Pretending to Understand

Dennis Prager's latest article takes on the age old question of why are people liberals in a fairly standard ways. Liberalism/Leftism is a religion - we are converts.

Leftism, though secular, must be understood as a religion (which is why I have begun capitalizing it). The Leftist value system's hold on its adherents is as strong as the hold Christianity, Judaism and Islam have on their adherents.

It's not new to Prager - many have proposed this theory. What's interesting about it are the implications of it.

First of all, Prager suggests fairly strongly that our Leftist religious concerns are irrational and therefore not worth dealing with. There is a gulf between world views that seems unbridgable.

But the implication is - since he clearly points to right wing Christians and Jews as being motiviated by their faith, that both sides are equally irrational? But that is presumably not Prager's intent.

He also trots out the old canard that Leftist Jews and Christians are keen on seeing Israel destroyed. Kind of sad that; a child could see that one can want to see a better situation for the Palestinians without wanting to see Israel destroyed.

At the end of the day, Prager isn't interested in understanding liberals or leftists or in helping his readers understand them. Quite the contrary; he is putting up barriers to ensure that his followers don't grapple with liberalism or leftism in any real way.

Why I Like Paul O’Brien

I mean, what do these intergalactic ambassadors say when they get home? "Ah, Z'Krj. Did you read out the prepared speech, explain our position thoughtfully, and phone back for instructions before responding to any new development on behalf of our entire planet?" "No, great leader. I got rather carried away and signed our planet up to invade another world because everyone else was shouting very loudly." "You useless asshole, Z'Krj."

Paul O’Brien, back in the day.

Also check out House to Astonish - where he blogs about comics and also has a podcast with Al Kennedy. They should podcast continuously, but they apparently have jobs, so that isn't possible.

Doing this because townhall isn't working for me just yet.

Bring on the Night

I've been sick so haven't been posting much. Feeling better. Sort of.

Of course there's always something to bring me down. Like 37 people dead in Moscow Subway bombings.

And the knowledge that this will immediately and inexorably lead to articles by conservatoids calling Obama weak and suggesting we need to torture more and possibly invade other countries that are a threat.

More Intemperete Language

This is from Dennis Prager's latest article.

Acknowledge that we are in a non-violent civil war.

I write the words "civil war" with an ache in my heart. But we are in one.

Thank God this civil war is non-violent. But the fact is that the left and the rest of the country share almost no values. The American value system and the leftist value system are irreconcilable. If the left wins, America's values lose. If American values prevail, the left loses.

Again, Obama and Congressional Democrats cut out the Public Option, cut out letting citizens sign up for medicare and didn't even make a real attempt at universal healthcare or single payer. They caved into the right again and again and again. And in return? Civil War.

Makes you wonder if maybe Obama should have fought for a stronger bill. Still a stronger bill might not have passed; so maybe this was the best we could get. But it is discouraging to find a watered down, weak bill such as this described as essentially socialist.

Intemperate Language

You don't expect temperate language out of Austin Hill anyway, but his latest article takes the proverbial cake.

If a frontal assault on the foundational principals and values of American life can qualify as being “at war” - then yes, Barack Obama is in combat with our country.

Nice. That'a even a step further than the treason comments we saw during the Iraq war. Or effectively pro-terrorist.

Unfortunately his evidence will largely convince only those who already agree with him.

The stunning, “we’ll-stop-at-nothing” fight to take-over the healthcare industry and the medical profession has put Obama-styled cronyism on full display – and therein lies the greatest assault on America.

Stop at nothing? Correct me if I'm wrong, but if he were really stopping at nothing wouldn't we have a public option? Instead the Obama administration chose to fight the left wint of his supporters with far more vigor than he expended on beating back conservative watering down of his plan.

The result? A somewhat weak bill that that conservatoids are still complaining about in terms that make you think Karl Marx wrote it.

Sean Hannity's Scam

This is an interesting story from conservative bloggist Debbie Schlussel. Sean Hannity has been giving Freedom Concerts for the last few years - shows where his fans can come, see him, Charlie Daniels, and a half dozen other performers, the proceeds of which are supposed to do to scholarships for the children of deceased soldiers. Sounds like a nice noble cause to me.

Except it turns out that the charity gives less than 25% of the money they take in to charity. The rest goes to expenses, which in the case of Hannity and his family and friends are somewhat extensive. Shlussel quotes a conservative writer who describes them.

Of course, as the guy tells it, there’d be a lot more money every concert to go to the cause if Hannity didn’t demand–and get–use of a Gulfstream 5 plane to fly him and his family/entourage to the concerts; a “fleet” (that’s the word the guy used) of either Cadillac or Lincoln SUVs for him and his family/entourage; and several suites at really expensive hotels for him and his family/entourage. The promoter apparently values Hannity’s star demands at well over $200,000 per event.

Shlussel throws around a figure that 75% of the intake for a legitimate charity needs to go to the kids. I suspect that is after expenses, because otherwise it makes little sense. The larger point is whether or not Hannity is doing what needs to be done to keep expenses down, in order to send more money to the kids. And it kind of sounds like the answer is no. .

Deception by Omission

Jacki Gingrich Cushman's latest article takes on the current attempt to get healthcare passed by the House. She takes Pelosi to task for suggesting this "deemed to pass" method which owuld allow the bill to pass without an actual vote.

This process of voting on the amendments and deeming the bill passed would allow House members to return home and say, "I didn't vote for the Senate bill." They could pass a lie-detector test with flying colors. The statement would be truth, but not necessarily truthful.

It's interesting that Cushman takes this tack, as her own article isn't necessarily an accurate representation. While she doesn't specifically say what problems the House has with the Senate bill, she certainly implies that they are opposing the Health Care Reform bill for being too liberal or too socialist. In fact the House doesn't want to pass the Senate bill because they feel it is considerably weaker and less conservative than their own bill.

But I suppose that would change Cushman's narrative considerably.

The World of Libraries

There's an article over at Salon about libraries - kind of noodly but interesting enough.

I worked in Libraries in high school and again in college - it's very tiresome work but not too bad. I got in big trouble once for locking the friends of the library room up and leaving a soda inside. Yeah, I was kind of a rebel.

Friends of the library were not very friendly to those of us who worked for the library -but they did book sales and fund raisers to help the library buy new books. And they had special room in the basement of the library where they kept their junk books - and we pages would be sent down there from time to time. One time I took a soda with me and then locked the key inside. All the other keys had gone home for the night so I was boned.

Also someone donated a book on how to effectively stage and shoot soft core porn. Nice hardcover book, with, as I recall, a special page on the uses of the trampoline. That book didn't stick around for very long.

What did stick around was national geographic. Hole crap did national geographic stick around. I don't know what it is about that magazine - people feel guilty throwing it out or something. So they take it to donate to the library and it's always like "Thanks - we are working on our seventh complete set of this magazine, but we can always use an eighth."

My college experience was a bit more pedestrian - I mostly remeber the head pages not really giving a damn, which was nice since I didn't give a damn either.

Libraries are good, but I can understand why they need to change with the times.

Comments Closed

On Friday Night, Sen. Harry Rieds daughter and wife were involved in a serious accident. The daughter sustained minor injuries; the wife a broken back and neck. Dan Riehl, Conservative Blogger, has called on Reid to euthanize his wife.

Come on, Harry - do your civic duty. The nation's broke and counting on you guy. Pull the plug and get back to work. And don't bill us for a full day today, either. This is no time to be sloughing off. Air freight her home, you can bury her during recess on your own time and dime. Or are you going to bill us for that, too?

He also has this comment at the top of his inhumanely cruel political post.

Comments closed. I don't have time to mind the idiots and Lefty trolls who need to spew filth of no consequnce. yawn.

Filth of no consequence, eh. I'm guessing that Riehl is an expert on that.

Faith

Allen Hunt's latest article is on the role that faith should play in our national politics, using the race between John McCain and J.D. Hayworth as his touchstone.

Both McCain and Hayworth reduce faith and debase it. McCain reduces it to a relic socked away in the recesses of a memory. A lifeless, fossilized relic not to be examined or even given much credence. Hayworth reduces faith to a predictable, mathematical equation. Stake out five clear positions and call yourself “a good Christian.” In these reductions, we discover problems not just with John McCain and J.D. Hayworth, but also with America's inability to discern the proper role faith should play in one's life and in our public life together.

It's an interesting article, albeit one that uses the unfortunate metaphor of worms in the underwear. Basically he says that neither Hayworth or McCain give him actual insight into how faith has influenced their lives. McCain because he says nothing; Hayworth because what he says is simply a checklist. He's not wrong on this point. That said, Hayworth is following his approach because it's clear that significant number of Conservative Christians want to hear it formulated that way, and, more to the point, want to believe that McCain is a bad Christian because he fails to follow this articulation (and because of his middle of the road stances on a number of issues, in fairness.

Praising a Townhall Article

Usually I am into tearing down articles from Conservatoid website, Townhall.com. But today let's praise an article, "The Crumbling Pillars of the Culture War," by Michael Gerson. I don't necessarily agree with everything in the article; but the basic argument is interesting and worth considering.

Basically Gerson traces how both the Pro-Life movement and the Gay Rights movement have progressed and become more mainstream.

But so far the gay rights movement has succeeded for many of the same reasons that the pro-life movement (to a lesser extent) has succeeded. Both have taken sometimes abstract, theoretical arguments and humanized them. Both have moved away from extreme-sounding moralism (or anti-moralism) and placed their cause in the context of civil rights progress. Whatever your view on the application of these arguments, this is the way social movements advance in America.

It's an interesting article, and worth considering.

Why are there liberals?

This is the question Frank Turek dares to ask in his latest article. Given that liberals know they are wrong on all the issues why do they continue being liberals?

And yes, that really is the premise - we liberals know we are wrong but we keep on being liberals. We know that socialized medicine doesn't work, yet we push for healthcare reform. We know that tax cuts produce more revenue, yet we push for tax increases on the wealthy. We know that government relief hurts the poor, but we push for it anyway. We know that terrorists can't be negotiated with but we want to negotiate anyway.

Put that way, we liberals are pretty nasty aren't we? Of course, Turek does resort to distoring liberalism to prove his point. Liberals don't favor negotiating with terrorists, we favor negotiating with nation states to help eliminate terrorists. In other cases, he claims that we know things we don't actually know. For example, I don't know that tax cuts always generate more revenue - logically it seems like that can't be true (or at a 0% tax rate we'd have infinite revenue?

Still, if you grant the premise that we liberals are willfully wrong for just a moment, his explanation is pretty nasty. We liberals are in rebellion - a childish rebellion against our fellow citizens and against the founding principles of this nation.

If liberals really cared, they would abandon their false and failed ideas, and acknowledge what history and common sense tell us—liberalism hurts everyone but those in government.

It's not that uncommon an explanation - at the core we liberals are bastards. Most conservatives believe that of liberals and liberals increasingly believe that of conservatives. Pretty harmful to our national discourse I should think - why bother talking to bastards who want to ruin the country?

Slavery and the Founding Fathers

Usually conservatives aren't keen on remembering that many of our founding fathers were slave owners. But Tony Blankley is a more positive fellow, and, in his latest article, argues that slave-owning actually helped our founding fathers.

He [Edmund Burke] recognized that it wasn't despite being slaveholders that American Colonists felt so powerfully about liberty. Rather, being in the midst of the obvious evils of slavery, those men who were free more fully appreciated their freedom. "Those who are free are by far the most proud and jealous of rank and privilege," Burke argued. Or, as Jedediah Purdy (from whose historically rich and ingenious book "A Tolerable Anarchy" I have abstracted these observations) put it: "Slavery made masters uniquely sensitive to any invasion of their independence."

It's a tricky argument isn't it? Slaveowners were very sensitive to losing their freedom because they were so dependent on removing the freedom of others. This transformed the denier of freedom into the champion of freedom. Somehow.

I suppose the parallel to today would the corporations - corporations do control our lives to an increasing extent - and yet they are champions of freedom, simply by being aware of how precarious freedom is. Which is why they work hard to protect their own freedom - freedom to pollute, freedom to treat their workers poorly, freedom to foist unsafe products on consumers, freedom to buy votes as they see fit. One might argue that these "freedoms" impinge on the freedoms of other American citizens. But like in the time of our founding, without this impingement, these champions of liberty would not realize how very valuable freedom is.

Or something like that.

Dirhams rather than Dollars

Dennis Prager's latest article is about how American Democrats don't care about bankrupting the nation because they want to redistribute wealth more than they want to help people. It must be very comforting to know your political enemies are such blackguards. He then notes how Obama is ruining America through the medium of foriegn nations not being keen on the dollar.

As for the dollar, I can bear personal testimony to the decline of the dollar's prestige. I am writing this column in Morocco. In Casablanca, my wife and I and another couple hired a Moroccan driver for the day. And when it came time to pay, the man refused to accept dollars; he wanted to be paid in either Euros or Moroccan dirhams. Yes, dirhams rather than dollars.

I suppose it doesn't occur to Prager that if the takes dollars he's got to convert the prices to dollars, take the dollars, then get them converted back into dirhams.

But if America had real prestige, of course, the driver would be happy to go to all this trouble. Because real prestige means that other nation's drivers are happy to put up with inconviences just for the chance to touch a dollar. Prager should try to pay for a New York cab ride with anything but a dollar and see what happens.

But presumably this ties back to American exceptionalism; while other nations should be grateful to take our dollars, it's just silly to assume that America, the bestest nation on all the earth, would take their micky mouse money.

Who is Reponsible for your Health and Happiness?

Kevin McCullough's latest article is warmed over tripe on the theme of personal responsibility. He claims, as conservatoids often do, that liberals want the state to take care of individuals while conservatives want individuals to take care of themselves.

If you wish to see an enjoyable evening with friends become quite animated, then overly hostile, and end in exacting bitterness, ask those in attendance to choose between the following.

As an individual citizen, is it more American to believe that you have a personal responsibility to be personally accountable for your actions, and those of your family? Or is it more American to believe that you should wait for the giant collective to take care of you?

Of course this presupposes two situations.

One a state of nature where individuals are completely responsible for their own actions and live or die on their own merits.

Two a state of collectivism where the individuals needs are the responsibility of the nanny state.

There's quite a bit of a gap between those two. The state of nature, which McCullough apparently supports is, inevitably, one in which the strong control the weak and their is little to no recourse. You may believe I'm exaggerating, but consider how much of the right wing's program is involved in ensuring that citizens have no way to protect themselves from corporations.

I can't speak for all liberals, but I want a society that allows each citizen the space to find his or her own success - governments job isn't to coddle and take care of citizens. It's to protect them from those societal forces like crime and corporations, that would prevent them from seeking life, liberty, and happiness.

Reality vs. The Dictionary

Douglas MacKinnons latest article utilizes a nice technique; he uses a cold dictionary definition without reference to additional meanings of the word or the emotional resonance of the word. In this case he selects a very broad definition of socialist and asks why we can't call Obama a socialist. He then takes a very broad, value nuetral definition of the word ideologue and asks why we can't call Obama an ideaologue.

He even basically implies that Obama is dumb or disingenuous for not accepting those labels.

It's the socialist label he's really interested in pasting on Obama. I'm sure it will stick with his readership despite the many and constant concessions President Obama has made to both big business and the right. I rather wish Obama would just accept the socialist mantle and start fighting; but I doubt he will.

Oy

I haven't read much that piqued my interest over the last few days - so I will point you to this blog post at Comic Book Resources about Political Commentary in comic books. It's pretty interesting.

The Tyranny of False Choices

Joseph C. Phillips latest article starts out ok, despite it's aggressive title, "Saving the Soul of the Religious Left." He takes liberals to task for suggesting any failure on the part of the Religious Right is evidence of hypocrisy; fair enough. Sometimes it clearly is, but sometimes it is just human weakness.

The bulk of his article argues however, that Liberal Christians believe in the state more than they believe in God. He ends with this challenge.

And here ultimately is the greatest question the religious left must be prepared to answer. Do we walk by faith in the administrative state? Or do we believe in mans capacity to change his life through the grace and mercy of God?

It's a false choice (as referenced by the title of this post). One can both serve God and believe in the spiritual improvement of ones fellow man while also working to make a society that works. Some might feel a calling more in one direction or the other, but there is no conflict between the two. Consider, for a moment, the abolition movement. There were plenty of religious abolitionists who looked at America in the first half of the 19th century and worked to improve it (by fighting slavery). They didn't see a conflict between their religious devotion and their desire to create a more just America. And I don't either.

by jingo by gee by gosh by gum

Dustin Hawkins latest article is about illegal immigration, which he opposes. He also opposes any consideration given to those who have entered this country illegal. Rather he'd like to see them rounded up and shipped off. Pat for the course, but the last bit really goes off.

Is this Cuba? Is this Afghanistan? Is this Rwanda? Are we such a garbage dump of a nation that we have to desperately give citizenship to anybody and everybody we can find? Newsflash: This is the greatest nation God has seen fit to raise up in the history of mankind. We can not only have the cream of the crop from other nations; we can ask them to wait in line, obey our laws, and prove themselves -- and the ones worth having will do it because this is the place people all over the world dream of coming one day.

So two points. America is the bestest nation on the earth, which is par for the course I guess. It did put me in mind of the e. e. cummings poem referenced above.

But also Hawkins makes America sound like a sort of exclusive country club. Of course we should have only the best sorts. Which is why there is really no problem with immigration laws that prioritize European immigrants and penalize Latin American immigrants. Only the best for the best nation.

FDR

Michael Barone's latest article is a knock on Barack Obama for having bad intiuation. Sort of a dog bites man story, except for Barone's example of a good intuitive President.

In the first category are great American presidents like Franklin Roosevelt. FDR could have nationalized the banks in 1933 and war industries in the 1940s. Instead, he prevented runs on the banks and called in captains of industry to help run the war effort.

Fluent in German, he listened to Adolf Hitler on shortwave radio and recognized by 1938 that he was a monster that must be destroyed. Alerted by Albert Einstein's letter to the possibilities of nuclear fission, he said, "We can't let Hitler get this before we do," and authorized the spending in secret of something approaching 1 percent of gross domestic product on building the atomic bomb.

His judgment in picking military leaders -- Gens. Marshall, MacArthur, Eisenhower, and Adms. King and Nimitz -- was unerringly brilliant. His decisions to invade North Africa in 1942 (against all military advice), to concentrate on the European theater and not the Pacific in 1943 (against the Navy's urging), to stage the cross-channel invasion in 1944 rather than 1943 (despite British and Russian pressure) all look very good in retrospect. It wasn't so easy to make them at the time.

So it's nice that Barone is seeing FDR clearly and acknowledging the contributions of this great President.

Townhalls readers are not as convinced, however. In particular they take issue with the theory that Obama's intuition is to blame - rather they think he is deliberately working to destroy America and succeeding.

Obama is doing very well at orchestrating the demise of our rights and ownership -- heading straight toward a brand of Marxism and Socialism. His actions are intentional - it is not a failure of intuition. Barone, work it out on a clean sheet of paper. Try to devise the best way of transforming the citizens from owning the government to a government owning its citizens. Just go back to the founders and designers of Marxism and Socialism and you will find your way.

Some of them do take issue with the praise of FDR but not as many as you would think.

American Voters

Roger Chapin's latest article takes aim at American Voters for being too reactionary, and not thinking things through. That's why the voted in Obama; not that he was good, but that he wasn't Bush. But then he says this interesting bit about Sarah Palin.

And now a large number of them – including many who enthusiastically voted for Obama - are now rallying to another pied piper, Sarah Palin. She wows her audiences with high-sounding platitudes and free market principles but often fails to give specifics on her policy proposals. Too often, it’s as if one need only smell their date’s perfume and they’re ready to get married. Palin needs to display more substance.

I am curious as to how many Obama supporters are really going for Sarah Palin. Seems like a bizarre move; Sarah Palin and Barack Obama are somewhat ideologically different, seem to have different leadership styles, and certainly have different personas. My guess is that the bulk of Palin's supporters are people who hated Obama before the election and still hate him today.

The rest of his article is about who we need politicians willing to make the hard choices and do unpopular things - like deal seriously with Iran, whatever he means by that.

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.