The Questions Worth Asking

Really good New York Times article on President Bush's speech last night which has this memorable phrase. "Sadly, Mr. Bush wasted his opportunity last night, giving a speech that only answered questions no one was asking."

I can understand why President Bush doesn't want to draw an exact time table with dates and times for withdrawal. That might well be counterproductive. But perhaps Mr. Bush could explain to us what victory would look like? What conditions need to be met before the United States will leave, and what steps are we taking to meet those steps?

Another question, Mr. Bush. In your speech you stated, "Is the sacrifice worth it? It is worth it, and it is vital to the future security of our country." If it is worth it, is it worth considering repealing or shrinking the enormous tax cuts you have passed in order to fund this war? Wouldn't shrinking the wealthy's pay checks a little now be better than passing on an enormous bill for the Iraq war to our children?

On that note I have a bit of sad news. I am taking a short mandatory break from working on Make Me a Commentator!!! Upper management feels I have been a bit too abrasive, apparently. And they are still miffed over the Monster in L.A. thing. So I am taking a short break. In my absence the site will be handled by a few new commentators appointed by the management. I'm not allowed to comment on who they might be, but I will say it should be an interesting time for the website.

Reality Used to be a Friend of Mine

E. J. Dionne hits it out of the park today, picking apart the parsing Conservatives have been doing over Karl Rove's comments.

In the ensuing controversy, Rove's defenders cleverly sought to pretend that there was nothing partisan about Rove's speech. "Karl didn't say 'the Democratic Party,' " insisted Ken Mehlman, the Republican national chairman. "He said 'liberals.' " It must have been purely accidental that one of the "liberals" mentioned was the Democratic national chairman and another was the Senate Democratic whip. It must also have been accidental that both of them, like most other liberals, supported the war in Afghanistan, not therapy. At the time, Durbin called the war "essential."

On Friday White House spokesman Scott McClellan narrowed the Rove attack even more. McClellan found it "puzzling" that Democrats were "coming to the defense of liberal organizations like MoveOn.org and people like Michael Moore," when in fact Democrats were coming to their own defense. McClellan also ignored what Mehlman had conceded the day before -- and what the text of Rove's remarks plainly shows: that Rove was attacking liberals generally, not just these two targets.

That's how guilt by association works. Make a charge and then -- once your attack is out there -- pretend that your words have been misinterpreted. Split your opponents. Put them on the defensive. Force them to say things like: "No, we're not soft on terrorism," or, "I'm not that kind of liberal." Once this happens, the attacker has already won.

Right on.

You see this kind of thing happening even here at Make me a Commentator!!! Management would like to see me apologize for a simple mistake made last week. But what they don't realize is that they are also asking me to apologize for being a Liberal and presenting a Liberal view. And I will never do that.

President . . .er, Senator Kerry Speaks!

From the pages of the New York Times, Senator Kerry makes some suggestions on what President Bush should say in tonight's address. It's certainly a worthwhile read.

So what should the president say tonight? The first thing he should do is tell the truth to the American people. Happy talk about the insurgency being in "the last throes" leads to frustrated expectations at home. It also encourages reluctant, sidelined nations that know better to turn their backs on their common interest in keeping Iraq from becoming a failed state.

This one is dead on. Vice President Cheney's comments were laughably unrealistic.

He also makes several other suggestions, specifically proposing we set a time-table for leaving. The Bush Administration portrays this as us telling terrorists all they have to do is hang out this period of time and they have the run of the country. I don't know if that is necessarily true - but what such a message also says is that the future of the Iraq is in the hands of the Iraqi people rather than the hands of America.

Recommended

I'd like to recommend this post over at Orcinus. It deals with the recent Rove comments and the mentality of the Right Wing that gave birth to such comments. I would disagree with his conclusion; for one thing I think that American Liberalism has a bit more tools to defend themselves than Japanese Americans had in World War 2. But it's still worth considering.

While I am busy recommending, let me also suggest you continue to give Random Goblin a whirl. Actually one of his recent posts ties right into the above comments by Orcinus.

The Muslim Menace

Here's the story, as near as I can tell. Danny Nalliah and Daniel Scot, both Australian Ministers, held some meetings on what the Koran teaches. Members of the Islamic Council in Victoria reported on what was said and brought legal action under the religious and Racial Toleration Act. The Judge found in favor of the Islamic Council.

The problem with this story is that it is a Conservative Cause Celebre. Not on the level of Terry Schaivo (yet), but still pretty far up there. And the Conservatives tell the story the same way. These two ministers were just quoting the Koran and repeating what Muslims believe; how can that be construed as an attack? And even if it is an attack, why not let free speech have it's day?

As for the first part of that, the Sydney Morning Herald has reported that the seminar may not be as innocent as conservatives are claiming.

Judge Higgins said that during the seminar Mr Scot had claimed the Koran promoted violence, killing and looting and that Muslims were liars and demons.

Mr Scot also had said Muslims had a plan to overrun Western democracy by violence and terrorism and wanted to turn Australia into an Islamic nation.

Part of the problem is that there is a core question that can't be discussed but which people have different opinions on. We are trained by society to place religions on a graduated scale. At the top is our religion (whatever it might be) and then there are religions that are like ours. And somewhere down near the bottom of the scale are what we consider Cults and Illegitimate Religions. Muslims (and many others) see Islam as a legitimate religion; Pastors Nalliah and Scot as well as many Conservatives do not seem to. They can't actually state that openly, but if their actions make it clear, what are we to assume?

Actually I think the second argument, about free speech is the better one. Rather than taking these Pastoral Punks to court, expose their nonsense for what it is.

Anyway something to keep in mind. For those interested in a conservative take on this issue, check out this article by Diana West (the article that started me down this path).

The Volunteer Army

Bob Herbert, over at the New York Times, tackles the question of Army Recruitment, and what continued failure might mean.

The all-volunteer Army is fine in peacetime, and in military routs like the first gulf war. But when the troops are locked in a prolonged war that yields high casualties, and they look over their shoulders to see if reinforcements are coming from the general population, they find -as they're finding now - that no one is there.

The article is a little scary in its implications. Maybe President Bush should have thought a little bit more before fixing the data to support a case for invading Iraq.

A Correction

Senior management here at Make Me a Commentator!!! apparently feel that my comments earlier were somewhat over the top. Hence I am offering this correction.

When I wrote "Screw you Mr. Barone," which was apparently considered a little tough, I shoud have said, "Screw you Michael Barone and anybody who likes his brand of crap, particularly boneheaded management types."

Sorry for the confusion.

A Fundamental Split

Michael Barone, in his latest article, lays out the fundamental split in the Democratic Party.

On the one hand, there are those who believe that this is a fundamentally good country and want to see success in Iraq. On the other hand, there are those who believe this is a fundamentally bad country and want more than anything else to see George W. Bush fail.

Or, let's put it another way. The Democratic party is split between weak-kneed cowards who think they can get a better deal by bending over backwords for President Bush and the Republicans and people who love their country, realize what a danger President Bush and his schemes are to it, and are willing to fight him.

I've seen a resurgence recently in the "irrational hatred of President Bush" as an explanation for Democratic policies. It's the same old Conservative trick to delegitimize liberal or leftist points of view. After all if we are motivated by nothing but hatred and antipathy than why bother paying attention to our view point at all?

Two points might be raised in response to this argument one. Well, three if you count a general "well, screw you too, Mr. Barone." But firstly, insofar as Liberals / Leftists hate President Bush it's not an "irrational" hatred. It is, rather, based on what he has done. I hate the policies he advocates. I hate that he's led us into an unnecessary and elective war. I hate that he hates me and all other Liberals (as witnessed by his lapdog Karl Rove's recent comments).

Secondly, we can see what is going on here. I know you Conservatives live in a fantasy world where the Economy is going great and the War in Iraq is a success across the board. So when mean old liberals point out that such beliefs may not exactly reflect reality, you need to puncture such arguments. Hence you argue that our assessments are based on irrational hatred of President Bush. If we were only good hearted Americans (like you), we could see clearly that things are going great.

This argument finds its most pernicious permutation when applied to the war in Iraq, because instead of just faith in our commander in chief, conservatives can also claim faith in the troops. Liberals want to believe in torture because they hate President Bush that much, while Conservatives have faith in our Commander in Chief and in the American Troops. What goes unsaid is that Liberals, in this formulation, don't have faith in American troops.

I can't speak for anybody else but I do have faith in the American Troops. It is their Commanders, particularly civilian commanders who I lack faith in. And I don't really understand anybody who looks at the Iraq war and says it's been a success.

So to sum up, screw you Mr. Barone. I already said that, but I think it's worth repeating.

New Format, New Quote!

Hey you all. New quote and new format. And I updated the Quotes Page. Enjoy.

The Monster Speaks

I just got a message from the Monster and I am bringing it to you unedited, once again by the directive of Senior management.

Hello this be the monster. Monster understand that there be some confusion as to the timing of some of the pictures taken during Monsters Trip. Monster want to say monster not aware of any wrong doing. Monster had some test pictures taken at scripps college the night before the tour. Monster never imagined that one of these pictures would be used in the final story. Monster shocked and saddened that such a mistake was made, but monster places the blame on Bryant. Surely the management of Make me a Commentator would never make such a mistake. Monster think such a mistake could only come from Bryant.

Monster apologize for his role in this terrible incident. Monster taking sabbatical to think about situation.

I have to say I find the Monster's words baffling, but I am not allowed to editorialize on this situation.

A Statement

I would just like to assert that I am aware of the allegations made by Grumbly Muffin over our series of stories involving the Monster. I am trying to get in contact with the Monster to clarify a few points, but he went on vacation immediately after filing that story, so I am having a bit of difficulty. I assure you I will not rest until this mystery is cleared up.

I remain committed to serving your commentary needs with integrity and honesty.

Edited to add. The link directly to Grumbly Muffins doesn't work, so here is a link to the post and then you can pull up the comments from there.

Irwin J. McIckleson Comments

I am presenting the following letter from Irwin J. McIckleson (a fictional 1910's plutocrat) unedited under the direction of upper management here at Make me a Commentator!!

Hooray! Hooray! All is right with the world.

When I heard that the Supreme Court had finally struck down the tyranny of the small home owners in their latest decision, I was overjoyed. For years, enterprising business owners and plutocrats such as myself have been faced with other peoples ownership of land as an obstacle to our success. It has been terrible. Having to change building and business plans to take into account the rights of insignificant insects! It is like asking a grizzly bear to respect the living space of a mosquito!

But now, thanks to the Supreme Court, the rights of the developers to build where they see fit are too be respected! No longer will they have to change plans based on the pleadings of hysterical ethnics and womenly types. Instead they will simply compensate the current land owners and move in. I prefer to throw a big pile of money into the middle of the landowners and watch them squabble over it. Entertaining, and the strongest get the most. Which is as it should be.

On another note, I note that a character known as Grumbly Muffin has raised some salient points about the accuracy of certain pictures posted at this website. I suggest that Mr. Bryant, who has served as the chief scribe at this site, answer these allegations. Ignoring them serves no purpose.

I am in discussion with the owners of this website and with the Monster who may have a statement later on today or tomorrow. Hopefully we can get this cleared up by Monday.

Round the Horn - Rookies 2005

We've apparently looked over the Liberal Coalition Lineup and seen some positions that need some shoring up. So we've added a few new players to the roster over there on the right. Let's take a look at them.

Dodecahedron delivers a might right cross with a bit about science films and how some apparently believe they are corrupting the minds of our young people.

firedoglake clears the bar with ease with some thoughts on Senator Durbin's comments and a comparison of how Democrats and Republicans deal with being attacked.

Liberty Street hits a drive to deep left field with a post about Karl Roves comments and the reaction from the internet.

Science and Politics gets out of the penalty box with an article about a real dope, who apparently can't tell a liberal protest from a conservative protest (sorry about the Penalty Box - it's the only specfically Hocky reference I could think of (I'm from Florida)).

Welcome to Gilead makes a hoop shot from the mid court with a post on Dominionist Television. He also asks a provacitive question of Liberal money men.

Of course some of our older players can still wollop the ball pretty good too.

Scoring a field goal with a brilliant piece about Flag Burning which references The American President, is Musings Musings (they and The Invisible Library have recently changed sites, so I hope I have updated the links correctly).

Hitting one of those tricky lobs where the ball kinds of spins up in the sun and you swing at it and miss by two feet is Bark Bark Woof Woof with some thoughts on David Brooks spinning like a top.

Corrente wobbles a tricky snorter with a story about a recent protest that didn't go all that well.

Bloggg, breaking the tape moments before competitors, writes about the decision of the House to restore funding to public broadcasting.

Respectful of Otters makes a fient and then lunges in to score the point with an article on Men, Rapists, and Feminism that I urge all to read and consider.

Finally, hitting it out of the park, we have All Facts and Opinions with some thoughts about Fathers and Fathers Day.

Our Wise Supreme Court Rules!

Yes, no one can deny that they have ruled many times. Like in today's case. Apparently some Connecticut residents did not want to move after New London had decided to destroy their homes, compensate the residents, and throw up a hotel and shopping area. Apparently these selfish New Londonians wanted to continue living in homes they had purchased and owned. This case made it all the way to the supreme court where our wise justices (five of them, anyway) made it clear that those New Londonians do not have the right to put their homes above the good of the community.

Justice Sandra Day O'Conner made this perfectly clear in her dissent. "Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random,'' O'Connor wrote. ''The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."

Surely we can all trust big businesses and local governments to use this power responsibly.

Severed Heads

For those of you who are fans of old timey industrial dance music, you might check out the Severed Heads website. There you can purchase MP3s of their albums (or his albums. Severed Heads is kind of a one man operation, although others have shown up from time to time). For starters you might enjoy Bulkhead or Rotund for Success. Bulkhead is their best of, and Rotund for Success was probably their most poppy album. Enjoy!

Townhall Report

I just read every article over at Townhall for Thursday, June 23 (as of 9:10 in the morning, more articles may be added later).

There were articles by Brent Bozell and Ann Coulter about Dick Durbin's comments from last week. Apparently he said something along the lines of "you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime -- Pol Pot or others -- that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners." Republicans do not like this being said, apparently. They are pushing the idea that we are, in fact, too nice to our prisoners (Ann Coulters article is entitled "Guantanamo loses 5-star rating."

Emmet Tyrell and Robert Novak both wrote on Senator Biden. Novak reveals that apparently Biden uses political means to achieve his ends. Shocking. Emmet Tyrell's article is devoted to calling Biden (and any other Democrat he can think of) a liar.

Ak'Bar A. Shabazz also writes on congressional matters. In this case he covers an official Senate apology for failing to pass anti-lynching laws back in the day. He did make a minor misstatement in his article though. "Many have blamed 'southern conservatives' for filibustering anti-lynching legislation. They would be more accurate if they attributed the opposition to 'southern Democrats'. For, it was the Democratic Party that was most active in opposing civil rights legislation during that movement." While technically accurate, this formulation gives the impression that there were separaterate groups - Southern Conservatives and Southern Democrats. In fact, at that time, they were one and the same. It would be most accurate to say "Southern Conservatdemocratsrats." But perhaps accuracy isn't Mr. Shabazz's point.

Suzanne Fields rights on the sanctity of Marriage. Debra Saunders writes on PETA (wembarrassinglyngly enough, recently had some of their charges die). Larry Elder writes on how Senator Kerry's grades show him to be a dummy (compared to President Bush). Alan Reynolds writes a somewhat confusing article on why Oil Prices aren't controlled by demand for car gasoline.

This is tiring.

Terrence Jeffry comments on a subcontractor at Oak Ridge Nuclear facility who hired undocumented aliens. As you might imagine, he's opposed to that.

Cal Thomas comments that PBS and NPR are too liberal. And by too liberal, he apparently means liberal at all.

Both Ross Mackenzie and Tim Chapman do columns that collect a lot of different short themes in them. Kind of like this post really.

Finally, Michael Furtado writes a column filled with links on how Scientists will defeat Germs. Because Scientists are smart and Germs are not. And Marvin Olasky writes an article recommending his five favorite Civil War Battle Grounds for you to visit.

None of those articles is really jumping out at me to comment on so I present them all. Enjoy.

Monster Say Goodbye

Monster say Arrgghmarchgan. Monster words of fond goodbye to California. Monster be hitting that old dusty trail and wandering up and down the byways of America. Monster right wrongs and wrong rights!

Monster say he be glad to have shared this trip with you, and he hope you all have happy times and you enjoy wherever you are.

Monster say Goodbye! And Monster also wonder why nobody ever picks him up.

Monster make Environmental Point

Monster know this no be normally a site for site seeing travelogues. Normally this be a site where Bryant complains about things that no make much difference. So monster will continue in the same tradition by complaining about things that do make a difference.

Monster travel all over Los Angeles and he not see one Gazelle. Where are the Gazelles? Monster look all over. Under cars and over buildings and in trees, but there be not one gazelle anywhere!



Monster say look at those hills. Those are beautiful grayish yellow hills with stuff for gazelles to eat. There should be hundreds of gazelles leaping over those hills, but monster not see even one gazelle. This is a shame.

Gazelles be delicious. And they are good for the environment. You happy when you have a gazelle around. You know you are not going hungry. So Monster advocate the adoption of a gazelle based economy for Southern California. Monster hear big chief of California a strong man. So monster will go and see him to present my pro-gazelle agenda.

Monster say he be back later for big wrap up.

Monster Visit Jay and Bobs Secret Stash

Monster visit Jay and Bobs Secret Stash. It not so secret. It right on the street where anybody can come in. See, Monster make it inside without any difficulty.



Monster think store is pretty neat with lots of cool futuristic geegaws but not so much raw gazelle. Monster guess owners worried that raw gazelle would ruin the comics. Humans very fastidious about their painted pictures. That not the monster way.

Monster think store is pretty neat, though. Monster try to put on wings, but store people say nobody is allowed to try on the wings except Ben Affleck. Monster say I am Ben Affleck, but they say they know better. So monster bite store clerk on the knee. Monster very hungry, but not bite hard. But they kick monster out of store anyway.

Anyway the store is pretty neat for those of you who can put up with fastidious humans.

Monster Visit Ameoba Records

Monster need comforting, after rejection at Scripps College, so go to Amoeba Records to look for great tunes. Monster know you are never sad if you have song in your heart. Monster look for CDs by good Monster Band, Throbbing Gristle. Monster also like SPK and Machines of Loving Grace.

Monster encounter difficulty - High Counters. But staff at Ameoba Records helpful and friendly. Monster think Amoeba Records is the Bomb. Monster not know what that means but Monster hear others talking about it, and think it sound cool.

Monster be hungry now, go find gazelles to eat. Monster have other picture, but monster not in it. Monster can't fly, foolish humans. So it just picture.

Monster say Goodbye!