Buying your Bluff

Just read Doug Giles latest article, in which he takes aim at the fictional people who worship Barack Obama.

Hey, Obama crowd, chill out with the lock step, okay? Really . . . What kind of adult gets this excited over another human being? Call me jaded, but I look at my own wizards of political Oz with a jaundiced eye. I believe you’re setting yourself and your darling, untested candidate up—should he get into the Whitehouse—to thud on the ground like Geri Halliwell’s last CD did. For God’s sake, Obama-ites, God can barely live up to the hype you guys are giving the young Hussein. You’re tripping way too hard over the grossly inexperienced junior state senator spawned from the scheming netherworld of Chicago based politics.

Well enthusiasm about a political candidate is hardly novel. People were excited about George W. Bush and they were excited about Bill Clinton.

I don't know where these people are who are uncritically supporting Obama, unless they are in his campaign. Certainly Obama got the Democratic nomination only after a long and hard fight which implies that at least some Democrats aren't in lock step with him as a candidate.

On the other hand good job on the Geri Halliwell reference - 2005 wasn't that long ago I guess. But of course we'll have to see how the Obama show performs in the fall before we can really see whether this is a solid reference or not.

Adkisson News Watch

Not much to report, except that there is some controversy about the Sherrif's plan to make the churches more secure in the wake of this tragedy.

A Bradley County Commission member and the county attorney question whether the sheriff’s plan to provide special deputies at church services is a liability to county government.

I'm not sure about this plan myself; but I guess it's something they need to decide in that community.

Adkisson News Watch

Not much today - but I did want to point out this article at Southern Voice arguing in favor the Police releasing the letter that Adkisson wrote before shooting up the Unitarian Church.

For gays, the case is very personal. They, and everyone in Tennessee and elsewhere, deserve to know what Adkisson scribbled on those four pages.

“The more clarity, the better,” Galloway told the Knoxville News Sentinel. “We need to know what we’re dealing with. Is it just liberals he was targeting? Is it just gays? Was it all these things mixed together? We need to know.”

And why shouldn’t they know? When a man angry with gays and liberals shoots up a church on Sunday morning, we all deserve to know why.

Knoxville Police Chief Sterling P. Owen IV said simply, “If you needed to know, you would have been notified.”

I don't know exactly where I come down on this, but you gotta love the Police blandly saying that we don't need to know what is in that letter. Huh?

In other news, the man who killed Arkansas Democratic Party Chairman Bill Gwatney and was later slain himself has not yet given up much of a motive for his crime. He had a sticky note with Gwatney's name on it and a collection of 14 guns; but police have not yet found a link between the two.

The Wisdom of the Rush

"We don't want to get along with Democrats; we want to mop the floor with them."

Yeah - it's crazy to think talk like this might have inspired someone like Jim Adkisson.

Adkisson News Watch

First of all, a possibly related story. A man burst into Democratic Party Headquarters in Little Rock Arkansas and opened fire, killing the party Chairman. Police don't have an information on the motivations of the suspect, so it could be totally unrelated. But you'll forgive me if I'm a little twitchy about Democratic Party Headquarters getting shot up.

Secondly we have an article by Warner Todd Huston at News Busters that is remarkable for it's callousness and idiotic analysis. It opens by pretending that Rush Limbaugh shot up that Church in Knoxville. Har har har. Yeah apparently we liberals are idiots for seeing a link between this act and conservative rhetoric.

But, even her example of Limbaugh's words are a far cry from advocating murder. For that matter, O'Reilly, Hannity, et al, all frame their discussions in the political arena, none of them saying that people should do anything other than vote the right way.

Even Savage, renown for saying "liberalism is a mental disorder," has never to my knowledge advocated violence. In fact, if he truly believes that liberals have a mental disorder the solution to that is medical help, not execution! Help, not death. the compassion of wanting to help the sick hardly seems to be a basis for a killing spree.

Yeah let's all take a moment and consider the Compassion of the Savage.

What Huston pays scant attention to in their rhetoric is the use of military imagery and the description of liberals as the enemy. Conservatives like Hannity and Limbaugh portray Democrats and Liberals as enemies to be destroyed. Now they regularly make it clear that they mean that in a rhetorical sense, but the language is still telling. If you believe, as Limbaugh, Hannity, and presumably Huston do, that Liberals are traitors working to weaken and ruin this great nation, that they are conspiring to kill infants, that we want to hand the nation over to it's enemies, well is rhetoric really enough to defeat such evil? If a mind warped by whatever demons lurked in Jim Adkisson's soul latched onto the idea the Democrats are baby-killing America-betrayers, well it's not to hard to predict what would happen.

Poor Huston then pulls out some examples of bad Democrats. Like one Democrat posted a shirt at Cafe Press which had a map and the lines "Save America - Kill Republicans." And there was some Grafitti in New York that said "I Kill Republicans." OK, both are in incredibly bad taste if they are jokes and psychotic if they aren't.

But come on! That's your comeback? That's your example of hateful Liberals? She then talks about how the AFL-CIO described a veto of President Bush's as hurting and killing children; maybe over the top language, but certainly on par with what Hannity is saying right now about Obama. Public figures step into the Arena. They gotta take their lumps. The difference is that Hannity takes time from slamming Obama to slam all Liberals; it's not just Obama that is hateful. It's all liberals; it's all Democrats.

John Stossel, Discrimination, and the Good Old Days

John Stossel's latest article argues in favor of a companies right to discriminate, in this case, on the basis or age. But he goes on to make this fascinating statement.

We don't need laws against discrimination. We need a free, competitive marketplace. Competition is better at punishing sexists, racists and "ageists" than clumsy laws. If a boss discriminated against, say, women, he would be demolished by a competitor who obtains better workers by hiring the women the first boss turned away.

Let's look back at the way the world was before such laws were implemented - did companies who discriminated against racial minorities or women suffer? Nope. Everybody was doing it. I don't know of a business that went under because of discrimination. Neither does Stossel.

It's pleasing to think this - by the same token it's pleasing to imagine that Consumers can force high environmental standards by refusing to patronize those businesses or products who choose to pollute. But it doesn't seem to be the way the world works.

John Stossel also makes this trenchant observation.

Good intentions are irrelevant. Public policy always has unintended bad consequences.

Now there's a conservative point of view. It almost seems like we shouldn't have any public policy at all.

Predictably Depressing - Conservative on John Edwards

Three articles over at Townhall today on the Edwards Scandal - and more to come for sure. Chuck Norris, who has positioned himself as a Conservative Spokesperson, and who includes plugs for two of his books (one already out, one soon to be published) in his brief article. My guess is that he'd like you to go buy his books. He writes this.

I believe leadership should be above reproach. I believe those who govern should lead also in civility and decency and that their character should be congruent with their call to office. Like parents to children, a nation's politicians' integrity and character should supersede its citizens. But as long as we the people tolerate leadership immorality and elect corrupt politicians, we cannot expect the heart and character of our nation to improve.

One problem with that particular argument, as regards John Edwards. He's a private citizen. He is no longer a member of the senate and although he ran for the Democratic Presidential nomination, he didn't get it. So, as it turns out, he's not in a leadership position.

I certainly agree, though, that leadership should be above reproach. Hey Chuck, did you hear that the Bush administration might have forged one of the key documents in the run up to the Iraq war?

Debra J. Saunders article is notable mostly for it's meanness (it's entitled "Not so Pretty Boy") and the somewhat brazen way it brings up McCain's infidelity.

Yes, McCain was married when he met his current wife, Cindy, in 1979. The former prisoner of war did pay a political price for his behavior. Last month, the Los Angeles Times reported how the breakup of McCain's first marriage "fractured" his relationship with President Ronald Reagan and his wife, Nancy.

Of course the fact that the media would spend time investigating the background of the Republican Presidential nominee is proof of it's bias. We'll ignore for a moment how many crazy claims that Media has repeated happily about Senator Obama.

Cal Thomas wrote an Edwards article as well, comparing the whole thing to Mamma Mia, which I guess he saw. Kind of dull for him, but he doesn't really get worked up unless it involves the "Muslim Menace."

We just don't want to help the Iraqi people

This is a common complaint on the right, exemplified in Mark Hillman's latest article. He takes Obama to task for his Berlin speech.

Obama recalled how the mayor of Berlin exhorted his people and "the people of the world" to "stand together united until this battle is one."

But Obama's record toward the people of Iraq is just the opposite. Had his view prevailed, the world would have turned its back on the Iraqis, allowing Saddam Hussein to continue his reign of terror, torture, murder and rape. Rather than help Iraqis secure their freedom, Obama's policy of retreat in the face of adversity would have told the people of Baghdad, "We're outta here; fend for yourselves."

A couple of points worth mentioning. First of all let's dispense with all of the moralistic finger waving about our lack of commitment to the Iraqi people. When people wave that canard in your face, simply ask what about the poor people in Rwanda (or any other hotspot out side of the middle east where people are dying)? Most conservatives will very quickly point out that we didn't have a strategic reason to get involved there, and that we can't risk American troops on strictly humanitarian grounds. At which point the conversation is back on strategic grounds.

Secondly you can point out that our involvement in Iraq has been less than wholly positive; some Iraqis have said that things were better before we invaded, and not just former Baathists. If the goal is to help and support the Iraqis why do so many of them seem to want us out of there?

Crossposted at the Salon Annex of Stupid Enough Unexplanation .

Prelutsky - American Humorist

In the sense that he's not funny but is definitely an American. In his latest article he encourages people to follow their dreams. He then takes a shot at Al Gore.

And, finally, as I gazed out over those fresh, young faces, I would advise them to have nothing whatsoever to do with people who insist on using their computers to send Instant Messages. IMs, as they are better known, combine the worst aspects of phones and computers. Like phones, they are rude and obnoxious, demanding, like some bratty two-year-old, your complete and immediate attention; like computers, they require typing. I never believed Al Gore when he claimed to have invented the Internet, but I never doubted for a moment that he had a lot to do with foisting IMs on the rest of us. It has his carbon fingerprints all over it.

OK first of all, we all know that Al Gore never actually claimed to have invented the internet. He took credit for helping fund the creation of the internet, which he actually did. But some idiot got the story wrong, and idiots like Prelutsky have been repeating that idiocy for years, carefully never learning the truth.

Secondly, how much sense does it make to blame Al Gore for IMs while assuring us he had nothing to do with creating the internet? The joke makes no sense, and the addition of Carbon Footprint makes even less sense.

Adkisson News Watch

This story is no longer that important apparently; at any rate there doesn't seem to be as much news popping. I suppose as the trial starts we'll get more info. The one piece of news is good - United Universalist church has raise $41,000 to help victims of the shooting. So that's nice.

Adkisson News Watch

Not much substantive today; just more confirmation that Adkisson's lawyers will run an insanity defense, which, I suppose, shouldn't be hard.

I will note at this point that one of the books reportedly in Adkisson's possession was "Liberalism Is a Mental Disorder: Savage Solutions" by Michael Savage.

I'd also recommend reading "Meditation on Bravery" over at The Daily Kos by etenglish. Really moving account of church services at the church Adkisson shot up this last Sunday.

I was reminded by the UUs that it takes the strongest kind of people to love by choice, instead of hating by default or in desperation.

I can't argue wit that.

I-Pod 10 - Get Edition

1. "Get a Move On" - Mr. Scruff
2. "Get Back" - The Beatles
3. "The Get Go" - New Young Pony Club
4. "Get Innocuous" - LCD Soundsystems
5. "Get Me To the World on Time" - The Electric Prunes
6. "Get Off" - The Dandy Warhols"
7. "Get the Balance Right" - Depeche Mode
8. "Get the Message" - Electronic
9. "Get Together" - The Youngbloods
10. "Get Up Stand Up" - Bob Marley and the Wailers

Runner Ups - "Get a Room (Live)" - The Psychedelic Furs, "Get Here" - The Beautiful South,
"Get Down Massive" - Freestylers, "Get Up" - R.E.M., "Get Up on it Like This" - The Chemical Brothers, "Get Wise '91" - Mr. Lif Feat. Eden

That's a pretty good mix of songs actually.

Rush Limbaugh on Energy

Rush Limbaugh has one sort of Energy he likes, and that's Oil and Gas. All other energy, all talk of conservation, he just isn't into. Oil is it. So any talk that we need to develop alternatives to oil, or that we need to conserve oil, or that we need to not be so dependent on the middle east for our oil, well, it just upsets him.

The dirty little secret is we've been investing in these things (alternatives to oil) for years and they haven't done diddly-squat, in terms of replacing oil, which is what these people want. This kick that they're on to replace oil, where does this come from, even politically? Is there polling data out there that says a majority of the Americans hate oil, that the way to the White House is to demonize oil? Where did this come from? This is irrational. It borders on the insane to hate oil. A lot of things can damage things just like oil can, if it's not properly contained and used. I just don't understand this.

Well, I do, but I mean I'm trying to express my incredulity here at the absolute stupidity of assuming a position. This is like coming out against oxygen, or it's like arguing against rain. It's just silly! What is the damage? How has oil destroyed America? How has it destroyed people's lives? It's done just the opposite. Where does this come from? What in the world is the political calculation these people have to construct a presidential campaign based on the hatred of oil, as though oil itself is a conservative Republican? They're treating oil as if it's no different than Bush. They hate Bush; they hate oil.

It is kind of fascinating. Rush is so dedicated to oil and oil companies, it's almost like he's a paid spokesman for the oil industry.

So this hatred for oil, aside from the environmental concerns, you know what else it is, folks? Do you know what else it is? They don't control it. The left doesn't control it. The left and the Democrat Party don't control oil. Oil is the fuel of the engine of freedom, and they don't like it, and they don't control it. Anything they don't control, any industry, they hate.

Yeah, I guess if you set aside the environmental concerns, hatred for Oil is pretty irrational - wait, you'd also have to set aside concerns that we might not have enough of it for the long term. And concerns that our purchase of oil from the middle east is funding people we don't like. And the fact that oil companies continue to make enormous profits while squeezing the consumer dry. But if you set all that aside, well, wanting to get off oil is pretty irrational.

Adkisson News Watch

Adkisson's lawyer may get to look at his "manifesto" today. And he's apparently going to go for the insanity plea. According to the Knoxville Knews. That manifesto is interesting; the police have given the gist of it - he wanted to kill liberals and homosexuals. But the manifesto itself has not been released. I don't know if it will be down the road; right now this story isn't getting a lot of national attention.

I suspect this is intended as satire, but STR The Freedom Blog has a somewhat bizarre take on the Adkisson Murders.

At the worst possible moment Jim’s concealed assault rifle accidentally discharged into 22 different church-members. While tragic, the liberal media’s knee-jerk reaction has been to try to say this is a ‘Hate Crime’. But at STR we know to ask the tough questions, and is this what America has sunk to when accidentally discharging an assault rifle in a church filled with women and children is now defined as ‘Hate’?

I think that guy is mental, one way or the other. But mostly I suspect he's trying to get guys like me pissed at him by being an insensitive asshole. Kind of pathetic.

Adkisson News Watch

As previously reported, Adkisson is scheduled to go to sessions court today. I'm not a legal expert, but apparently this is to determine what kind of trial will follow. It's looking like it will hinge on his mental state.

More local papers are printing editorials on the case. The Charleston City Paper has an editorial by Will Moredock entitled "Knoxville shootings are a symptom of our culture." It's pretty good but kind of what one would expect.

. . . when we hand out responsibility for this tragedy, let's not forget Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Pat Robertson. Without the culture of hate they have been brewing over the last 20 years, this could not have happened.

In retrospect, it seems almost inevitable. When I heard that a stranger had opened fire in a Unitarian Universalist church, I knew immediately that it had to be a hate crime.

There are simply too few UU churches for one to be picked at random.

I'm not sure I agree with him entirely; I think that Adkisson might well have focused on something to express his rage even without Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.

The Gresham Outlook in Oregon (I believe) has an article entitled "In wake of shooting, is it safe to be liberal?" Despite the provocative title, it is fairly balanced and more of an article than an editorial. It responds to a letter written by the local UU minister, Rev. David Maynard, reacting to the crime.

. . . I’ve never heard of ‘liberals’ taking up arms and shooting random people in public. All too often I’ve heard of unhealthy persons espousing fundamentalist values wreaking just that kind of havoc. Liberals are more likely to teach peace than wielding a gun.

The article though seems inclined to argue with Maynard. It points out that Adkisson made some comments critical of Christianity. And it has the response of Pastor Ray Young.

Liberals, like the Unitarian Universalists, approve and condone the killing of millions of babies in the United States through abortion, and call it ‘choice.’ Liberals approve and encourage sick people to kill themselves, and call it ‘death with dignity,’ and, finally, they reject that Jesus, the Prince of Peace, is God and the Messiah.

And there you have it. If you think being pro choice is murdering millions of babies, well, Adkisson barely registers. He killed 2 and wounded 5; what is that compared to millions of babies? Nothing.

Pastor Young seems like his main difference with Adkisson, if there was one, was over tactics, not end goal.

Cal Thomas Complains about the Tone of American Political Discourse

Yep. He's upset. And he's written an article about it.

This is what passes for modern political discourse. Conservative says to liberal: "You're ruining America." Liberal responds, "No, you're ruining America." Conservative: "You're a communist." Liberal: You're a fascist." Conservative: "You're a secular humanist." Liberal: "You're a Bible-thumping bigot." Host of cable program: "We'll be back with more civil discussion after these messages."

Do these guys really believe what they're saying about each other? If so, perhaps we need two different candidates.

Of course Thomas then goes on to lambaste Obama, while confining his criticism of McCain to wondering if he will stick to his principles once in office.

And given Thomas's articles on how liberal Christianity isn't real Christianity, I'm not sure he's the best

Adkisson News Watch

The Unitarian Church that Jim Adkisson selected as a good venue for shooting liberals has been rededicated, as a place of love.

"Beyond the fear that will not subdue us, we reclaim and share this, our worship space," said Brian Griffin, director of religious education. "We are safe; we are together; we are loved, and so it will be."

Also Jim Adkisson's arraignment has been pushed back to tomorrow.

Conservatives have not yet responded to this story; the media has pretty much dropped it except for local papers.

Vice Presidential Pics

There's not a lot going on right now politically, and we finally have a pair of candidates. So what's next? Well another pair of candidates. The Vice-Presidential kind. Bill Kristol has written an article on McCains choices. And it's not bad. He covers the big four concerns - make sure you don't offend anybody, hammer Obama on experience, position your self as a changer, and move away from politics as usual.

He doesn't spend a lot of time on McCain's need to shore up his base, but maybe he doesn't see that as a big problem. He does reference it under change.

This implies a young and different V.P.: the 37-year-old governor of Louisiana, Bobby Jindal; 44-year-old Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska; or Eric Cantor, the 45-year-old Virginia congressman. Party pros would have fainting spells about the unseasoned Jindal and Palin in particular — but party pros are often wrong, and if Jindal or Palin performed well as candidates, the upside would be considerable.

The two young governors also have this advantage: They’re very popular with conservatives, especially social conservatives. And they’re real reformers. They’ve begun to do in Baton Rouge and Juneau what many voters would like to see done in Washington. Principled conservatism and vigorous reform could be a winning combination.

I guess Kristol feels like the current administration represents unprincipled conservatism.

There's also reports that Obama might be announcing his Vice-Presidential pick very shortly. Word is that he's considering Evan Bayh.

Adkisson News Watch

So far no new news. Conservatives are happily ignoring this story. Must be nice.

Good post over at Las Vegas Gleaner on the shooting. The last paragraph is key.

Having said that, if authorities were attributing a gunman's shooting spree to a hatred of conservatives, does anyone seriously believe that Hannity and friends would be showing the same restraint? After all, Hannity and his ilk, especially frequent Hannity guest and fellow smirking smarm-merchant Newt Gingrich, have never shied away from blaming liberals for high-profile shootings in the past.

Nope - if it had been a conservative hater we'd have a much bigger story on our hands. And the "liberal" media would go along for the ride, happily writing story after story about those murderous liberals.

Pacifism and Historical Accuracy

It's hard this week to not see politics through the lens of Adkisson. Guy walks into a church and kills 2, wounds 5 in a strike against "liberals." It's hard not to focus on that. So when I saw Burt Pretelsky's latest article, "Pacifism: The Last Refuge of Hypocrites," I couldn't help thinking of those people in Knoxville who courageously risked their lives to prevent Adkisson from killing or wounding more.

Anyway then I read the article and was horrified at the historical inaccuracies contained therein. They mostly come from the same place - Prelutsky sees the far left communists of the 1930s and 1940s as somehow the same as Obama today. He complains that the Communist movement in America zigged and zagged at Moscow's direction, without noting that plenty of American liberals did not zig and zag, chief among the Roosevelt. Roosevelt realized early the threat that Hitler posed and consistently worked to fight against him in the ways that he could.

Republicans and Conservatives believed that Hitler was no threat and that we could cut a deal with them. Pat Buchannen still seems to think that.

Anyway he then moves on to the Serbian Conflict.

When Bill Clinton sent U.S. troops into Kosovo, a place where no American interests were involved, the left raised no objections. And heaven knows that the MSM never embarrassed him by calling attention to the fact that although he promised that the troops would all be home within 12 months, they were still there when he left office. I suppose he was so busy granting last minute presidential pardons to his campaign contributors that it simply slipped his mind.

Well if you think that's bad consider Presidents Roosevelt and Truman. We defeated Germany and Japan in the 1940s - some 60 years later we still have troops stationed there. What's wrong with us?

We got involved with the Bosnian war because of genocide. We got involved as part of a United Nations task force to stop genocide. We finished our mission and left; although we continued to be part of peacekeeping efforts. We were seen as honest brokers in the region.

The contrast to Iraq couldn't be more pronounced. We went into Iraq largely by ourselves (with a few allies). We did it against the wishes of the global community. We have occupied Iraq for several years, in part because of our desire to control their oil fields. We aren't honest brokers. The difference between Bosnia and Iraq is the difference between competence and incompetence.

Adkissson and Internet Responses

I am angry that some of these right wing commentators aren't being forced to answer for the Adkisson situation. But the Blog-O-Sphere has been talking about it somewhat, so that's good. Here's a great and very accurate post from the Opinion Mill.

When Susan Smith drowned her little boys in South Carolina, when the halls of Columbine High School ran red with blood and when a vicious freak shot down students on the Virginia Tech campus, the smoke barely had time to clear before Newt Gingrich waddled in front of the nearest television camera to announce that liberalism was the root cause of each horror.

And, of course, when Al Qaeda fanatics murdered thousands on 9/11, Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell wasted no time in blaming the mass murder on feminists and secularists. Last year, career winger Dinesh D’Souza excreted a whole book devoted to the proposition that the mere presence of Michael Moore and Hillary Clinton so inflamed Muslim sensibilities that ”the cultural left” had to accept responsibility for the destruction of the World Trade Center. In each case, a widely known spokesman for the conservative movement let it be known that mere words spoken by liberals had the magic power to create horror and catastrophe.

So to Newt, Dinesh, Pat, Jerry (wherever he may be roasting right now), Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage and every other cynical crap-spewing wingnut out there, I say: let me introduce you all to Jim D. Adkisson, your new BFF. He’s the out-of-work Tennessee truck driver who walked into a Unitarian Universalist church where parents were watching their children perform the musical Annie and started blasting away with a shotgun.

This is exactly what has me so worked up. Conservatives have been happily blaming liberals for everything under the sun for years. But when this sort of things happens, where a guy specifically credits conservative commentators for inspiring his madness, and everybody looks the other way.

For the record, Adkisson was clearly mentally unhinged, and had his madness not been inspired by Rush and Hannity, it would have been inspired by something. But Conservatism should still have to answer for their rhetoric of hate.

Of course I want to present both sides of this issue - and in the interest of that, here's sections from a post at Freedom Eden.

The Left is loving this.

Nutjob Jim Adkisson goes into a church and opens fire, killing two people and injuring seven others.

The nutjob is anti-liberal and anti-gay -- the perfect storm for those on the Left wishing to bash conservatives.

Yep - we Liberals are so hateful we applaud the killing of fellow liberals because it allows us to further our political ends. For the record, the conservative who wrote this later clarified that he doesn't think we are happy about the shooting.

Furthermore, I am NOT suggesting that Leftists take joy in the deaths and injuries of these innocents. Understand? I am NOT saying that Leftists love that Adkisson went on a shooting spree.

You are the one projecting that spin on my statement. It comes from you.

When I write "The Left is loving this," I am referring to the way Leftists, like you, are exploiting this horrific incident in Knoxville to further their anti-conservative agenda.

The Left is "loving" the fact that murderer Adkisson had books written by the "squawkers." You can't deny that.

I can deny it. I'm not happy about this development. I doubt many liberals are. Rather, after years of conservatives sowing hatred and anger, America is now going to reap the results of that. Adkisson may end up being an aberration (and that is my hope) or he may end up being a harbinger. We'll have to see.

I-Pod 10

1. "Staring at The Sun (Lab Rat Mix)" - U2
2. "7 Years" - Love Spit Love
3. "Alice" - Cocteau Twins
4. "I'll Be Your Chauffeur" - David J.
5. "Out of Control" - Chemical Brothers feat. Bernard Sumner
6. "I'd Like You For Christmas (Ursula 1000 Remix)" - Julie London
7. "Further Excerpts from: My Secret Garden" - Depeche Mode
8. "Captain Easychord" - Stereolab
9. "Remind Me (Ernest Saint Laurent's Moonfish Mix)" - Royksopp
10. "Orgy" - The Glove

One point - "Further Excerpts from: My Secret Garden" is just an instrumental version of the song. Nothing wrong with it, and in context it sounds pretty good. By itself the pretension shines through more clearly.

I'll Be Your Chauffeur is a great song by a member of Love and Rockets, and 7 Years is sung by Richard Butler, better known as the lead singer from the Psychedelic Furs.

More on Adkisson

Thus far I haven't found very much mainstream Conservative reaction to the Adkisson murders. But Alternet does have a story on how Free Republic has reacted to them. About what you would expect and throughly depressing.

Jim D. Adkisson

For those who don't know, Jim D. Adkisson went into a Unitarian Church Sunday Morning with a firearm. He is accused of killing two people and wounding five. According to a note he wrote in his truck "he hated the liberal movement." A depressing story all the way around.

Candace Chellew-Hodge, who worked for Sean Hannity a long time ago, has written him a letter about the situation. It's well worth reading.

The sad irony here, Sean, is that if Mr. Adkisson had gone to that Unitarian church and told them he was out of a job and his food stamps had just ended, they would have helped him. They would have fed them from their food pantry and used their network of friends to help find him a job. Not because they’re liberal socialists, but because they understand that it’s not “us” against “them.” Instead, what made this country great is that we pull together in times of crisis—we bear one another’s burdens and put aside our differences in order to be of service to one another. They would have reached out to Mr. Adkisson without asking him if he was Democrat or a Republican or a liberal or a conservative. Labels don’t matter when someone is in need—or they shouldn’t.

Yeah, pretty much true.

I have been looking for Conservative responses to this incident, but haven't seen very many as yet. I guess I can understand why they would keep mum.

The Key Question or I'm Pretty Sure both Liberals and Conservatives Love Their Children

David Strom's latest article is entitled, promisingly enough, "Do Conservatives Hate Their Children?" As it turns out, he believes that Conservatives do not Hate their Children. I'm vaguely disappointed.

The article is about Global Warming - Liberals often say that we need to curb man-made global warming to help out our kids. And since Conservatives don't want to curb man-made global warming, well, what do they think of their kids. Strom makes two points, one valid, the other a tangent. He notes that Conservatoids do tend to have a lot of kids so they probably do actually love their children. Then he points out that Liberals want to destroy our economy and make this nation into a socialist dystopia. So they must not love their children or conservative children either.

Of course what he ducks is the Key Question, which is, is man-made global warming occurring. If you believe it is, well, than drastic action might well be necessary. If you believe that it is not happening, well, than these proposed drastic steps seem both unnecessary and threatening.

Strom (and others) don't just believe that Man Made Global Warming is a hoax - they believe it's a self evident hoax. Those who claim to believe in it know it's a hoax. So why are they lying? Well because those who claim to believe in it want to create a Socialist Dystopia where they sit at the top of the pile. Kind of nasty of us.

NATO vs. Coke

Appparently NATO is concerned about it's public image. So they've brought in a professional.

Less than a year before its 60th anniversary, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is determined to revamp its image, establishing a media operations center for Afghanistan and hiring an executive from Coca-Cola to manage the way the alliance is seen around the world.

Got this from Lying in the Gutter over at Comic Book Resources.

Backwards Land

David Limbaugh's latest article basically takes Obama to task for acting like his policies have been validated. Apparently the person who really has been validated was President Bush; and Obama is just a dummy for pretending otherwise.

It seems in this life, anyway, there never will be accountability for those Democrats who opposed this operation every step of the way (following their initial fraudulent support) and continue to do so, no matter the state of the "facts on the ground."

Limbaugh should try to look on the bright side. He and others on the right will likewise not have to account for their support of war after war, nor will they have to defend their cheering of our national abandonment of civil liberties. They won't have to answer for torture or warrantless wiretaps. So see, Limbaugh, it's not all bad.

Stolen Elections and Riots in the Street

I generally don't hold with the theory that the 2004 election was stolen, nor do I think there is an effort afoot to steal the 2008 election. I am sure there innumerable bad actors who might do bad things like caging or clearing the voting rolls to eliminate people who might vote the wrong way, but I don't think there is a coordinated effort. That said, if there were a coordinated effort, today's article by Austin Hill would be beneficial to those planning such an effort.

The basic theme of it is that if Obama isn't elected, there will be riots and anger from Americans unwilling to accept the will of the American people.

While speaking with a friend who is a yacht broker in the affluent Santa Monica coastal region of Southern California, I asked “what do people in your circles have to say about the presidential election? Are they even talking about it? What do they say?”

“Yes, people are talking about it” my friend assured me. “It’s assumed that Obama will win. But if he doesn’t, there’s a fear that South-Central LA will erupt in riots, kind of like what happened after the trial of the cops that beat Rodney King in 1992.”

I’m not a conspiracy theorist or alarmist. But I do believe that current cultural and political conditions are such that a McCain “victory” in November could create, at the very least, some significant tension in our society, if not outright civil unrest. Much of my concern has to do with a rather skewed, subjective, and selfish view of the notion of “injustice” that Obama himself has propagated throughout his campaign.

Let's for a moment consider the amount of "street cred" a yacht broker has.

Yeah I'm not sure polling the wealthiest of the wealthy out in California was a good way to figure out what would happen in Watts if Obama loses, legitimately or illegitmately. The truth is that if Obama loses there will be a lot of people upset; but if he loses because of electoral fraud, well, there will be outrage. And Hill and his compatriots will do everything they can to shove it under the table.

Jesus was a Liberal

John Hawkin's latest article is pretty lazy - basically he takes five flawed statements, attributes them to Liberals (though in at least a few cases conservatives say them too), and then proceeds to knock down his carefully propped up straw men. The third is, of course, this bit of bumper stickery.

Jesus, as Mike Huckabee famously said, "was too smart to ever run for public office," and he was not, in any way, shape, or form, a liberal -- or for that matter, a conservative.

If you're a liberal and happen to believe otherwise, I'm sure you'd be in for a rude awakening if you ever had an actual discussion with Jesus about, say gay marriage, premarital sex, abortion, Islam, or prayer in schools. In fact, if Jesus were to come back tomorrow, chances are they'd be calling him JesusHitler on Daily Kos by the end of the week. Not that we conservatives would escape chastisement either, but at least we're not so arrogant as to believe that our Lord and Savior would be filling in while Rush Limbaugh is on vacation.

To a certain extent I agree with Hawkins - in an actual encounter between Jesus and our modern political parties, neither party is likely to come off that well. That said, there are plenty of Conservative Christians who believe that you can't be a good Christian and a Liberal. Some of them even write at Townhall. I think you have to factor that into the Jesus was a Liberal sticker; it is liberals reclaiming their connection to Christ. A connection that many conservatives would deny. While I agree that it isn't the most well thought out argument (particularly since it seems to turn it around and imply that Conservatives aren't Christians), I can understand it.

Changing the Subject

Intermixed with all the bad news for Republicans, they have found one issue that works for them. Energy. Now of course they have the difficulty of explaining how Bush hasn't been able to do anything about it in 8 years of office, but McCain will have better luck. Usually they explain this by muttering about Democrats. Certainly talking about those dastardly Democrats who like Moose more than People is more fun than defending the Bush Record on Iraq.

The theme of Dick Morris's latest article is that Obama is an enormous flip-flopper, so why not flip flop on energy and support drilling everything. But in his list of flip-flops, and there have been some doozys lately, Morris does overstate his case a little. For example he presents this as a flip-flop.

Having based his entire campaign on withdrawal from Iraq, he now pledges to consult with the military first.

Silly. He always said he would plan the specifics of our withdrawal with the military; one of his repeated phrases is that we need to be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. I think Morris's assumption is that the military will tell him "You've got to stay in Iraq forever, sir." I'm not sure they will. And at any rate, I believe it's the Military's job to execute tactically the direction the President gives them. If Obama makes it an objective to withdraw military from Iraq in a sensible manner, I'm not sure what the Military can say to that.

At any rate the rest of it is on energy. I do think that if the Republicans can convince the American people that the high gas prices are entirely the Democrats doing, well, it will be good for them. That might be a hard sell, particularly if Obama insists on bringing up Iraq.

Presented without Comment

With all due respect to Secretary Rice, the Founders of American Democracy would argue that democracy could not be sustained without Christian virtue at its foundation. Such a necessity makes the implementation of democracy in Islamic states not merely “messy” but arguably impossible without a fundamental change in their religious worldview.

- Paul Edwards, "The Bush Doctrine: Can We Effectively Impose Democracy?"

Obama doesn't have a Plan for Iraq

Oh wait. He does. And Obama presented it in the pages of the New York Times, underlining the key differences between himself and Mr. McCain.

As I’ve said many times, we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 — two years from now, and more than seven years after the war began. After this redeployment, a residual force in Iraq would perform limited missions: going after any remnants of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, protecting American service members and, so long as the Iraqis make political progress, training Iraqi security forces. That would not be a precipitous withdrawal.

In carrying out this strategy, we would inevitably need to make tactical adjustments. As I have often said, I would consult with commanders on the ground and the Iraqi government to ensure that our troops were redeployed safely, and our interests protected. We would move them from secure areas first and volatile areas later. We would pursue a diplomatic offensive with every nation in the region on behalf of Iraq’s stability, and commit $2 billion to a new international effort to support Iraq’s refugees.

Ending the war is essential to meeting our broader strategic goals, starting in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where the Taliban is resurgent and Al Qaeda has a safe haven. Iraq is not the central front in the war on terrorism, and it never has been.

Good stuff. Still I don't expect the right wing to stop complaining that Obama doesn't have a plan on Iraq.

Follow up

If you recall, earlier in the week I responded to an article by Phil Harris about a teacher in Ohio who was fired because he had a Bible on his desk. At the time I found that suspicious, and intended to follow up on it, but didn't until now.

Turns out there was a bit more to that story that originally noted, according to an article at the Washington Post. In addition to keeping a bible on his desk, John Freshwater taught creationism in his science class room and burnt crosses in his student's arms.

Officials knew that Freshwater used a science tool to burn images of a cross on students' arms in December, according to findings by outside investigators.

"I think things were just overlooked and overlooked and overlooked and then it just came to a head," said Kelly Montgomery, whose son was a student in Freshwater's class a few years ago. "It's been terrible for the whole community."

Freshwater told investigators he simply was trying to demonstrate the device on three to eight students and described the images an "X" not a cross. But pictures show the images depict a cross, the report said.

Yeah not sure about that one.

At any rate, as normal, it looks like there is more to the story than initially appeared.

John Adams quotes

In the post below about Jesse Helms and Rush Limbaugh, I had intended to contrast the lofty sentiments of the founders with meanest sentiments of Helms. I determined not to, though, because it was a lot like contrasting the Founders at their best with Helms at his worst. That said, while looking up quotes I did come across a doozy from the Founding Father of the moment, John Adams.

There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.

Ironic that the Democratic Congress seems determined to trust President Bush with the power to endanger the public liberty. Depressing.

Our Founding Fathers

Watching the John Adams miniseries right now, and finding it very entertaining and inspiring. I heartily endorse it, as it's giving me a greater reverence for the founding principals of this nation and the men who expounded those principles.

That said, I'm not sure about Rush's expounding on the founding fathers to take a swipe at John Kerry.

How did we, the United States of America, get from the likes of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, George Washington -- I'll throw Jesse Helms in there -- to the likes of John Kerry, who served in Vietnam, the haughty John Kerry, how in the world do we get from Jefferson, Lincoln, Washington, Adams, Helms, Reagan, to John Kerry, to Chuck Schumer, to Dick Durbin?

Hmmmm. Jesse Helms, eh? A scene from his life might illustrate his worth.

"When Carol Moseley-Braun of Illinois became the first African-American woman to sit in the Senate, Helms followed Moseley-Braun into an elevator, announcing to Utah Senator Orrin Hatch: "Watch me make her cry. I'm going to make her cry. I'm going to sing 'Dixie' until she cries."

Then, emphasizing the lines about how "good" things were before the Civil War ended slavery, Helms sang "Dixie.""

Nice. I'm not sure that sort of behavior qualifies one to be a founding father in my book. For more quotes and a review of what the Conservative press is saying about Jesse Helms, check out this post at Obsidian Wings.

Judgement

This is a continuation of a discussion in the comments section down the page, in which I intimated that Obama's judgment was better than McCains. In it Kullervo (who may or may not be related to Random Goblin) suggested that my appraisal of McCain's and Obama's Judgment implied that I was using Justice to mean "agrees with me."

I think judgment has a whole lot more to do with process, and what the decision-making is based on.

It is a tricky point to defend, I have to admit. Because the results of McCain's and Obama's Judgement over the years are in dispute. And Kullervo's right - the Process does matter. Certainly I'd be less secure in my support of Obama if he regularly stated "I am taking this position because the voices in my head told me too."

That said, I'm not sure you can decouple process from results. McCain has taken stances over the last few years that I think are terrible errors, both morally and practically. He has also done some things I agree with. I'm not sure how you have a good judgment process that leads you to support the President having the authority to spy on who he likes without authorization. I'm not sure you have a good judgment process that leads you to support a stance of extreme belligerence with Iran, up to and including "Bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran."

Now Obama has made some errors in the past as well, including his long association with the Reverend Wright and his support for the recent Telecom Amnesty bill.

So the secret is to look at their thought processes and determine, with the challenges facing us in 2009, which thought processes, which judgment is more likely to produce a correct response. Senator McCain has disagreed with President Bush on a few notable points (he thought we should have committed more troops to Iraq, he has, on some occasions, opposed torture and favored closing down Guantenemo), but in large part he's supported President Bush in his pursuit of the War on Terror.

So why should one assume that McCains judgment, which has led him to support such a destructive array of policies from 2001 to 2008, will begin advising him to take positive steps after 2009?

To answer that question, one would have to examine the rationales McCain (and Obama) have taken for their positions over the years, and see if those rationales are likely to lead to different actions in the future (as conditions change).

Things that make you go Argghhh!

Like the title of Phil Harris's latest article over at Townhall. To wit; "The Liberal's Agenda - Antichrist or just anti-Christ?" Yep either we liberals are in league with Satan or we are just in league with Satan (but don't know it). The core issue is a teacher in Ohio who kept a Bible on his desk and was required to remove it. He fought for his right to hold a bible on his desk, while Larry Elder, conservative commentator, said that he should just put the Bible in his desk drawer.. I don't know, but I'm guessing there is more to this story than a guy with a Bible on his desk. I'll look into it.

But first back to Phil Harris. After relaying this sad state of affairs and saying that this is all the movement of a movement to ban Christianity (an anti-Christ movement, in his words), he moves on to speculation on the Antichrist.

The Internet is abuzz with wild speculation about who the Antichrist is. Some believe the Antichrist may be Barak Obama. Others speculate it is John McCain, and I have even read headlines that attribute the beastly title to Larry Elder. Whether you believe in a literal Antichrist that signals the end of days or not, there is without question an ongoing anti-Christ movement.

From my perspective, there is a figurehead of the dark side; a man who will, at every opportunity, grant historic advances to the culling of humanity through unfettered abortion. Given his extreme liberalism, I could see him declaring a Bible-Free Zone (as in free from Bibles) around public schools.

Can you tell that I have grown weary of Barak Obama and his plagiarized, Martin Luther King speech delivery style?

Yeah, he doesn't go as far as to say that Obama is the Antichrist, but comes pretty close, it strikes me. And the accusation does seem a bit outside the bounds of normal rational discourse, no matter how you try to pretend otherwise.

Qualifications

More on the Wesley Clark fandango. Gail Collin's at the New York Times tries to do a recap of the events, discussing lessons learned from it. She ends with this paragraph.

About those lessons: McCain’s campaign has announced a staff reorganization, so perhaps he realizes that he needs better outraged-response material. Wesley Clark has learned that he’s not going to be vice president. And maybe both camps now understand that this is not the year for debates about management experience. The next president isn’t going to have much. It’s O.K. If we cared about management, we’d have stuck with Mitt Romney.

I'm not sure about that last sentence; who is the we Gail Collins is referring to. Cause I could care about management all day long, and I still wouldn't support Mitt Romney.

I think she's right though; management experience isn't deep in either man. But judgment seems like a very fruitful area of discussion. If you feel like the Bush Years, particularly in regards to the War in Iraq and the erosion of Civil Liberties, have been good for America, well you should vote for the man who's judgment led him to agree with most of those decisions, John McCain. On the other hand, if you think those actions were mistakes, well, we have a candidate for you as well.

The Irony of Reversal

In 2004 we had one candidate who had served valiantly in Vietnam, and another candidate who hadn't and who had to be eager to nullify this advantage. In 2008 we have one candidate who served valiantly in Vietnam and another candidate who hadn't and who has to be eager to nullify this advantage.

In 2004 we had a group come out and tell a lot of phony baloney stories about John Kerry, saying that he wasn't really a war hero. They defamed his character and attacked him viciously. This was all fair play.

In 2008, General Wesley Clark has suggested that, despite his service, Senator John McCain may not be the ideal commander in chief. He made some comments on Face the Nation in regards to John McCain's readiness to serve (to watch the video, via Talking Points Memo, click here). People went crazy about this bizarre attack on the qualifications of a veteran, so he released a press release clarifying his position.

As I have said before I honor John McCain's service as a prisoner of war and a Vietnam Veteran. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in Armed Forces as a prisoner of war. I would never dishonor the service of someone who chose to wear the uniform for our nation.

John McCain is running his campaign on his experience and how his experience would benefit him and our nation as President. That experience shows courage and commitment to our country - but it doesn't include executive experience wrestling with national policy or go-to-war decisions. And in this area his judgment has been flawed - he not only supported going into a war we didn't have to fight in Iraq, but has time and again undervalued other, non-military elements of national power that must be used effectively to protect America. But as an American and former military officer I will not back down if I believe someone doesn't have sound judgment when it comes to our nation's most critical issues.

This is of course an unprecedented attack on the patriotism of a legitimate war hero. Worthy of discussion for several days. Heck it got so bad, that McCain had to bring in Bud Day, formerly affiliated with the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, to defend himself.

Of course some niggling nebbishs have pointed out that the attacks of Wesley Clark are far from as personal and nasty as the attacks launched by the Swift Boat Vets. I mean they called into question his service and his honor, saying he hadn't earned his medals and that he was kind of a coward and braggart. They attacked his service directly.

Well the right has an answer to those nebbishs; the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were telling the Truth. They have truth right in their name. Now granted, any reasonable person who looked at the factual claims of the Swift Boat Vets and compared them to the counter evidence would come to the conclusion that the Swift Boat Vets were full of crap. But you aren't one of the reasonable people are you? Of course not.

I suspect this will be a short term issue. I think it's great that Clark is standing up to the attacks, and I agree with him.

Look McCain's service in the military is a mark of courage. It's a mark of character. I can't imagine the torture that McCain went through and chose to stay with to support his fellow troops. It shows character. If we were electing somebody to go to show courage in a prisoner of war camp, I'd elect McCain over Obama in a heart beat.

But you have to look at the full picture. Yes McCain is heroic, yes he loves his country, yes he has great character. But Obama, while not having the same opportunity to prove his physical courage, has shown that he loves his country and that he has great character. And when comparing Obama's judgment to McCain's, well, Obama comes up as a winner, in my opinion.

I-Pod 10 - Depeche Mode Edition

Just jammed all of my Depeche Mode tracks on my I-Pod so thought I would shuffle them and see what the Gods of I-Pod served up.

1. Enjoy the Silence (Single Mix)
2. Walking in My Shoes (Ambient Whale Mix)
3. My Secret Garden
4. Behind The Wheel (Shep Pettibone Remix)
5. My Joy (7" Mix)
6. Personal Jesus (Album Mix)
7. Rush (Amyinitrate Mix - Instrumental)
8. The Sweetest Condition
9. Strangelove (Single Mix)
10. Never Let Me Down Again (Album Mix)

Kind of heavy on Music for the Masses and Violator. The Sweetest Condition is from Exciter, an album I found very dull.

Pretty Damn Overt

Michael Medved at a post on his blog is singing the praises of a new book.

The campaign of 2008 has already witnessed the dramatic rise of the Religious Left, with Barack Obama and other liberals claiming scriptural authority for their big government versions of compassion. In this context, “How Would God Vote?”, the explosive new book by David Klinghoffer, provides an invaluable response. The subtitle says “Why the Bible Commands You to be a Conservative” and the book digs deep into scriptural text to emphasize that the Almighty demands individual commitment, rather than asking human beings to satisfy their obligations to their nieghbors through impersonal government policy.

God Commands you to be a Conservative. Lovely.

Still this doesn't bug me as much as it might because you can practically smell the desperation here. They are basically commanding Christians to be conservative. And that kind of desperation? Well it smells good.

Declaration of Independence

Larry Arnn has an article in praise of the Declaration of Independence over at Townhall. For the most part it tries to be non-partisan but it can't help lamenting the modern liberal culture that doesn't love our founding documents.

Increasingly our politics revolve around the fashions of other nations or of that vast entity, commanding and yet impotent—“the world,” or better, “the rest of the world.” Seldom now do our politicians hearken to the great documents of our republic, the Declaration and the Constitution, to guide their actions or restrain their ambitions. We are reaching, perhaps, the place where America does not matter. Many think this a happy place.

I think this is a measure of how successful the ideas contained in the Declaration of Independence have been. The ideas contained there in are honored in nations far beyond our own.

And isn't that the point? "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." All men. Not just Americans.

He also fails to note, not surprisingly, how we Americans have turned our back on some of these principals in our war on Terror. In the recent furor over the prisoners at Guantenemo, the Conservatives were fighting for the right to hold people indefinitely, with no recourse and no review. That doesn't sound like we are respecting the rights of all men, does it?

The sad truth is that there may be nations beyond our borders that respect our founding documents more than we do. That's not America-Hating. That's a plea for us to do better.

Uncomfortable Language

This is from a review of Barack Obama's life by Mary Grabar over at Townhall. Ms. Grabar shows her ignorance by mocking the concept of a community organizer. Then she writes this touching love letter to the good old days.

I imagine if someone like Barack Obama had come to Beach Street in Rochester, New York, in the 1960s where my neighbors relaxed on their lawn chairs on front porches and stoops after a hard day in the factory, and said, “Hi, my name is Barry Obama, and I am a community organizer,” the unanimous response would have been, “A what?”

. . . Barry would have been sent running, which would be a good thing for him because right about that time Mr. Tischenko would be coming downstairs with the rifle.

Yep - a black man trying to organize 1960s Rochester, New York would have been sent running, with the threat of being shot. I'm not exactly sure how to take that, but it doesn't read very progressive does it? Is she applauding the good ol' days when people like Barack knew better than to come around?

Time and Space have no Meaning

At least night when it comes to measuring Liberal Media Bias. Larry Elder's latest article takes aim at the idea that the media had a negative opinion of Hillary Clinton during the latest Primary Season. Although many people (including yours truly) think the Media was harder on Clinton than on Obama, that's just not true.

And to prove it he pulls some examples out of his file from 1993, 2001, 1993, 2001, 1993, 2001, and then, worst of all, 2001.

Yep back in 1993 the Media probably did give Hillary Clinton more coverage than Barack Obama. And in 2001, if memory serves, Hillary Clinton was running for the Senate? Once again she got way more coverage than Barack Obama.

Frankly Elder loses his train of thought in this article; choosing to drop the theory that the Media was just as soft on Hillary as they were on Barack, to move on to the theory that the New York Times published Editorials that were critical of President Bush and Rudy Giuliani. Amazing.

Edited to add. I am rereading the article; I think my sarcasm above was unwarrented (although still funny). Elder apparently wanted to prove that the Media is easier on Liberals than Republicans; he just started his standard article on this issue with a bit on Clinton and Obama which threw me off.

Presented without Comment

Except to say these were available at the Texas State Republican Convention. Got it from Warren Ellis's blog where I'm trying to find out more about the ending to Planetary.

Cruelty

Michael Gerson used to be a speechwriter for President Bush. Now he's an author, having written a book called Heroic Conservatism that at least one conservative didn't see as particularly heroic or conservative.

The subtitle of Michael Gerson's book Heroic Conservatism is: "Why Republicans Need to Embrace America's Ideals (And Why They Deserve to Fail If They Don't.)" What does he mean by “America's Ideals”? The principles expressed in the country's founding documents? No, he means liberal policies and assumptions that have dominated American life over the last four decades.

He does have an article up at Townhall today though. In it he takes on Al Franken, who he accuses of having written Satire that is too cruel and too crude. I'm not going to argue that last point; Franken is very good, but he's better when he restrains himself a bit.

The cruelty complaint is pretty hilarious though. Particularly with this bit.

Franken is not content to disagree with Karl Rove; he calls him "human filth." He is not satisfied to criticize Ari Fleischer; Franken terms him a "chimp." The objects of Franken's humor -- including political opponents and women -- are not merely mocked but dehumanized. His trashiness is also nastiness. Rather than lampooning the emptiness and viciousness of our political discourse -- a proper role for satire -- Franken has powerfully reinforced those failures.

What a jackass. Attacking Franken for being mean to conservatives, for using dehumanizing names, while standing shoulder to shoulder with Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity, Thomas, O'Rielly, and so on and so forth is just pathetic. Conservatives have made a cottage industry out of dehumanizing liberals. And it's a big damn cottage.

Another difference between Franken and conservative commentators of the Limbaugh Ilk. Franken attacks political figures; people who have chosen to step into the public light. Limbaugh and his cohort attack liberals indiscriminately. You can argue that Franken's attacks aren't fair (although they usually are), but he's aiming at people who have walked out on stage. Limbaugh, in contrast, wants to make the very existence of liberals detestable. He's not content to just attack public figures, but he attacks all of us as bewildered nincompoops, effeminate cowards, or America hating traitors.

I guess I'd respond more positively to Gerson's attacks if I felt that the cruelty coming from his side of the fence bothered him at all.

Why I'm so Cranky All The Time

This is from Cal Thomas's latest article.

When the terrorists attack again - as Homeland Security has repeatedly warned us they will - how many survivors will be consoled because the Supreme Court and the State Department looked out for the "rights" of terrorists before the rights of their dead loved ones?

Sweet Jesus.

Well I suppose if they are Americans instead of cowardly authoritarians they might say "Well the rule of law has to come first. It's not acceptable to just lock someone up, anyone and throw away the key. There has to be an accounting, a reckoning. That's the way civilization works."

But then again, Thomas, you and your ilk have been so busy scaring Americans and whipping up fears, well, maybe they'll be willing to give away the rest of their civil liberties in order to somehow hurt the Muslims.

Not sure what you call this nation after that, but you can't call it America.

Politics and Morality

Ken Conner's latest article over at Townhall is kind of interesting. It's mostly aimed at Republicans, who, Conner feels, have lost their way. But he isn't going to let Democrats off the hook either.

Unfortunately, both political parties today seem to have lost their grip on whatever moral philosophy they once held to be true. Democrats have abandoned their old socialist ideals for a pragmatic approach focused on winning elections by promising new domestic programs and repeating a mantra advocating vague, undefined notions of "change." Republicans have dropped their ideals of personal freedom and limited government in favor of winning elections by rewarding powerful special interests group with earmarks, tax cuts, and limitations on liability for wrongdoing.

I'm not sure how to react. First of all it's not true that the Democrats are motivated by "old socialist ideals." That said it's nice that he seems to think we are moving pragmatically as opposed to most Conservatatoids who paint us as more Socialist than Mao.

He spends the bulk of his argument saying that Christian Conservatives are truest conservatives. Not sure about that, but it is certainly the sort of argument that will please Christian Conservatives.

Habeas Corpus

It's back. The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that the concept of Habeas Corpus has legs. Essentially the President can't just take people, lock them up, and throw away the key. They have to figure out some way to process such people. Or that's how James Ross describes it in an article for Salon.

. . . the court makes clear that Guantánamo can't be a law-free zone. The main reason the administration started sending those apprehended in the "global war on terror" to Guantánamo in 2002 was so that it could hold people without intrusive lawyers and courts getting in the way. The court said no; detainees can challenge their cases before the courts.

I don't know why Conservatives thought this could be a long term solution anyway. But apparently they did - Rush Limbaugh ties this decision into an over arching plan for Liberals to destroy America.

This is what many of us who ring the clarion bells are trying to get people to understand. This is not a bunch of little idiots that write laws in Congress with their unintended consequences. . . .

When it comes to the liberal judiciary, these are leftists, folks. They have every intention of changing the way this country looks, cutting this country down to size. I've been through all the reasons. They think we're too big. We're stealing the world's resources. We're destroying the planet with global warming. We've got this idiot president they can't figure out how to beat. He's so stupid he keeps beating them, and we gotta get rid of him. He's illegitimate, his war is unjust; his policies are unjust. Look, there's a systematic desire -- and it's been going on for quite a while -- to change or get rid of the institutions and traditions that have always defined and maintained the country's greatness. It's a very serious problem.

I suppose it is hard to defend a crazy program with sane arguments.

What's a Conservative Ideologue to Do?

There's an interesting post by Jeffrey Feldman over at the Huffington Post about Conservative Ideologues and how they are handling Senator McCain.

Rather than back McCain, right-wing pundits seem poised to turn Sen. McCain into a cartoon effigy of all they claim is wrong with American liberalism. In this way, pundits like Coulter and Limbaugh will be able to argue simultaneously that McCain lost because he was 'too liberal,' and that a Democratic victory will bring disaster because a President Obama will be 'too liberal.'

By supporting McCain, right-wing pundits risk the loss of prestige that comes with backing a losing candidate. By turning against McCain, they can blame Republican defeat and predict doom for the country with the same argument. Anti-McCain right-wing pundits, in other words, can advance their goal of staying relevant in a rapidly shifting media environment where their access to the White House and to Congress will likely be limited relative to what it was during the Bush years.

Makes sense to me.

Real True Christians

One of the fixtures of recent elections has been the declaration that Liberal or Democratic Candidates are not really Christians, and this election is no exception. Today's example comes from Cal Thomas, who assures us that Obama is not really a Christian. For one thing he believes that all of God's children are reaching out to him through their various religious teachings.

According to Falsani, Obama thinks that "all people of faith - Christians, Jews, Muslims, animists, everyone - know the same God." (Her words.)

Evangelicals and serious Catholics might ask if this is so, why did Jesus waste His time coming to Earth, suffering pain, rejection and crucifixion?

You see believing that God and Christ select one group of people to be saved and condemn everybody else is "Christian." Believing that God loves all his children and reaches out to all of them is not.

Then there's this interesting line.

Falsani adds, "Obama doesn't believe he, or anyone else, will go to hell. But he's not sure he'll be going to heaven, either." Again, that is contrary to what Evangelicals and most Catholics believe.

I'm guessing that Thomas is saying most real Christians believe that some people will go to hell, but it reads like maybe they are sure that Obama is going to heaven? Or hell? It's not clear.

At any rate, these heretical beliefs are enough to declare Obama not a real Christian. Pretty sad, but on the plus side, the only people who are going to be swayed by such statements are people who wouldn't vote for Obama anyway.

The End of an Era

Maggie Gallagher's latest article basically says that Conservatism, as inaugurated by Barry Goldwater, is pretty much over, a victim of it's successes.

The Reagan coalition, that combination of anti-communist hawks, pro-growth low-taxers and social conservatives, has achieved great things: the fall of the Soviet Union, the resurgence of faith in market economies, a permanent reduction in the federal tax rates (including taking millions of Americans off the federal income tax rolls altogether), a striking reduction in crime rates, welfare reform and the largely unsung doubling of the per-child tax exemption that each year protects the incomes that families (especially larger religious families) need to raise their kids.

But all that is so yesterday.

Gallagher downplays the role of President Bush in weakening the Republican Brand, which I guess is par for the course. She also has this interesting line.

Meanwhile, the left never was defunded, creating a huge structural mismatch in the process of "culture creation": Massive government dollars fuel their organizations and ideas, while even tiny social conservative funding streams like abstinence education are under intense assault.

I guess she's talking strictly about Government spending. Most government spending, by definition, funds the left (since the right is opposed to government funding). But in the universe of funding, the Right certainly hasn't gone hungry in this country; organizations like the Heritage Foundation have done quite well for themselves.

That said, I do find myself wondering how Gallgher would defund the left if the right regains power.

Nostalgia

Dennis Prager's latest article is entitled, "When I Was a Boy, America Was a Better Place." That pretty much sums it up. It's an interesting mixture of the depressing and the bizarre. For example he's upset that people no longer dress up to go to baseball games and he misses the days when Lucy and Ricky had separate beds. But that's not all.

Today, people at work, to cite but one example, are far less free to speak naturally. Every word, gesture and look, even one's illustrated calendar, is now monitored lest a fellow employee feel offended and bring charges of sexual harassment or creating a "hostile work environment" or being racially, religiously or ethnically insensitive, or insensitive to another's sexual orientation.

Yeah back in the old days, Prager could have made minorities and woman feel uncomfortable; as a white male he was just better than everybody else and he didn't have to worry about having that truth challenged. Nowadays, he has to act like Black people and woman matter. I can see how that must be very difficult.

McBush - Fair or Not?

Douglas MacKinnon's latest article is about the idea that electing McCain represents a third term for President Bush, which many, including myself, have suggested. In order to refute this theory he sets up a false historical analogy to the 1996 campaign between President Bill Clinton and Senator Bob Dole, in which the Democrats portrayed Dole as strongly connected to Newt Gingrich. The difference this time is that Obama isn't as skilled as Clinton and can't pull it off. Also Bush is leaving politics so can't really serve as the power behind the throne the way Gingrich, still Speaker of the House, could.

Fair enough, but I don't say that McCain is a third term for President Bush based on those reasons. I don't think McCain and Bush like each other that much, and I strongly suspect that if McCain gets the Presidency he will keep his distance from the Bush's So MacKinnon is right, the two situations are not parallel.

That said, when I suggest that McCain is a continuation of Bush policies, I mean just that. McCain, while remaining a politically distinct person from Bush, will pursue very similar policies on the most important issues of the day; the War in Iraq and Foreign Policy. With the notable and noble exception of Torture, McCain is going to continue the policies that Bush has laid out, including extending our occupation of Iraq and probably expanding the war to include Iran.

MacKinnon also suggests that the Primary proves that working class whites won't vote for Obama, a tale I suspect Conservatives are going to tell themselves all summer long. He makes the claim that Hispanics won't support Obama because they want the first President of Color to be Hispanic, not Black.

What I have learned is that a number of Hispanics are not going to vote for Mr. Obama - period. When history is made and a minority becomes president or vice president, they want that person to be Hispanic. To those who would claim that this observation is false, petty or even racist, I would suggest they bury their partisanship or ignorance and start asking some off-the-record questions.

Well, it's certainly a unique argument; that said, the sort of Hispanics that MacKinnon is out talking to may not be representative of the Hispanic population as a whole.

History Moans

Paul Greenberg's latest article is about Barack Obama's problem with history. But his first example isn't all that convincing.

Barack Obama chose St. Paul, Minn., to stage his victory or at least near-victory rally Tuesday night. It was a good way to stick a thumb in John McCain’s eye, since the Republicans have chosen to hold their national convention at the same arena.

Yet he overlooked the historical connotations of that site. Beautiful downtown St. Paul is where Walter Mondale delivered his concession speech after one of the most lopsided defeats in the history of American presidential elections: Ronald Reagan’s 49-state sweep in 1984.

For his last hurrah of the primary season, he chose a place associated with one of his party’s great defeats. It’s as if admirers of George Armstrong Custer were to gather at Little Bighorn, aka Custer’s Last Stand, to proclaim victory.

The difference being that people associate Little Bighorn with Custer. You say Little Bighorn and people think Custer. Alternatively if you say St. Paul, most people don't immediately jump to "Mondale's concession speech." Unless of course you are writing an article and need a good intro.

The rest of the article deals with Obamas desire to use diplomacy rather than warfare in dealing with Iran and North Korea, and how foolish that is.

Katrina and Karl Rove

There's an excerpt from "Machiavelli's Shadow: The Rise and Fall of Karl Rove," over at Salon today, covering the Bush Administrations response to Hurricane Katrina. The darkest bit comes near the end, where Mary Landrieu was showing the devastation to George Stephanopoulos in a helicopter.

Then I said, 'George, before we finish I have to show you one positive thing because I can't send you back to Washington to produce a story that shows nothing but devastation and disaster.' So I told the pilot to tack right so I can show George the 17th Street Canal and the work that was going on there. I swear as my name is Mary Landrieu I thought that what I saw with the president was still there -- people working, trucks, sandbags, everything. Then I looked down and saw one little crane. It was like someone took a knife and stabbed me through my heart. I lost it." There, in the cabin of the helicopter, as they flew above the breached canal below them, Landrieu sat devastated.

"I could not believe that the president of the United States, staged by Karl Rove himself, had come down to the city of New Orleans and basically put up a stage prop. It was like you had gone to a studio in California and filmed a movie. They put the props up and the minute we were gone they took them down. All the dump trucks were gone. All the Coast Guard people were gone. It was an empty spot with one little crane. It was the saddest thing I have ever seen in my life. At that moment I knew what was going on and I've been a changed woman ever since. It truly changed my life."

The question of this election is going to be was President Bush an aberration, something out side the bounds of conservative, something alien that dressed itself up in conservatism. Or, after years of predicting and believing that the Federal Government is incapable and useless, did Katrina reveal the destructiveness at the core of modern conservatism?

Everything you need to know about Rush Limbaugh and Conservativism in 2008

This is from a pep-talk Rush Limbaugh gave yesterday, near the beginning.

I am not responsible for what's gone wrong. I am the rock. I am the bulwark. I have not wavered. What has gone wrong is not because of me. I'm not trying to absolve myself of having any involvement here or having a role, but in terms of having a role with what's gone wrong, it hasn't been me.

When you begin a pep talk by explaining that it's not your fault, well, that's not a very good pep talk. And then he gives this upbeat line (upbeat to me more than Conservatives).

Look, at some point, however it happens, the Republican Party, as it's currently constituted, is going to have to lose, and it's going to have to lose big.

Gosh that's inspiring.

His point being that the party is in the thrall of country club Republicans and Washington big government types, and they need to lose big enough to clear those guys out and replace them with more Conservative types.

Should Kid's be Allowed to Wallop Each Other? or Most People Were Kung Fu Fighting

John Stossel's latest article takes John McCain to task for not defending the right of parents to allow their kids to participate in mixed martial arts tournaments. Mixed Martial Arts is akin to the Ultimate Fighting Challenge, in which you are allowed to use any martial art to wail on each other but no weapons and no eye gouging or finger twisting. Apparently McCain has been critical of this sport. And that makes John Stossel angry.

Sen. John McCain -- yes, that John McCain -- once called the adult version of MMA "human cockfighting." He wrote letters to the governor of every state asking them to ban it.

Also, according to John Stossel all sports are dangerous, even cheer leading. So why shouldn't kids be allowed to beat the hell out of each other for their parents amusement?

I have to say I find this an odd angle from which to attack Senator McCain; but I would like to point out the vapidity of argument that all sports are dangerous by suggesting competitive Russian Roulette. Six kids. Six Chambers. That's a 83.3% survival rate. Since some kids get injured in all sports, why not competitive Russian Roulette? Because the odds that at least one kid will die or get seriously injured in Russian Roulette is pretty much one to one. The odds aren't as bad in this Mixed Martial Arts, but it certainly seems more likely to injure kids than other sports.

Even regular Martial Arts, for example. Martial Arts usually stresses discipline and safety (yeah there was that one bad teacher in The Karate Kid, but most teachers aren't like that (I hope). The bravado that saturates Mixed Martial Arts (hell just think Ultimate Fighting Championship), well, that's something else entirely.

I don't actually have that strong a feeling on this issue; I just don't think that McCain's position is so bizarre that it will hurt him in the election.

Victimhood

This is one of the right wings more persuasive arguments. We want to believe that America has changed and we want to believe that we have changed. We want to believe that we as a nation have moved on past racism. That we've cured ourselves of this cancer.

But Blacks and other minorities keep complaining about unfair treatment. Why is that? If we've fixed our problems why do we keep hearing them? Well because Blacks and other minorities are pretending to be victims to get some sort of special treatment. See how emotionally satisfying that argument is? You aren't the problem; Black people complaining are the problem.

This argument gets expression in Dennis Prager's latest article.

To an ever greater extent, schools and the news media do the same thing to African-Americans -- tell them over and over that they are oppressed. And the effects have been even more corrosive. Just think of the wildly enthusiastic receptions the NAACP gave to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and the black members of Trinity United Church of Christ gave to Father Michael Pfleger when he spoke of America being "the greatest sin against God" because it is so racist. The number of blacks who perceive of their lives as oppressed by whites can only lead to estrangement from the greater American society, not to mention anger toward and resentment of it.

That last line is particularly interesting. Either there are still racial problems in our society or their aren't. If we have solved our nations racial problems, than the line makes perfect sense. Black people should just get over the problems of the past and accept that nowadays things are fine racially speaking. Dwelling on imagined slights will just hurt them and hurt us.

But if there are still racial problems in America, well, that's just an encouragemen t for Blacks to accept "their place" in society. Which is probably a bigger problem than some white people being frustrated that solutions haven't been found yet.

Appeasers and Flip Floppers

Salon is good today; they have an article on the Appeaser Meme propagated by the right wing in which anybody who wants to talk to terrorists is an Appeaser. According to Gary Kamiya this isn't a reasonable line of attack.

The coming election is shaping up to be a referendum not just on Iraq but on that black-and-white mind-set. McCain and the GOP will relentlessly attack Obama as weak, inexperienced and cowardly, pointing to his willingness to talk to our enemies as evidence. But the fact is that what Obama is proposing is simply rational, realistic foreign policy. And the proof is that the rest of the world, including Israel, has defied the Bush administration and is talking to the "terrorists."

If it's appeasement to talk to "evildoers," we are all appeasers now. Everywhere you look, our allies -- or we ourselves -- are negotiating with members of the "Axis of Evil" and their allies.

Israel, whose U.S.-backed security theoretically could be most directly compromised by "appeasement," has been talking to the Palestinian militant group Hamas, using Egypt as an intermediary. Israel isn't doing this because it suddenly decided that "some ingenious argument will persuade [Hamas] they have been wrong all along," as Bush derisively commented in his thinly veiled attack on Obama, but because it is trying to reach agreements on issues critical to its security, including a cease-fire, prisoner exchanges and border-crossing arrangements. Israel has realized that pretending that Hamas does not exist, or wishing it would disappear, is not a viable strategy.

That is the most damning part of this attack. If it were really that bad and and that anti-Israel to talk to Hamas, why would Israel be doing it?

One answer is that Christian America's support for Israel is not motivated by the same desires as Israel's desire to keep existing. Christians support Israel, at least in part, because they believe it's existence is necessary for the Second Coming of Christ. Israel wants to survive because it wants to survive. Those two different motivations might lead to different approaches - Israel has no reason to want a conflict with it's neighbors. But many Christians believe that such a conflict will usher in the end times.

Salon also has a great post by Glenn Greenwald on Senator McCains change of heart on wiretaps.

Worse, when answering the Globe back in December, McCain said that "presidents have the obligation to obey and enforce laws that are passed by Congress and signed into law by the president, no matter what the situation is." Yesterday, though, McCain said that the President and the telecoms did nothing wrong in spying on Americans without warrants and that such spying was "appropriate" and constitutional "in the wake of the attacks on September 11, 2001". How can spying in violation of the law possibly be justified by the circumstances of 9/11 (as McCain said yesterday) if (as McCain said in December) the President is barred from spying outside of the law "no matter what the situation is"?

McCain knows who he has to keep won over, and so he's got to take these extremist positions, particularly in regards to executive power. He basically has to uphold the Bush power grabs, or he feels like he has to, or he actually believes in a unitary executive theory (or something like it).

Or to put it another way, was McCain Lying when he said he thought the President had to obey the law or is he lying now when he says the President didn't?