, but placed in context it is a bit more understandable.

I have affection for my friend from Oklahoma, but I have the greatest disagreement with him on this amendment. While the intent may not be there, I really believe this amendment is racist. I think it is directed basically to people who speak Spanish.

. . . I have served in the Congress of the United States with JIM INHOFE for many years, and we disagree on issues on occasion. But even though I believe this amendment is unfair, I don't in any way suggest that JIM INHOFE is a racist. I don't believe that at all. I just believe that this amendment has, with some people, that connotation - not that he is a racist but that the amendment is. So I want to make sure the record is spread with the fact that I have only the strongest, as I indicated early on, affection for JIM INHOFE, the senior Senator from Oklahoma.

. . . Why don't we spend more money so we can educate more people who want to learn English? We are short of money. We have programs that are cut every day. That is the way it is in Nevada and around the country. That is where we should be directing our efforts. That brings people together. That is good for all of us. This does not bring people together. It makes it far more likely that we will end up with civic exclusion, including the denial of rights they should have to millions of U.S. citizens.

I hope we reject this amendment. It is bad policy. It is un-American. It turns back the clock on the substantial gains that language minority citizens have made. I hope that there will be a resounding vote against this.

Here is a text copy of the speech. It is not a masterly speech, but the argument is far more complex than simply saying that the Amendment is Racist. If you want to look up the speech it is found in the Congressional Record S4766-7, May 18, 2006.

Frankly the proposed Amendment is racist. The whole point to the bill is to slam people who don't speak English. And given the context of the debate the people to be slammed are Hispanics. The point of the bill isn't to help people learn English, but to punish people for not learning it.

Some of you are thinking about the cost of printing ballots in Spanish and in English. First of all the expense is not as extreme as you think it is (certainly nothing compared to the expense of invading Iraq). Secondly, the Inhofe amendment won't actually change that. Yet. As near as I can tell it carves out an exception for bi-lingual messages that currently exist, while expressing that such things are un-American for the future.

President Bush and the Knee Jerk Reaction

I think that President Bush has earned a bit of a Knee Jerk Reaction at this point. He has screwed up so consistently over the last 5 years that predicting he will screw up in the future is a safe bet. But it's not always the best response to the President, as Robert Scheer points out in his latest article.

What is different about Bush's stance on immigration is that the president is, at long last, dealing with a subject he actually knows something about -- as opposed to his failed war of words against terrorism, Iraq, nuclear weapons proliferation and even Social Security. On this subject, the former governor of a state with a 1,200- mile border with Mexico grasps that the problem is complex, the solution elusive, and fact and logic do matter.

Scheer makes the point that President Bush's plan does provide some way to deal with those who are here currently.

"What I've just described is not amnesty, it is a way for those who have broken the law to pay their debt to society, and demonstrate the character that makes a good citizen," Bush said, in what is certainly one of his milder stretches of the truth.

This de facto amnesty would allow those already here without papers to go about their work and lives without fear of deportation. This is crucial, because the alternative is social chaos of a dimension not experienced in this country since the Civil War and Reconstruction.

As Bush put it with uncharacteristic clarity: "It is neither wise nor realistic to round up millions of people, many with deep roots in the United States, and send them across the border."

Anyway, something worth considering.

What makes great Music

Over at Townhall, Paul Jacob is taking on the problem or racism, or to be more frank, he's trying to argue that racism is no big deal and that Blacks can be racist too. And then he starts talking about music.

I'm more likely to listen to James Brown than Beethoven, but I'm not going to try to make the case that James Brown was the greater musician. The everyday values that determine our personal preference differ from our appreciation of greatness in art. And I don't let race have anything to do with my judgments of preference.

Or "greatness."

. . . Music evolved to greatness as a fine art tradition in Europe, not south of the Sahara or in the wilds of the Americas. That's just a fact. Most of the great composers - whom most of us don't listen to, anyway -were white Europeans.

The RZA and the Duke have written some amazingly good music, but I doubt if even they aspired to compose on the level of, say, Bach. Offenbach, maybe. To suggest a higher level of greatness takes quite a bit more chutzpah than I have.

Of course the question Jacob carefully fails to ask is "what does determine greatness." And the answer is largely "What old white guys have determined is great." That is to say Classical Music.

The truth is that Classical Music is dead music. It's been dead for a long time, which is why the bits that have stuck around look so good. It's as if some rogue medusa wandered through the garden of music and here and there petrified a piece of music here or there. It's fellow tunes long since decayed we can see this statue and forget that at one point it meant something. Instead we admire the marble finish, the solemn dignity of a piece that has "survived" through the ages.

I do appreciate Classical music, but I appreciate it for what it is. I suspect Jazz will go through the same process, although given the inherent liveliness of the music and the fact that we do have recordings of the original recordings, we probably won't end up with the same kinds of statues.

But if you consider the value of music to be it's ability to touch people, the ability to be meaningful in their lives, well Classical Music and Jazz both largely fail that test right now.

Opening the Flood Gates

Mary Cheney, who is related to someone notable, has written a book. Being a lesbian, her book doesn't exactly toe the party line on Gay Marriage. On the other hand, given her famous relative, there has to be some consternation at the idea of going after her.

But Star Parker is willing to take her and her arguments in favor of Gay Marriage on. One passage I found particularly striking.

Now it is absolutely clear that legalization of gay marriage opens the door to every imaginable possibility. Once the authority for defining marriage moves from biblical tradition to politics, marriage will be defined by whatever might be deemed so by a court or that can be passed into law.

Or, to put it another way, we need government to define marriage, because otherwise government will have the power to define marriage.

Will Immigration Destroy the Republican Party? Pt 3

In which I present two Conservative views of the Senate's Immigration bill.

The Senate immigration plan, he found, essentially creates an entitlement to citizenship. Tens of millions of foreign citizens would qualify for the unilateral right to come to America and apply for citizenship. (The precise number, as of this writing, appears to have dropped considerably from Rector’s original estimate of 103 million to a “mere” 66 million over 20 years, thanks to the Senate’s adoption of an amendment by Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.)) Because many would likely be low-skilled high school dropouts who would work in low-wage jobs, they can be expected to consume more in social services than they pay in taxes. Rector characterizes this possibility as “the largest expansion of the welfare state in 35 years.”

Rector shows that immigrant households are already 50 percent more likely than native-born households to use welfare. Immigrants without a high-school degree are two-and-a-half times more likely to use welfare. That means billions in additional spending on programs such as Food Stamps, Medicaid and the Earned Income Tax Credit. This is not your grandfather’s welfare state.

This is from Mike Franc's latest article, and it looks pretty bad, doesn't it? But let's check out another view of this bill.

Regardless whether the bill in question (S.2611) is better or worse than other immigration bills, to suggest it would, could or even might permit legal immigration to average between 5.1 million and 10.9 million per year is nothing more than a cheap parlor trick.

The larger estimate of 217 million legal immigrants by 2026 implies that annual legal immigration under S.2611 would be almost 12 times larger than its current rate of about 950,000 a year (plus at least 400,000 illegal immigrants). Nobody could possibly believe legal immigration is suddenly going to jump from about 1 million a year to nearly 11 million, so the 20-year average of 10.9 legal immigrants per year necessarily requires annual immigration much larger than 10.9 million in the future -- larger, in fact, than 25 million a year. If the idea of Congress allowing 25 million legal immigrants per year is starting to sound unbelievable, that is because it is.

The trick involved is aptly called "the magic of compound interest." The original version of S.2611 would have allowed the number of temporary guest workers (initially set at 325,000 a year) to increase by as much as 20 percent in any given year, but that was a ceiling, not a norm. Congress could also reduce the number.

This is from Alan Reynolds, also writing at Townhall and presumably conservative. Presumably he's a cheap labor conservative, like our President.

Yr Cities a Sucker!

Ok this is really more about whether or not the Republican Party is done. Pat Buchanan gives a brief history of politics since the civil war and notes that Each Party has gone through periods of ascendancy and decendency. The Republicans ruled from the Civil War through Herbert Hoover and the Democrats ruled from FDR to LBJ. And the Republicans have ruled since Reagan.

So the question is are we coming to the end of Republican Rule? Buchanan thinks this is a possibility.

All this is in peril today, as the Republican Party heads into a perfect storm in November that could sweep it away because it has failed not only to address the crisis of the age, but to comprehend it.

Another question is if George W. Bush is this cycles Hoover, where is our FDR going to spring from? Buchanan, not being very keen on Democrats, is quick to point out that we don't have one. But perhaps the question could be asked another way. If President Bush is this cycles LBJ, who is our Nixon. That reads a bit better, doesn't it?

Well maybe not. But surely we can find a candidate somewhere in between the lofty heights of FDR and the competent skulldudgery of Nixon to take us into a new cycle of Democratic ascendancy.

Minor niggling. Buchanan takes exception to the fact that Nixon's 1968 campaign strategy is referred to as a "Southern strategy." "Though decried as a Southern Strategy, Nixon's was a national strategy." It was a national strategy. President Nixon used language that meant one thing to the North and the West and something else to the South. That was the whole point.

What Buchanan finds offensive, presumably, is the suggestion that in 1968, Nixon pandered to racists in order to see Republican victories in the south. I can see why he would find that disagreeable. A pity for him, I suppose, that it happens to be the truth.

Will Immigration Destroy the Republican Party? Pt. 2

In which we look at a number of other articles.

Ann Coulter's latest seems to indicate that it just might. Or at least the Bush administration.

Instead of a moratorium on new immigration, I'd settle for a moratorium on the use of the expression "We're a nation of immigrants." Throw in a ban on "Diversity is our strength" and you've got my vote for life.

. . . How about this: It's not fair to want to go out with someone just because that person is attractive and has a good personality because it discriminates against people who are ugly with bad social skills! That's our immigration policy.

Press "1" for English; press "2" for a new president ...

Yes Ann Coulter, queen of the specious argument. And of a lot of other stuff come to think of it. Doesn't sound like she's keen on President Bush just now, does it.

Cal Thomas is similarly displeased, although he tries to take a more serious approach.

Throughout his address, the president kept referring to the immigrants and their rights and desires. What about those of us born in America, or who legally immigrated to this country? Do we have a right to preserve the nation the way it was handed down to us, with our English language, our culture and our loyalty to America first with no agenda other than this country?

. . . This is more about politics and votes. It goes to the nature of who and what we are. Current citizens had better make sure this is not an invasion masquerading as immigration.

At this time I'd like to remind you that it was 10 days ago that Mariachi's Mexican Bar and Grill was burned, vandalized and grafittied with anti-Mexican language. I imagine I'll be reminding us of that often in this immigration debate. I have this crazy idea that there might be a connection between hateful rhetoric and hateful actions.

Larry Elder points out that President Bush's policies have been relatively predictable.

As to the issue of illegal aliens, many conservatives consider Bush a sellout and beholden to corporate interests. Here again, what did Bush supporters expect? Republicans wanted the then-governor of Texas to run for President. Why? Governor Bush unseated a popular incumbent governor with 10 percent and 24 percent of the black and Hispanic vote, respectively. Texans re-elected Bush in 1998, this time with 30 percent black and nearly 50 percent Hispanic support. Did Bush's supporters truly expect him to urge an "enforcement first" policy, without dealing with the status of the eleven-plus million illegal aliens here, or without a temporary guest worker program?

It's an interesting argument. As scary as it is to some of us on the left, President Bush isn't as conservative as some people would like. If Conservatives want someone who is going to criminalize Hispanics, they should vote for someone who is going to do just that.

Alternatively, if Conservatives want someone who is going to set us on the path to Christian Theocracy, they should do that.

Or if Conservatives want someone who is going to dismantle three fourths of the government, they should do that.

Of if Conservatives want someone who is going to focus on creating a good climate for American Corporations, they should do that.

Of course it's different Conservatives who want these different things, and it's hard for a movement to go down more than one path at a time. I find myself imagining the Republicans walking up to a crossroads with three different roads labeled "Dominionism," "Traditional Conservatism," and "Libertarianism," and splitting into three smaller and weaker streams. Very gratifying thought.

Will Immigration Destroy the Republican Party?

I hope so. Particularly the Republican party that feels it necessary to mandate that the National Anthem be sung in English.

Let's trace this back.

At some of the immigration rallies a few months ago, the Hispanic community was accused of being insufficiently in love with America by virtue of the fact that they waved Mexican Flags.

Then they waved American Flags and were accused of insincerity. Somewhere in the middle of this people got annoyed that they were singing the National Anthem in Spanish.

Now I could understand if it were badly translated. Say if they rendered "Oh Say can you see by the dawns early light" as "Oh say can you see how America sucks." You'd have a point then. But nobody seems to be claiming that. So the problem is simply that it is offensive to hear the National Anthem sung in a language other than our beloved English.

I wonder how such people feel about our deaf Citizens signing the National Anthem. Or how they would feel about translating the National Anthem into, say, Cherokee.

Our President is on both sides of this issue, naturally enough. Being an insincere flip flopper he told reporters that he thinks it should only be sung in English, while during his campaigning among Latino voters he sang it in Spanish.

Anyway Congress is on the case and soon it might be illegal to sing the National Anthem in any language other than English.

I want to be very clear here. There are valid concerns with illegal immigration and with helping immigrants assimilate to American Culture (part of which is, like it or not, learning English). This particular issue, however, is steeped in racism and ethnic bigotry.

Hispanic people are never going to actually be "White" enough to please the sort of people who get all tense over the national anthem being sung in Spanish.

Frankly there's a valid reason why one might want to allow people to sing the National Anthem in Spanish - it will mean more to them.

I speak French fluidly (which is a lot like fluently, so long as no actual French people are around), and I can say that the French language does not have the power to hit me as hard as the English language. It's the translation problem - when I hear English words the meaning goes straight through. When I hear French words, they go through slowly, hitting a few road blocks along the way. So that by the time they reach comprehension, a lot of the power has gone out of them.

A person who speaks Spanish will feel the meaning of the National Anthem more powerfully if allowed to sing it in their own language. So we should allow them to do that.

If you are feeling transgressive, perhaps you would like to sing the National Anthem in Spanish? Here are several versions of it, provided by our State Department.

More to come, as we review Ann Coulter's opinions on how we should deal with Illegal Immigration.

Bush's NSA Program to Get Information On Everybody that Everybody has Called: two Conservative views

The newest manufactured brouhaha -- over the National Security Agency (NSA) creating a database of phone records to track terrorist phone patterns -- was just the latest in a long string of stories trumped up to make Bush look not just incorrect, but dictatorial, even evil. USA Today hyped the story, and the media pack lapped it up, but it failed the first test of newsworthiness: Is it new? No. USA Today's scoop was mostly a retelling of what the New York Times reported last Christmas Eve, that the phone companies had given the NSA "access to streams of international and domestic communications."

. . . It's only when Republicans hold the White House that the networks fear an "imperial presidency." But the problem for Americans is an imperial media, so assured of its own self-congratulatory role as defender of America's freedoms, but such an emperor with no clothes of fairness or balance.

From Brent Bozell, "The database double standard."

The NSA's defenders cite Qwest's refusal, which shows supplying the data was voluntary, as evidence the program is legal. In fact, it indicates just the opposite: Had Qwest been presented with a lawful subpoena or court order demanding the data, it almost certainly would have complied, and if it hadn't the government could have forced it to do so.

Instead, the NSA resorted to extra-legal methods, pressuring the phone companies to divulge the data through appeals to patriotism, warnings about terrorism and (according to USA Today) threats of lost government contracts.

. . . seeking statutory authority should not be considered optional: Whether he likes it or not, the president is not above the law.

From Jacob Sullum, "Is the NSA's phone call database legal because the President says so."

Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to determine which of these two men is a "real" conservative.

Should Conservatives vote in the November Elections?

My opinion is, no they should not. But given I don't like what Conservatives want to do for America, you have to take that with a grain of salt.

On the other hand I'm pretty enthusiastic that Republicans feel that this is an issue worth discussing at all. One would hope you would take it for granted. But apparently not.

Note to evangelicals: it will be harder to get your agenda passed by exercising a strategy that allows political friends to be defeated for reelection. Then you’re left with an uncooperative and unpopular president, minorities in Congress, and no friends in those minorities.

On a macro-level, Republicans are already in danger of losing their majorities, but dismal turnout by base Republicans will make Democratic takeovers near-certainties. Then, conservative evangelicals would have no hope of getting their issues passed and would be lucky to get a meeting with the new majority, let alone private nurturing.

That's from Nathen Gonzales's latest article. Let me take a moment and marvel at the subtext behind the phrase "private nurturing."

There are many now arguing that even if we had to endure two years of Speaker Pelosi or Majority Leader Reid, it would pay off in the long run, perhaps as the first two years of the Clinton administration resulted in the 1994 Republican landslide. Well, this is not 1994. Even two years of control of one branch of the government could do irreparable harm at a time when the outcome of the mission in Iraq and the status of judicial appointments is at such a delicate and critical point.

From Lorie Byrds latest article.

I'm struck by the plaintive tone in these two articles; these people are genuinely worried that their base is going to screw them in November.

Can't say that bothers me all that much.