Walter E. Williams and the Census

Walter E. Williams' latest article concerns the Census; he essentially argues that the census should consist of one question, specifically how many people live in that house.

Unless a census taker can show me a constitutional requirement, the only information I plan to give are the number and names of the people in my household. The census taker might say, "It's the law." Thomas Jefferson said, "Whensoever the General Government (Washington) assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force."

For those of you wondering, I doubt that Williams would accept the General Welfare clause as applying in this case. He kind of hates that clause anyway. But this would seem an ideal place to apply it. Gathering that information is useful for administering government programs and for research purposes.

But then again Williams opposes most of those government programs as well, if not all of them.

Palin for President?

Maybe not says Bruce Biolosky in his latest article. After taking some time to slag off Obama (kind of a requisite these days), he notes that Palin may not be an ideal candidate either.

As attractive as Ms. Palin may be as a political personality, she does not have any of these elements of a political resume. She may have done an extraordinary job as Alaskan Governor, but she did that for only two and one-half years. She may have electrified a portion of the electorate, but she has few political allegiances to call on if she becomes President. Most importantly, she has not spent the amount of time needed to work on the issues of the day. By her own admission, she has had to expand the scope of her political universe since resigning as Governor. She has started to receive daily updates on her Blackberry, but that is not the same as Reagan’s detailed policy statements in his own hand.

. . . Sarah Palin may turn out to be an excellent candidate and an excellent President. She has certain innate abilities that cannot be molded into a political figure. She just needs to spend a lot more time enveloping herself in the political process and understanding the issues and possible solutions facing our country. This will not ruin her – it did not ruin Reagan.

Unfortunately for Mr. Biolosky, Palin is getting her political tutelage not from the mechanisms of government, but from the political fringes. She is proving popular to the Republican Base, and those seem to be the people she most wants to talk to.

Republicans are quick to dismiss any politician (well, liberal politician) who has an extensive academic background as being from an Ivory Tower, as being out of touch with how real America works. Well Palin is building her own kind of tower, one made of conservative ideology perhaps, but a tower nonetheless.

Doug Giles Latest Article is entitled "The Vagina Monologues Chick Speaks Out of Her Backside Regarding Palin"

I've really got nothing to add to that (but I won't let that stop me). Doug Giles just gets worse and worse, but since the Conservative Movement already has an Ann Coulter, it's hard for him to get sufficient nastiness to really stand out.

As you might expect, he constructs caricatures of his chosen targets (in this case, Joy Behar of the View and Eve Ensler of the Vagina Monologues) and attacks them rather than responding to anything they might say.

Joy and Eve spent three and a half eye-burning, ear-screeching minutes blah-blah-blah-ing about how Sarah Palin, from an intelligence standpoint, hasn’t “evolved” yet.

. . . Palin is ignorant? These two … uh … um … what should I call them? These two uh, “women,” are calling Palin out in regard to her intelligence? Now that’s funny, I don’t care who you are!

It's so much easier to debate a caricature rather than present their arguments and deal with them.

Doug Giles also would to see Behar and Ensler debate Sarah Palin. So would I, but it will never happen. Palin is a dingbat and putting her up against those two would surely reveal the depths of her dingbattery. And unfortunately for us all, she's not quite enough of a dingbat to participate in activities that would reveal the depths of her dingbattery.

According to spell check dingbattery isn't a word, so I, your beloved blog-o-fascist, command you, my minions, to use it in a sentence at your earliest convenience.

I shouldn't pass over the generalized sexism in Giles article - he spends some time feeling sorry for Behar and Ensler's husbands before noting they aren't married - because they are too outspoken to land a man.

For those interested, here's the article.

The Republican Plan to Healthcare Reform

Republicans have a plan to fix health care. I know it seems like they are the party of "No," but really they have some ideas. And Dick Morris and Eileen McGann have articulated these ideas in their latest article.

The Republicans need to explain how much of the unnecessary medical costs are being driven by useless tort litigation. In Mississippi, where they acted to preclude much of it, malpractice premiums have declined by 50 percent.

Hmmmm. Malpractice premiums have declined - how much has that affected the patients bills? Presumably were that number as impressive they would have cited it. I generally favor the jury system; but I know that Conservatives have grave doubts about their fellow citizens ability to judge cases fairly.

Frankly I think Andrew Cohen, of the Atlantic, has it right.

Make no mistake-- the "reform" in "tort reform" is about eliminating or reducing the ability of trial juries to act as levelers of the playing field; as avengers of otherwise toothless victims; as the voice of a community in meting out justice. It is about helping corporations before individuals; about the bottom line and not the bottom rung.

Yep. It is baffling to me that republicans think the solution to overly expensive healthcare is to hold doctors less responsible.

But Morris and McGann have other suggestions.

Then Republicans need to discuss other cost-saving measures, such as allowing health insurance to be sold across state lines and other measures to encourage competition.

It will encourage competition exactly as long as it takes for the big insurers to crush the little guys, at which point the competition will end. It does seem like the Republican/Conservative plans are to empower corporations and weaken the power of the people. I'm not sure that will actually improve things that much.

Demonization

David Limbaugh's latest article opens with this amusing sentence.

Conservatives understand that liberals often demonize their opponents rather than debate the merits of the issues because the tactic works.

Does David even listen to his brother's show? Evidence suggests that he may not.

Is an Honest Debate on Abortion possible?

I have doubted it for a long time. Take the flap over a Superbowl ad in which the mother of Tim Tebow explains how she was asked to consider aborting her future son, but she didn't and she's glad she didn't. On the face of it pretty benign - certainly better than that truck you see occasionally with aborted fetuses on it.

Maybe they don't have that truck where you live - but yeah, it's a billboard truck, with a billboard of an aborted fetus. I hate it particularly because the first time I saw it, my brain didn't process what it was initially. I thought it was Mongolian Beef, and thought it looked kind of tasty - until I pulled a little closer. That was unpleasant.

At any rate, they have pointed out some potential problems in Pam Tebow's story, and in his latest article, Kevin McCullough takes them to task for it. Some pro-Choice people have suggested that Abortion in the Phillipines was illegal; he counters with illegal or not, up to 0.27% of women have abortions even today (he uses 27 out of a 1,000, but I put it into percents for you), and that as she had amoebic dysentery, it's likely that she would have been offered it.

I can't parse it myself, and don't see any reason too. I tend to doubt that the Tebows are making anything up, but they may have embellished it over the years as their opposition to Abortion seems heart felt.

What's frustrating about the debate however, is that the Tebows and McCullough pretending they don't understand the issue. All they want, apparently, is to encourage woman to think twice before having an abortion. But of course that isn't all they want. What the Tebows and McCullough would like to see is an America where Tebow didn't have that decision to make - they are very clear about that. They want an America in which Abortion is illegal, like it is in the Phillipines.

So behind that heartwarming story about Pam Tebow choosing to have her son is her belief that it shouldn't be a choice but a requirement.

In fairness there is a bit of this on the other side as well, since as the Pro Choice movements regular unwillingness to grapple with why, exactly, the Pro Life people are upset with the practice of Abortion. Rather some ascribe it all to a desire to control women, which I guess I can understand, since there certainly is an element of that in all of this.

Radical Social Experiment

Oliver North's latest article concerns how much he loves the military and how he opposes Obama's "Radical Social Experiment," by which he means allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military.

Both houses should go on record now so "We the People" know who favors treating America's soldiers, sailors, airmen, guardsmen and Marines like lab rats in Mr. Obama's radical social experiment.

The social experiment trope is, I suppose, pretty well set at this point. But it's an odd one isn't it? I mean it's not like Obama is trying this experiment to prove some sort of scientific or sociological theory. He's doing this because he believes it's the right thing to do; he believes that gay Americans should have the same rights and privileges as straight Americans. But I suppose the propaganda benefits of portraying Obama as a mad and heartless scientist outweigh the benefits of honestly portraying people you disagree with.

Ben Shapiro - then and now

Maybe I'm a hard-hearted guy, but when I see in the newspapers that civilians in Afghanistan or the West Bank were killed by American or Israeli troops, I don't really care. In fact, I would rather that the good guys use the Air Force to kill the bad guys, even if that means some civilians get killed along the way. One American soldier is worth far more than an Afghan civilian.

Fall 2001 (I believe, don't have a direct link to the article)

Since the death of the Soviet Union, we are unquestionably the world's only superpower, the world's remaining empire. Acquiring an empire requires a different mindset than maintaining and expanding one. Empires either decline or they grow. If America is to survive and flourish, Americans must realize that empire isn't a choice: It's a duty.

- August 2005

Some restrictions, however, are just and right and Constitutional -- and necessary. No war can be won when members of a disloyal opposition are given free reign to undermine it.

- February 2006

President Obama is, however, a man who embodies all the personal characteristics of a fascist leader, right down to the arrogant chin-up head tilt he utilizes when waiting for applause. He sees democracy as a filthy process that can be cured only by the centralized power of bureaucrats. He sees his presidency as a Hegelian synthesis marking the end of political conflict. He sees himself as embodiment of the collective will. No president should speak in these terms -- not in a representative republic. Obama does it habitually.

-February 3, 2010

I know I'm missing some doozies by Ben Shapiro - but this is just sad. After arguing that President Bush and the Republican Congress should embrace Empire and should pass and enforce sedition laws to silence criticism, not to mention glorifying civilian death on the grounds that only American Soldiers matter, he has the gall to attack President Obama as a fascist.

His technique is to take Obama's state of the Union and translate it as nastily as possible.

But in Obama's mind, it is not even the government that embodies us -- it is Obama himself who encapsulates our hopes, dreams and spirit. "What keeps me going -- what keeps me fighting," he blathered, as though we were all deeply interested in the state of his psyche, "is that despite all these setbacks, that spirit of determination and optimism, that fundamental deceny that has always been at the core of the American people, that lives on."

See - when Obama talks about being inspired by the American people that's supremely arrogant. He assumes that the American people care about what inspires him. I wonder if this awkward assignation of arrogance manifests itself in Bens normal life.

"Hey Ben, Great show today."

"Why are you so arrogant as to assume I care what you think about my show?"

Oh well, consistency and logic really aren't Ben's strengths.

How do liberal think?

Boy John Hawkins is really a revelation. He is so good at regurgitating what he heard on talk radio while making it sound even dumber. Perhaps that's a function of reading vs. listening, but his latest article, Seven Huge Flaws in the Way Liberals Think, is just hilariously bad. Here are the flaws.

1) Liberals believe they can change human nature.
2) Liberals believe we can talk everything out with our enemies.
3) Liberals don't have enough respect for our culture and traditions.
4) Liberalism is a fundamentally immoral political philosophy.
5) Liberals believe merely being liberal makes them good people.
6) Liberals have too much faith in government.
7) Liberals have minimal interest in whether the programs they support work or not.

Got that?

Flaw number one is one that we share with Christians. It's also logical. What Hawkin's and others assume is that Human Nature is set and no amount of abuse or support can change. What I think is that we will always have crime, but if the economy improves and people are doing better there will be less crime.

Flaw number two is based on a purposeful misconception. Liberals, for the most part, don't really think we can sit down and talk with Osama Bin Ladin and his ilk; they do think we should be involved in diplomacy with other nations. Conservatives of Hawkin's ilk seem to think that we should only talk with anybody the least bit hostile down the barrel of a gun.

Flaw number three is standard conservative talking point, and to a certain extent true. That said, George W. Bush was willing to overthrow plenty of long term beliefs about privacy and the rights of prisoners and torture; I doubt Hawkins had much trouble with that. We used to believe that Americans were better than other nations because we acted better than they did; we weren't willing to get down to their level. Not sure that's true anymore.

Flaw number four isn't very specific, is it? What Hawkins is referring to is that we believe our political enemies to be devils, while we will excuse any immorality in our political allies. Again, this is somewhat true, but it's true of both parties. And conservatives are far worse about describing their political enemies as monsters.

Flaw number five is true of both parties, in so far as it is true at all.

Flaw number six is a judgment call; I think it's more fair to say that Conservatives believe that Government can't do anything and when they get power they try to prove their point. But perhaps that's overly harsh.

Flaw number seven is standard radio claptrap. Again conservatives believe that all non-military or law enforcement government programs have failed. And yet liberals continue to support government programs. This means they don't care if they succeed or fail. No. What it actually means is that liberals don't share conservative beliefs on the success or failure of government programs.

Oh well - good on you Hawkins - another article, another paycheck. It doesn't have to make sense, does it?

Maddening

Dick Morris and Eileen McGann's latest article is maddening. It is also the conventional wisdom regarding Obama.

On the other hand, we reject the total revamping of the health care industry, the reduction of doctor pay, the cuts in Medicare and the mandatory insurance embedded in the Obamacare legislation. Were Obama to embrace these solutions, he would quickly be able to pass his bill and would be hailed for it.

But will Obama do it? Will he emulate Bill Clinton and save his presidency by moving to the center? Certainly not before he has lost his control over Congress.

At least Morris isn't pretending that Obama is beholden to the left wing like some morons are. But the whole thing is insane. Obama and congressional democrats have moved as much towards the middle as they can, without being on the right.

But presumably Morris and McGann would encourage Obama to move all the way to the right, while constantly lambasting him for being one step to the left of Mao.

Motivations

It's like the 1990s all over again with our friends the Republicans. For 8 years they complained about the vanity and narcissism of President Clinton. I suspect we will have another 4 or 8 years of similar complaints about President Obama.

Certainly David Limbaugh's latest seems like a blast from the past.

The more painful exposure we have to Barack Obama -- and we're talking hyper-exposure at this point -- the more we realize how narcissistic he is. Indeed, we are treated to this overexposure precisely because of his narcissistic impulses. He can't keep himself out of the spotlight.

Obama suffers these complaints because he seems to see part of his job as being involved in the problems of America. George W. Bush felt no such illusion, and such ignored many of the problems of America. Because he was humble. Apparently.

Lets face it, a really humble guy or gal is unlikely to run for President and less likely to be elected. If you become President it's because, in part, you want to tackle the problems of a whole nation. That's not a humble thing to want to do. So to complain about the vanity of Obama? Well it's just pretty silly.

But since Obama can't really help but look narcissistic I don't expect our friends on the right to stop any time soon.

New Blog Joint

Added a new Blog Joint over there - "Jusies." Tis me brothers blog.

Comforting Truisms

One of the Right's favorite beliefs is that this is a Center-Right country. This is sort of true; certainly by international standards all American politics is right wing. But that's not how Conservatives mean it - particularly since they see moderate liberals like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama as almost as liberal as Mao. Take Matt Barber's latest article, in which he argues firmly for the RNC to push strongly conservative candidates.

We remain a center-right country. In fact, a recent Gallup poll established that Americans identify as conservative vs. liberal by a nearly two-to-one margin.

So, whose advice will Republicans follow in 2010? Will it be that of a fork-tongued Democratic emissary like Tim Kaine? Or will it be that of the GOP's highly motivated, itchin'-to-vote, grass-roots Party faithful?

Essentially Tim Kaine argued that Republicans shouldn't purge out the moderates in their party, but should support them (this is in part a reference to Governor Crist in Florida, I am guessing and Marc Rubio).

Barber doesn't like that idea, but presumably he wants to see Republicans / Conservatives victorious rather than getting a long with Democrats. I want to return to the original thought - are we are Center Right nation? Well many people describe themselves as Consrvatives. But if you go down the issues presented in a neutral light, Liberalism does a bit better.

But that's the issue - issues aren't presented in a neutral light. Rather they are presented by half-hearted liberals (like the aforementioned Obama and Clinton) against full-throated opposition from the right wing chorus. And a significant number of Americans trust Conservatives more on this than they do Liberals, even when Conservatives are clearly talking out of their ass.

Kind of depressing. We'll see what happens up in Mass. today, and it's starting to look like more depression.

Mike S Adams

Mike S. Adams latest article is about how difficult it is to be a Conservative in a College environment, and how heroic it is for those Conservatives to stick it out. As a heroic Conservative in a college environment he loves writing these articles, which are, essentially about how heroic he is.

But there's something else.

I think you should take a digital tape recorder to your classes and record the strong emotional reactions, otherwise known as nervous breakdowns, when your professors hear about your ideas.

. . . I want you to begin right away with an attitude of going on the offensive. This is easy to do effectively by simply asking tough questions while they are in front of an audience of students.

Basically Adams doesn't like most of his colleagues and encourages his college readers to humiliate them. It makes me wonder if some Campus Conservative Heroes, like Mr. Adams, maybe create their own problems?

I-Pod Ten

Just random stuff today.

1. The Cranberries - "So Cold in Ireland"
2. Morrissey - "We'll Let You Know"
3. 311 - "Down"
4. Sergio Mendes and Brasil 66 - "Tristeza (Goodbye Sadness)"
5. The Crystal Method - "High Roller"
6. The Beatles - "Helter Skelter (Anthology Version)"
7. Sarah Vaugh - "Tea for Two (Chris Shaw Remix)"
8. R.E.M. - "Shaking Through"
9. Beastie Boys - "Root Down (Free Zone Mix - Prunes)"
10. Linda Perhacs "Parallelograms"

The last one is from Four Tet's contribution to the Late Night Tales series.

A Clear Statement

I have to applaud Terry Jeffrey's latest article for making the case against Gay Marriage so clear.

Any inquiry aimed at discovering the nature of marriage must ultimately arrive at one of two conclusions: Either marriage is something with an absolute nature ordained by God and thus unchangeable or it is an artificial thing, created by human beings on their own authority, and thus changeable according to the whims of whatever members of the human race happen to gain the political power needed to define it for the rest of the species.

Yeah that's pretty much it. Jeffrey's conclusion is, naturally, that God created Marriage and we have a duty to preserve the traditional definition of it. Because if we don't than we will have plural marriage and other bad stuff.

The weakness in the argument is that it presupposes that we should legislate based on what God wants. God may very well be the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow (I believe he is) but our mortal and fallible opinions on what God wants are as changeable as the wind. More to the point we live in a multicultural society. Americans practice a multitude of faiths and some practice no faith at all.

What Jeffrey is explicitly asking for is that we set a theocratic law - we rule from the Bible, or to be more precise, his interpretation of the Bible. I personally think that's a very bad precedent, and if that is the strongest argument proponents of marriage discrimination should bring to bear, than I hope we start coming to our senses.

Obama Must Know

David Limbaugh's latest article starts with a classic opening paragraph.

Could we all agree that we are doomed as a nation if President Barack Obama continues his deficit spending at unprecedented levels? Can you think of any reason, then, to justify this spending? Oh, our president says it's to jump-start the economy? Sorry, that dog won't hunt. So what's his real motive?

I need hardly point out that the hated President Clinton created a budget surplus that the beloved President Bush pissed away.

But the best part is "What's his real motive?" I mean that just says it all. Limbaugh, unsurprisingly I suppose, believes that his right wing beliefs are so obviously correct that for the President not to accept them, he must have a sinister motive.

Of course this is a deceit after a fashion - he writes his article as if the President alone was controlling the spending of the country, when in fact it is Congress that has a lot to do with our fiscal priorities. But I suppose the rationale is that his readers need a focal person to hate, and Obama provides that focus.

Douglas MacKinnon sez "Don't Hug Obama"

MacKinnon's latest article is about rejecting Michael Steel and Charlie Crist, while building up core Conservative principles. Fair enough. I think him taking a shot at Steel for believing that God put in his position is a bit odd, considering the last Republican President clearly believed that God wanted him to be President and commented on it quite a few times.

But when he gets to Crist, things start getting odd.

As the National Review said, “One of the most liberal politicians in the Republican firmament.” Beyond that, Crist is literally an Obama hugger.

Why does Crist want to bolt the Governor’s mansion after only one term? Why does he not want to run for reelection? Could it be because when he took office, unemployment in Florida stood at 3.3 percent and that when he physically hugged President Obama and his “stimulus” package, it was at 9.6 percent and that now, it is at 11 percent?

I've highlighted what are apparently Crist's biggest problems.

In fairness to Crist, the housing bubble popping hit Florida particularly hard, and unemployment numbers throughout the nation has skyrocketed. But for having the gall to hug Obama, and physically no less, I can understand where MacKinnon is coming from.

If only he had kept his hugging ways to the mental sphere, like us decent Americans.

Democracy Not!

Pat Buchannan's latest article takes a strong stand against Democracy. We shouldn't encourage it.

Given free, inclusive elections in Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt, there is a likelihood our allies would be dumped and leaders chosen who were committed to kicking us out of the Middle East and throwing the Israelis into the Mediterranean.

What, then, is the rationale for the National Endowment for Democracy to continue tax dollars to promote such elections?

Of course Buchannan doesn't seem to realize how much the middle east and other parts of the world resent us for interfering in their internal affairs. We have a long history of propping up friendly dictators and that history isn't lost in those parts of the world. That doesn't exactly win people over to our side. But then I suppose if we help friendly dictators keep their people down we don't have to worry about them.

2010 The Year of Doom

Maybe that should be Doooooooooooooom!

I guess not. Anyway this is from Victor David Hasnon's latest article in which he posits that a weak President (Obama) will lead to the middle east and china deciding to screw with us in a major way.

In general, al-Qaida interprets our outreach as a sign of moral weakness. Since 9/11, more than one-third of all terrorism-related incidents in the United States occurred in 2009 alone. Maj. Nidal Hasan's murderous rampage at Ford Hood, and al-Qaida's foiled Christmas Day effort to blow up a jet over Detroit are just precursors of what to expect this year.

The implication is that this is what we get for electing Barack Obama.

It's interesting that Hanson is so in tune with the thought processes of al-Qaeda.

Conservative Democrats

Dick Morris and Eileen Gann's latest article illustrates how differently the world looks from the right. It is about Conservative Democrats such as Ben Nelson or Mary Landrieu, and how they are basically done.

Now that Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln, Mary Landrieu and Byron Dorgan in the Senate and the likes of Marion Berry, Tom Perriello and John Spratt Jr. in the House have shown how easily they fold under pressure and how thin their conservatism really is, their states and districts will no longer be deceived into re-electing them. They will be replaced by real Republicans.

The Democratic game of electing moderates in conservative districts who then vote to keep liberals in power is over. It over-reached. By collapsing so completely and so publicly, it has become self-evident to the most gullible of voters that there is no such thing as a moderate Democrat. You are either an Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid clone or you are a Republican. That's the new two-party system.

It's kind of an odd argument. First of all, many liberals believe that the Health Reform bills were gutted by these people, particularly Nelson and Lieberman (who Morris leaves out of his article, for reasons that escape me). Nelson put pressure on Harry Reid to remove the Public Option and to ensure that none of this money will go to abortions. In my mind and many others he substantially weakened the bill. After getting all those concessions, does Morris really expect Nelson to vote against the bill after all?

But again, Morris sees this bill as excessively liberal, while many if not most liberals see it as excessively pro insurance industry. I guess the real question is how will the American people see it.

Waiting for the Adults

I think I'm overusing the description "Childish." I've been taken to task for it before, but it just seems to fit a lot of the time, when talking about Conservatives and the War on Terror. The latest example comes from David Limbaugh, in which he has the audacity to wait for adults to implement his childish world view.

The answer is Obama is a liberal and he has deliberately surrounded himself with like-minded, weak-willed leftists who are congenitally incapable of grasping the presence of evil in the world. They are blind to the reality that the terrorists hate us because of their ideology and theology and not because of any alleged misconduct at a detention facility. Do you really think it's plausible that people who engage in the brutal tactics these people engage in would bother recruiting on the absurd bases that Obama claims?

It was bad enough when these liberal Democrats were making such arguments for the cynical partisan motive of undermining President Bush and enhancing their own political positions. That was inexcusable. But now it's even worse. These arguments are just painfully reckless and, sorry, stupid. Oh, how I long for a return of the adults to Washington.

OK. Here's the argument - Terrorists are bad for reasons of their own and don't care about Guantanamo or the abuse of prisoners. A few points.

1. This does accurately describe a handful of the terrorists leaders.

2. It does not accurately describe the Islamic world or the Third world or the rest of the world as a whole. Most people have shifting views of everything.

3. Terrorists are recruiting - the people they are recruiting do not share that Manichean world view initially.

4. When Terrorists recruit, it helps to portray the United States as evil and depraved. It's even easier when we do things that are evil and depraved. Like say Abu Ghraib from a few years back.

5. In order to root out terrorists we need the support of countries in the middle east; both governmental support and support from the people of those countries. Such support is less likely to materialize or be full throated if the people beleave that America is doing bad things, particularly bad things to Muslims.

6. The United States has done bad things to Muslims - more to the point, in some cases they have done these things to non-terrorists that happened to get swept up.

It's childish to pretend that everybody is what they are and that nothing can change that. And many Conservatives, like David Limbaugh, suffer from this form of childishness.

I'm so Tired of the War on Terror

I mean we are stuck with it for now and the foreseeable future, but seriously. Still the one thing I'm even more tired of is children pretending to be warriors. Like Doug Giles.

It's one thing to argue that we need to be involved in the middle east militarily because it's in our best interests, no matter the cost. It's another to want to wage war vicariously because you feel it's the manly thing to do and because your philosophy does not admit to the humanity of Muslims.

Which brings us to Doug Giles latest article.

In case you didn’t hear about the Polite War we’re trying to wage with you, the gist of what we’ll do for you and your people who are trying to slaughter us is this: We will not attack you during your sacrosanct celebrations.

Matter of fact, we’ll go a step further and court martial our troops when they play a game of pin the tail on Mohammed at Gitmo, or flush a Koran, or accidentally serve Achmed Jell-O. Not only that, but we’ll prosecute our intel ops who ferret out your Islamic mass-murderous plots, and we’ll promote Muslim maniacs to major within our own ranks.

. . . However, if you don’t capitulate to our level of niceness, we will continue to maintain that level because we want to prove to the world that we’re pleasant even if thousands more Americans have to be killed.

Doug Giles can't be bothered to consider that this is a multi front war, in which we are trying to eliminate those dedicated to hurting us while preventing other Muslims from joining in their insanity. He can't be bothered because in his weak mind there is no difference between terrorists who want to kill us and Muslims who are minding their own business. He also can't be bothered to enforce military discipline - as I understand it, it doesn't matter what the regulations are or if Doug Giles agrees with them. Troops who break regulations need to be dealt with for the morale and cohesiveness of the units. But again Giles can't be bothered with that (in fairness, he'd probably prefer to see regulations allow for the abuse and torment of Muslims.

News From the Past - January 1, 1930

This is kind of a sad story - it's kind of like the last one - eye catching headline, but sad story. It's from the Havre Daily News, Havre Montana.

Woman Masquerading
As A Man Shot While
Robbing small Store

ROCHESTER, N. Y.. Dec. 31. (AP) — Masquerading as a man and accompanied by her husband and two of her six children on an early morning burglary, Mrs. Winifred Shields, 35, was fatally shot today as she fled from a store they had entered.
Her husband. James Sr.45 and two of her sons, James, jr., 17, and John, 16, returned when the woman fell and were arrested by deputy sheriffs.

There are also stories about how 1930 will be a good year economically. Didn't quite work out that way for many people.

The History of Liberalism

This might be a longer than usual post. Michael McBride's latest article purports to give a history of liberalism, leading up to it's natural conclusion, which is public nudity. Yep. Liberalisms end game is public nudity. Bet you didn't see that coming.

But let's not neglect the journey.

American liberalism initially manifested itself with the emergence of suffrage drives, with Wilson’s pandering for the League of Nations, and with the relaxing of mores during the twenties. Morals were plied with the consumption of prohibited beverages and further trod upon by the liberating sense of rebellion that came with doing so.

Hmmmmm. Well he's partially right - the late 1800s early 1900s did contain the progressives, and Wilson did try to create the League of Nations (which Congress then neutered). On the other hand it's hilarious for McBride to imply the Jazz age was some kind of liberal period - rather the government was thoroughly conservative in policy and program. And liberals of that period were more likely to be pro-Prohibition rather than avid drinkers. I suppose he's trying to make a connection to the sixties, but it's rather tenuous. Still it's not as ahistorical as the next bit.

Such exuberance was quickly snuffed out by the harsh realities of the Great Depression, Nazism, the bleak existence most families found themselves in, and the eventual national commitment to a two front war. There was scant time available for dalliances with anything that wasn’t practical and immediate. Concepts and ideas outside of the very real and necessary were left to those in the colleges of America and Europe or to professional philosophers and theorists.

I find myself wondering if McBride has ever heard of the New Deal, which kind of sprung up out of the harsh realities of the Great Depression. Or FDR, Liberal Icon, who ran the country during this period. Or the dozens of progressive programs that got there start in the 1930s. I guess not.

Then, after a relatively brief period of peace, America elected a young Senator from the uber-liberal state of Massachusetts, and liberalism was once again uncorked. Fermented by years of being bottled up by the necessities imposed by the outside world, liberalism was unleashed full tilt into a generation excited by the charisma of a core of liberal politicos who enthralled them. Eager to escape their depression educated parents and their parents’ puritanical concepts in child rearing; this generation accelerated past the standard bearers and never looked back. Chicago 1968.

Based on the reasonable concepts of equal civil rights (although it took Republicans to actually get civil rights legislation passed in the sixties; over objections of many Democrats), women’s rights, taking care of the poor and protecting the weak, liberal thought was embraceable by many who felt blessed in those heady times.

I particularly like the one line reference to Chicago 1968. Charitably I'll assume he intended to expand on the idea, and put that in there to remind himself, but forgot. I'll also note that while Republicans did support Civil Rights Legislation, Conservatives did not. And those Conservatives who fought against Civil Rights legislation soon found a new home in the Republican Party where they have been to this day.

And then we get to McBride's denouement - the goal of Liberalism.

Soon liberal thought pushed well past the novel concepts of civil rights, sexual equality, and governmental support of the poor, to free love, sexual freedom, feminism, abortion rights, and exaggerated forms of freedom of expression, including; burning the flag, urinating and defecating on religious symbols, vulgarity in art and music, tolerance of all manner and combination of sexual encounters, right to self-euthanize, and the consumption of all manner of mind bending drugs, among others.

Fascinating. But I suppose this puts his earlier nonsensical comments about prohibition in context. And the argument that Public Nudity is Liberalisms endgame. Although I think urinating and defecating on religious symbols might be worse than public nudity. He gets around to a very liberal town with a very liberal public nudity policy in which some of the residents are upset at the amount of public nudity. So some liberals think there should be more public nudity while others think there should be less public nudity. This exposes the fault lines of modern liberalism between the crazy extremist liberals and the moderate liberals. He cheerfully predicts that these differences will destroy the liberal movement shortly, and hopes that conservatives are ready to take over.

I don't know - I am anti-public-nudity (particularly my own (there are individuals for whom my anti-public-nudity stance is weaker, but it's chilly and rainy here today and it just seems cruel to expect them to walk around naked)), and yet I am still willing to vote for and support Democrats and Liberals. Perhaps I'm an outlier.

Where does President Obama stand on Public Nudity?

Smash Terrorists Now!

Austin Bay's latest article is on a subject that's pretty popular around the right wing right now; President Obama is a wimp for not immediately blowing the hell out of Yemen. Austin Bay's is not unique, but it is pretty representative.

Big mouths hooked to minds fogged with anti-American cant hindered U.S. defense efforts during the Cold War. Their descendant America haters in the Internet era provide philosophical succor to al-Qaida. The fanatics interpret apologies and guilt-trips as signs of weakness and incipient decay, the bleats of a corrupt culture wallowing in self-doubt. This is not conjecture. Pro-terrorists websites see the defeatist tripe as a divine sign al-Qaida is winning.

For decades, the Blame Amerika Crowd has made a media living alleging attacks on American citizens, U.S. embassies and U.S. territory are somehow, someway provoked by the U.S. The "America Is Guilty" smear would be a laugher except the major TV networks and The New York Times give this baloney headline credence, especially when a Republican is president.

Yeah - it's all liberals fault. I mean other than invading Afghanistan and Iraq, bombing the hell out other parts of the Middle East, strongly supporting Israel, supporting repressive regimes (like Saddam Hussein for a while) it's not like we've ever done anything to the Middle East.

In fairness I think many of those (particularly our alliance with Israel and the invasion of Afghanistan) can be defended. But it is somewhat sad to believe that some in the middle east might disagree. I'm reminded of something Paul O'Brien said a while back about a particularly heinous Captain America comic book.

For christ's sake, the central argument of this issue fancies itself as a comparison between the moral values of Al-Qaeda and the USA. Even without turning Al-Qaeda into one-dimensional cartoons or airbrushing American history, it would scarcely be a challenge to bring the USA out on top in this argument. But the suggestion that the other side might have a point, or that the USA could be remotely flawed, is inadmissible in this comic. Repellently, a flimsy facsimile of a counter-argument is put forward so that it can be brushed aside, under pretext of showing the opposite side of the argument. That's your counter-argument, get back to waving your flags.

But no in the world of small minded Austin Bay, there are no reasons for terrorists to hate and no reason to consider what we might do differently.

We are back to "If we kill enough of them Muslims they're bound to start liking us." Fortunately the man actually in charge doesn't seem to subscribe to that point of view.

News from the Past - December 29, 1929

Depressing news from the past this Sunday of long ago. Among the rejected stories was one about a rancher who's killed himself after getting his ankle crushed by a horse and another saying that the fundamentals of the economy are still strong. But instead I went with this story that is initially funny and then sad, from the Helena Independent out of Helena, Montana.

Supposed Dead Hubby
Returns for Spouse
Kansas City, Dec. 28.—(£•)—In 1921, Wilber M Rogers married Mrs. Albert Farley. They moved to a home near Overland Park, Kan. Recently two men came to the home.
"We want to see the family Bible " they told Rogers.
"Why"" Rogers demanded.
"Because I am Albert Farley, your wife's first husband, and this is our son," said the older of the
two men.
Then the elder Farley explained he was not dead, as his wife had been informed by a telegram years ago after a separation of several years. Farley has been seeking his wife for years, not knowing she had married again.
Rogers has filed an annulment suit in district court and written the details of the reappearance of
Farley to the wife, who is at present caring for an invalid mother in Canton. N. Y.
"One husband is enough for one woman and Farley has prior claim." philosophizes Rogers.

Like I say funny then sad.

Healthcare Reform Revisited

Again I generally want to see the healthcare bill pass, but I can't deny there are a lot of problems with it, particularly the Senate Christmas Bill. Bob Herbert highlights some of these problems in his latest article.

Within three years of its implementation, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the tax would apply to nearly 20 percent of all workers with employer-provided health coverage in the country, affecting some 31 million people. Within six years, according to Congress’s Joint Committee on Taxation, the tax would reach a fifth of all households earning between $50,000 and $75,000 annually. Those families can hardly be considered very wealthy.

Proponents say the tax will raise nearly $150 billion over 10 years, but there’s a catch. It’s not expected to raise this money directly. The dirty little secret behind this onerous tax is that no one expects very many people to pay it. The idea is that rather than fork over 40 percent in taxes on the amount by which policies exceed the threshold, employers (and individuals who purchase health insurance on their own) will have little choice but to ratchet down the quality of their health plans.

These lower-value plans would have higher out-of-pocket costs, thus increasing the very things that are so maddening to so many policyholders right now: higher and higher co-payments, soaring deductibles and so forth. Some of the benefits of higher-end policies can be expected in many cases to go by the boards: dental and vision care, for example, and expensive mental health coverage.

Proponents say this is a terrific way to hold down health care costs. If policyholders have to pay more out of their own pockets, they will be more careful — that is to say, more reluctant — to access health services. On the other hand, people with very serious illnesses will be saddled with much higher out-of-pocket costs. And a reluctance to seek treatment for something that might seem relatively minor at first could well have terrible (and terribly expensive) consequences in the long run.

It is pretty troubling to consider. I hope that some elements of this draconian plan can be smoothed out in committee or over the next few years.

A Few Pastors

Star Parker's latest article is calling us to repentance in this holiday season, referring back to 9/11.

After the horrendous attacks on September 11, 2001, a few Christian pastors stepped up to say that the unprecedented violation of America's homeland was a sign of weakness within our nation.

They weren't talking about how we gather intelligence or how we check travelers at the airport.

. . . The weakness which led to our vulnerability on that infamous September day, said those pastors, was moral, not technical. For this, they were widely denounced.

Presumably she's talking about Jerry Falwell's statement shortly after the bombing.

The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way -- all of them who have tried to secularize America -- I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen.'

So, this is the sort of thinking that Star Parker wants to celebrate. Of course she doesn't cite this quote or even reference the individuals involved (Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, on whose show Falwell made these quotes and who agreed with him (later claiming he hadn't actually heard what Falwell said)). I suppose because the ugliness of the remarks would turn off some people, and the people who wouldn't be turned off by the quotes already know them.

Ben Shapiro, Still Young After All These Years

Most people studying the healthcare bill about to be passed by congress have twigged to the fact that it's a giveaway to the insurance industry. Jonah Goldberg admits as much in his latest article, and why not. It's not like people are raring to defend health insurance companies.

But not Ben Shapiro; in his latest article, he's determined to paint the insurance companies as victims (even as he calls for consumers to stop using them).

Congressional Democrats, after all their faux wrangling, open bribery and bully tactics, are poised to reach agreement on a massive makeover of the American health system. This makeover will bankrupt the insurance companies, raise premiums, and eventually lead to the full nationalization of health care.

He recommends that American doctors begin refusing payments from both insurers and medicaid, and only consent to treat patients who pay for their own health care. This will somehow bring costs down through "competition." Another possibility - the Doctors trying this foolish scheme go out of business as their customers go across the street to someone who will take their health insurance/medicaid cards.

He also encourages every healthy American to refuse to get health insurance and to be willing to go to court to fight for the right not to have health insurance, and he advocates not electing Obama or Democrats. OK, I kind of see where he's coming from on that last one.

Still it does kind of speak to Shapiro's mentality. I'm not a fan of the phrase Ivory Tower Academic, but it does seem to fight Shapiro - he really doesn't seem to have a clue how the world works.

Generic War on Christmas Post

I have been tired of the War on Christmas for a long time, and have largely avoided it this season. But sometimes you come across something you gotta flag up. Matt Barber's latest article takes on this subject with traditional subtlety.

Are you as annoyed as I am by that nauseatingly amorphous phrase “Happy Holidays?” You may be interested to know that the mindset behind the term precedes America’s postmodern love affair with political correctness, tracing back to good ol’ fashioned Cold War Communism (PC’s uglier big sister).

Indeed, today’s secularist war on Christmas (yes, the one that, like God, many liberals deny exists) was waged, in large part, when Communists began attempting to supplant the deity of Christ (and His associated Judeo-Christian principles) with the false deity of the State.

It's a pretty traditional take on the system. He has one example of this omnipresent war on Christmas (a school in Wisconsin that rewrote the lyrics to Silent Night). It's got the connections to Communist Russia (obviously). The muddleheaded suggestion that liberals want Americans to worship government. The total lack of awareness that other faiths have holidays around this time of year. In other words it's a vigorous but somewhat same-y article on the war on Christmas.

I really do think that Conservatives are in danger of being the boys who cried "war on Christmas." This year these articles do not seem as high pitched as previous, and given American Conservatives concern about who is in the White House, you'd think there would be an uptick in this type of story. Maybe there is but I haven't been seeing it.

Evil President Obama

Robert Chapin's latest article lacks a certain restraint when it comes to discussing President Obama.

Never before in our history has an American president, deliberately and by design, risked our very survival to a maniacal enemy power sworn to remove America from the world. Yet from all appearances, this is exactly what Obama is doing by failing to vigorously oppose Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons.

. . . The practical consequences of Obama’s extreme radical left agenda can only be to put our nation at the mercy of a new world order dominated by ruthless tyrants, thugs and spineless states who sell their souls for commercial gain. His first allegiance is to such an international order – not to the United States.

Obama is not only unfit to serve as commander-in-chief in a time of war, he is a menace to our national security.

. . . Take heed America, Obama’s policies may be paving the way for a nuclear doomsday.

Let's give Chapin some credit. Unlike most Muslim Menace articles, he at least does say what he wants Obama to do. Vigorously fund Missile Defense and invade Iran, with or without the international community. Those seem like foolish steps to me, but it's better than vague pronouncements that we need to do something to stop Muslims without actually saying what we need to do.

Still he does seem a bit over the top doesn't he? I suppose in his minds the steps he advocates are so clear and obvious that for Obama not to be following them proves he's on the Mullah's side. I think Mr. Chapin needs to get out a bit more.

Health Care

I generally come down on the side of the health care debate that says that this is the best bill we could get just now, and it's a lot better than the status quo so lets pass it and amend it. I am concerned that failure to pass something will lead to another 15 years of no progress on this issue and I'm not in favor of that.

That said, I find this post by Glenn Greenwald, arguing that President Obama's protestations of innocence are a little disingenuous.

. . . the idea that the White House did what it could to ensure the inclusion of progressive provisions -- or that they were powerless to do anything about it -- is absurd on its face. Whatever else is true, the overwhelming evidence points to exactly what Sen. Feingold said yesterday: "This bill appears to be legislation that the president wanted in the first place."

I kind of agree, and find myself wondering what was possible if President Obama had gone to the mattress for what he claimed to support.

You are known by the company you keep

Terry Jeffries latest article argues that Obama should be against marriage, church going, prosperity and longevity. Apparently Obama does well with people who aren't married, who don't go to church, who aren't prosperous, or who haven't lived that long.

This is kind of a slam on Obama but it makes no sense if you spend even a moment thinking about it. The Church Goer thing, well, that's been around for a while, but the other ones? Does it occur to Jeffries that maybe the reason the poor support Obama is that they would like the opportunity to get prosperous? And the split between youth voters and older voters has been around since the 60s.

He also presents statistics that, for example, show that 42% of church goers support Obama (although a higher percentage of non-church goers or occasional church goers support Obama), which kind of implies that many church goers do, in fact, like Obama and like what he is doing. He presents similar statistics for the other groups. Similar figures exist in all of his categories. And yet he has the courage to make this statement.

The people who form the backbone of our society -- the married, churchgoing, hard-working, experienced members of our national community -- do not believe what Obama is doing today as president serves their interests.

Jeffrey is positing a split in this society based on faulty math and wishful thinking. He is pitting the successful against the failures, the old against the young, the married against the singles, when the figures he presents don't really support that interpretation. At the very least you have to admit that all of the categories he presents are divided on whether or not President Obama is doing a good job.

Fair enough. He's not making an argument that actually makes sense, rather he is stroking the egos of his readers. Always a popular policy, even if it is less the honest at times.

You Have to Understand the Argument before You Can Refute It

Dennis Prager's latest article asks the question of whether or not America is focused on making good people anymore. He takes the time to note that he, like many conservatives, believes that external conditions do not create bad people, and poverty doesn't lead to crime.

Now, while no one could possibly refute the argument that starving people will steal bread for their families (an act that is morally defensible), the argument that poverty causes crime posits that when poor people in America commit murder and other violent crimes, it is because they are poor.

This is irrational dogma, as much a matter of faith as any theological doctrine. Two simple facts illustrate this: First, the vast majority of poor people, in America and elsewhere, do not commit violent crimes. Second, a large amount of crime is committed by the middle class and even by the wealthy. Neither fact prompts the "poverty causes crime" believers to rethink their position.

This is a lousy argument on a few points, but mostly because Prager doesn't seem to understand what the argument is.

Poverty doesn't make people into criminals; people have the opportunity to choose (Prager is right on this point). What poverty does, to put it in a religious sense, is tempt people to commit crimes. If you are poor, and you don't see any legitimate way out of your poverty, crime becomes a viable escape route. If society seems broken and doesn't flat work for some people, than those people are going to turn to methods outside of society.

Consider for a moment; both Christianity and Judaism consider fornication (i.e. sex outside of marriage) a sin. Lets say, some perverse billionaire decides to just mess with people, so he opens a free whore house. Totally free and safe. Hygienic. Yes, many people would decide not to go to the free whore house. But some would. Over time, many would (particularly as people got the idea that there weren't direct consequences to their actions). The spiritual damage to the community would presumably be great (and, in fairness, there would probably be some direct family damage as well). In that context is it enough for the Billionaire to say "Well some people aren't coming around to my free whore house. And look some people are fornicating with work mates. So you can't hold me responsible for the spiritual damage my free whore house is causing."

That's a pretty sad argument in fact. When you take action to create temptation, you are sinning yourself. And it is perhaps a more serious sin than those who fall into your trap. Consider Jeremiah 5:25-27.

25 Your iniquities have turned away these things, and your sins have withholden good things from you.

26 For among my people are found wicked men: they lay wait, as he that setteth snares; they set a trap, they catch men.

27 As a cage is full of birds, so are their houses full of deceit: therefore they are become great, and waxen rich.

I think that describes my fictional billionaire pretty well. And, perhaps, that describes us a society. Not all the time and not all of us, but when we are basically happy to let children grow up in poverty, grow up without hope, without dreams, well, maybe that's not the best thing in the world. And it reflects badly on us as a society.

History Moons

Specifically history should moon Allen Hunt, for his latest aticle. I do feel kind of silly taking a "Muslim Menace" article to task for not being historical, but there it is. In his latest article, Hunt attacks Obama for noting that the evils of Islam are the evils of a few and that the religion as a whole isn't a threat to America. This conflicts with Hunts assertion that Islam is an evil and violent religion.

In particular he berates Obama for bringing up the Crusades. Apparently a gentleman named Jonathan Riley-Smith has written a book on the Crusades which asserts that the Crusades were all the Muslims fault and that Western Europe acted honorably throughout the period. Quite an assertion.

President Obama continues to show a lack of history education as he likens the Crusaders to the Muslim jihadists. That ignorance is unacceptable. One would hope that in an Ivy League education that included undergraduate years at Columbia and law school at Harvard, the President would have had access to a non-politically correct reading of history.

This is ahistorical. If Riley-Smith's book does literally assert that the Christians are completely innocent of any wrong doing during the Crusades, it is so out of step with the historical record and historical opinion as to be, at the least, controversial. Taking Obama to task for failing to agree with the one person Hunt agrees with and then portraying Obama as ignorant for failing to agree with the one person Hunt agrees with, well, I've describe such behavior as childish before.

Hunt plays the numbers game as well.

Given that about 0.6% (1.35 MM) of the adult American population is Muslim according to the most recent American Religious Identification Survey, that very small population clearly generates an inordinate number of terroristic males.

This will be enough to convince idiots impressed by the mere existence of numbers, but of course isn't very convincing when you look at what he's actually saying. The relevant numbers would be the ones that showed what percent of Muslim men are committing these crimes, presumably compared to what percent of the general public commits violent crimes. But those numbers, I'm guessing, don't back up Hunt's point, so he brings up this nonsensical comparison.

Hunt also suggests that as a Noble Peace Prize winner, Obama should be the first to declare war on Islam (like all Muslim Menace articles Hunt fails to suggest what he thinks should actually be done about the Mulims in our midst). Not sure if Hunt understands what Obama got the award for.

Paul Krugman on Healthcare

I haven't read Krugman in a while, but he's still quite good. His latest notes that the current health care bill will make significant strides in bringing down the cost of healthcare. Not exactly what Republicans are saying, but he seems convincing enough to me.

. . . the proposed health care reform links the expansion of coverage to serious cost-control measures for Medicare. Think of it as a grand bargain: coverage for (almost) everyone, tied to an effort to ensure that health care dollars are well spent.

Are we talking about real savings, or just window dressing? Well, the health care economists I respect are seriously impressed by the cost-control measures in the Senate bill, which include efforts to improve incentives for cost-effective care, the use of medical research to guide doctors toward treatments that actually work, and more. This is “the best effort anyone has made,” says Jonathan Gruber of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Unfortunately he notes that the Republican party has made strenuous efforts to demonize this particular part of the plan, meaning that, if this bill fails, meaningful reform may have to wait another few decades at which point the situation will be a lot worse.

Limbaugh and Hannity

I listened to a bit of Limbaugh and Hannity yesterday. Limbaugh was down on Obama's speech on Afghanistan, saying that we were basically promising to surrender in a year and a half. He then commented on the theory that we would build up the Afghan Troops, stating that some of them don't even know what a pencil is. I swear I heard this, and it really made me laugh, but I can't find the quote.

Then Hannity had a person on who had been to see Sarah Palin. Apparently Sarah Palin had autographed his back, and he had immediately run out and gotten a tattoo of the signature. What was that about Obama's cult of personality again?

I'm Down

David Limbaugh's latest article is on Healthcare Reform, or Obamacare as he calls it.

With the information that has now come to light about the costs of "reform," there is no other rational explanation for Obama's obsession to enact Obamacare than his desire to increase government control over every aspect of our lives.

No other rational explanation. I guess those of us who think he and congressional Democrats might actually want to improve health care are irrational.

Justice is Weeping

Austin Hills latest article concerns the trial of some of those held at Guantenamo in New York. As you might expect he is upset at the prospect. And surprisingly enough he makes some good points.

What happens to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, if he is acquitted? “Failure is not an option” Mr. Holder explained in a Senate inquiry. Oh yeah? What about that thing called “due process?” Has the outcome of this trial been pre-determined? Are we to understand that “the fix is in?”Even a lay person like me can see that the outcomes of court trials are often highly unpredictable.

. . . And then there was our President, Barack Obama, who also stated that KSM will be convicted and executed. But what did that mean? Was this the President merely expressing confidence that his vision would become reality, as politicians so often do? Or was this the Executive Branch of our government pr-determining what the judicial branch will and will not do?

Those are some good questions - if you are going to put anybody up for trial you need to at least hold out the possibility that they might be found innocent. If you hold a trial and the outcome is predetermined, well, there's a word for that, and it's show trial.

That said, he doesn't have much of an answer either in my mind.

If, on the other hand, the Guantanamo Bay facility were defined as a “POW camp,” then those being detained there would be “enemy soldiers,” and would be subject to “rules of war” set forth in international law.

. . . By legal definition, a war is not a legal proceeding, and what happens on the battle field is not the same thing as what happens in a criminal investigation.

Fair enough, but prisoners of war are not held forever, nor are they considered guilty of anything other than being on the other side in a war. We didn't execute Germans or Japanese soldiers, except the leaders, who got trials at Nuremburg (those who weren't dead already). Those international laws Hill is referencing do not permit us to wantonly kill prisoners of war (and conservative opinion of those international laws, which include the Geneva convention, has been a bit shaky over the past few years anyway).

All this to say that Obama's plan for dealing with Guantenamo is pretty faulty, and is leaving himself open to these kinds of attacks, mixing some good points with some nonsense.

American Exceptionalism

Dennis Pragers latest is about how Obama is ruining his Thanksgiving. Poor Mr. Prager. In particularly he is upset about Obama not believing in American Exceptionalism, which he helpfully defines.

It also includes an abiding belief in American exceptionalism, meaning that America has usually known better what is good for the world than any world body, that America's moral compass is generally more accurate than that of other nations, let alone the United Nations. This is not because Americans are born better or any such nonsense, but because American values have produced a particularly uncynical, idealistic nation, more willing to die for others than any nation in recorded history.

Very good statement of the doctrine of American Exceptionalism.

It does sort of mandate an arrogant foreign policy. We basically tell the rest of the world "Our values are better than yours and we know what's best for you." I'm not sure that's guaranteed to get the best results.

Gay Rights

Robert Knight's latest article is interesting in how it opposite it seems from reality. He is taking on America's Homosexuals, who he inexplicably paints them as seemingly all powerful bullies intent on doing horrible things like passing ordinances that protect them from discrimination.

Yep - those all powerful gays are fighting really hard against being discriminated against. Robert Knight is standing up for Churches and individuals who want to discriminate against them. It's so backwards to reality.

Knight takes particular issue with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

A shocking example of a religious institution cowering before its opponents and suing for peace at Caesar’s throne is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints’ outright endorsement last week of a “gay rights” law in Salt Lake City. In essence, the law redefines biblical sexual morality into a form of actionable bigotry, turning ordinary people with traditional values into the legal equivalent of hateful racists. Adding “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” to non-discrimination laws is the gateway to the entire homosexual political agenda, from harassing the Boy Scouts to forcing pro-homosexual programs into the schools and workplace. It is also an indispensable step for the creation of same-sex “marriage.” For a conservative religious institution like the LDS to embrace it is not only immoral but suicidal.

Again, Knight paints this law as an assault on Christianity. If Christians aren't free to oppress Gays than they are being persecuted and attacked. I've commented on this syndrome before. To certain Conservatives, if Conservative Christians don't get everything they want, they are being persecuted.

The War on Terror

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bravely pointing out typing Errors since 2002

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

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

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

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

Treason and Intellectual Honesty

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

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

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

Compare and Contrast

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

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

Steve Chapman, "Muslims and Mass Murder"

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

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

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

Steve Chapman

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

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

Ann Coulter

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

Steve Chapman

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

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

The Ongoing Threat of Islam

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

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

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

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

I-Pod Ten - Morrissey

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

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

A somewhat turgid mix.

The Muslim Menace

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

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

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

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

I-Pod Ten - Pet Shop Boys

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

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

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

A Good Article from Townhall

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

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

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

Makes sense to me.

News from the Past October 29, 1929

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

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

Poor Coyotes must get mighty cold in the winter.

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

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

I-Pod Ten - Bob Dylan and Moby

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who Want's Yesterday's Papers?

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

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

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

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

I-Pod Ten - the Cure

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

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

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

Personal Responsibility

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

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

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

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

Interesting but Badly Formatted Article by Cal Thomas

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

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

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

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

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

Does President think Americans are Good People?

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

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

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

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

A Generation of Sociopaths

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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