Does it Matter?

I just want to point you to this post over at Steve Gilliard's THE NEWS BLOG, in which he discusses why throwing your hands up and deciding it doesn't matter really isn't the best or most mature thing one can do.

A Climate of Fear

John Stossel is a huge proponent of putting a stop to what he calls frivolous lawsuits. Or to put it another way, John Stossel is opposed to wealthy white people being held accountable for their actions.

Sure, fear of the "invisible fist" makes manufacturers more careful. Some lives have been saved because the litigation threat got companies to make their products safer. That's the "seen" benefit.

But that benefit comes with a bigger unseen cost: The fear that stops the bad things stops good things, too -- new vaccines, new drugs, new medical devices. Fear suffocates the innovation that, over the past century, has helped extend our life spans by almost 30 years. Every day, we lose good things.

We can't even begin to imagine the life-saving products that might have existed -- if innovators didn't live in a climate of fear. That'll be the subject of next week's column.

This is one of the core differences between the Liberal and Conservative mindset. To Conservatives, wealthy white people are generally good and want to do good things, but are held back by frivolous lawsuits and over regulation. If we just let wealthy white people do what they want, without fearing for the consequences if they make a mistake, well, we'd all be a lot better off.

I say wealthy white people, not because I think Stossel is racist, but because most of the wealthy people he is trying to protect are white. I'm sure that in so far as Hispanics or Blacks or Asians are wealthy, John Stossel wants to give them a pass for their mistakes as well.

I'd be curious to know where Mr. Stossel stands on treating drug abuse compared to criminalizing drug abuse; many conservatives (but not all) are bang up along side punishing Drug Abusers, particularly the poor and non white drug abusers. Or, alternatively, consider the recent Bankruptcy bill that targeted America's working class who made a few mistakes.

The pattern seems clear. Poor people's screw-ups should be punished; wealthy people should live in a climate where they can screw up as much as they want without consequence.

The Next Conservativism

Paul Weyrich is trying to create a new breed of Conservativism. Like many of his colleagues he can see that the current brand of Conservativism, i.e. Neo-Conservativism has largely died in the sands of Iraq (although Kristol and Limbaugh, are still hoping for a rebirth and an invasion of Iran and Syria). The problem with Neo-Conservativism is that it tried to accomplish stuff.

Politics, however, is about acquiring and using power. Does that mean conservatives should not engage in politics? No, because that would allow radicals to take total power and use it to destroy us and everything we believe in. Rather, it means conservatives have to think carefully about how to use power when they obtain it. They have to use it cautiously, prudently, and in measured quantities, just as they would use any other explosive.

There is, I believe, a way the next conservatism can think about political power that can help prevent its abuse. We should use it defensively, not offensively. By using power defensively, I mean we should use political power, success at the ballot box, to prevent government from ramming schemes, ideologies, social engineering and other radical "improvements" down the American people's throats.

This doesn't sound very inspiring, but it might be the key to the next couple of years. President Bush may have screwed up so badly, that the best Republicans can hope for is putting the brakes on Republicans.

Weyrich, however, doesn't word this properly. His prose is a bit too restrained to rally the troops; he needs to focus on the core Republican principal he is arguing for; screwing Democrats. The goal of the Republican party should be to fight Democrats efforts to create a just and fair society. While that doesn't sound much more inspiring to me, it will fire up the Republican Base. Because if their is one thing that unites Republicans and Conservatives, it's disdain for Democrats.

Michael Savage

I don't pay much attention to Michael Savage - I know who he is and I know he says a lot of ugly things, but since I don't follow his radio show, he's not really on my radar. But as I was skimming through Media Matters, I saw two comments of his, that show his warped mindset pretty clearly. First, domestically, here's his thoughts on the Voter Rights Act reauthorization.

I don't really know what they mean by reaffirming the Voting Rights Act. Do they mean they're going to put a chad in every crack house? What are they going to do -- spend 10 billion dollars to make sure they have voting machines in crack houses.

Moving on to foreign policy, here's what he thinks about the crisis in the Middle East.

They're [Israel] going to lose, it's as simple as that. The same way we're losing in Iraq, they're going to lose in Lebanon, in the big picture now. I don't mean in the short term. In the long term, the only thing that can make a difference is a devastating, catastrophic, overwhelming victory for the Israelis, where nothing is left living in southern Lebanon, south of the Litani River.

You know I'm starting to think Mr. Savage might be a wee bit racist.

No Man is an Island!

He's a peninsula.

Dennis Prager's latest article is on "World Opinion" and how we should not give a damn about it.

If you are ever morally confused about a major world issue, here is a rule that is almost never violated: Whenever you hear that "world opinion" holds a view, assume it is morally wrong.

That seems simple enough. The bulk of Prager's proof involves all the deaths caused around the world that nobody cared / cares about, going back to the Holocaust, and including the millions killed by Stalin and Pol Pot, as well as more recent genocides. The bulk of examples he cites were, in fact, soundly criticized by the world; but they didn't lead to military intervention. This is a weird argument for him to make at this point in time, as Israel is putting hundreds of Lebanese civilians to death, and he doesn't want anybody to put a stop to that.

But weak and confusing proof is enough for his audience, because the underlining message is "screw those prissy and condescending Europeans." And that's a message the right wing always loves to hear.

Rush Limbaugh Speaks

Are you wondering how Israel would characterize this latest outbreak of violence in the middle east? Well wonder no longer.

This is about a war on terror. You know what? I'm actually sorry, folks, I took everybody seriously when this war was declared. I should have known we didn't really mean it, and then I wouldn't have been this upset about it. In a real war on terror, we would have already kicked butt. We would have sent messages to Syria and Iran that you're next and that we're not going to put up with this, and that's why I thought this was a gift to the world when this fighting broke out 20 days ago. I didn't get back for the first week of it, but that's when I first had my chance to speak to you about this. That's one of the first things I said, it's a gift to the world because this is an Iranian proxy, Hezbollah, and a Syrian proxy as well.

A gift. This is a gift to us.

I think Rush's value system might be messed up.

Woody Allen and Scoop

I don't usually post movie reviews at this website, so I guess I won't today either.

Five Star Jerks

Bert Prelutsky is steamed up at our military brass. He also hates leftists and the media too, of course (and has to spend a least a third of his article on the military talking about the left and the media). But he's also mad at the occupants of the Pentagon.

Why? Because are trying soldiers for crimes they have committed.

Instead, it seems like every time I turn around, the guys with all the fruit salad on their chests are bringing some group of grunts up on charges. In a war in which the enemy dresses like civilians -- even, on occasion, like civilian women -- the boneheads at the Pentagon are more concerned with being politically correct than they are with the safety and the morale of our troops.

Apparently, Mr. Prelutsky believes that our troops should be able to kill all the troops they want and rape 14 year old girls if it suits them. To rein in this kind of behavior is, apparently, bad for morale.

Frankly, though, I'm not sure putting our soldiers in a moral wasteland is much better for morale. Once our troops get the idea that they can do anything they want without fear of consequence, and once some of them start taking advantage of this "freedom" what happens to morale then?

Horses Head Memories

There's another article on community reactions to the horse's head. Gail Soro remains convinced the motivation for this act was political. Her fellow committee members, Republicans, apparently see it as more likely a prank, although they subtly suggested that even if it was politically motivated, she may have brought it on her self.

Town Supervisor John Razzano, a Republican, said he hopes a culprit is found. He doesn't see the incident as political, says town officials work well together, and it may have resulted from Soro's approach. "She invites some verbal confrontation and things," he said, "but nothing she does justifies this."

At any rate, they don't know who did it yet; so it's possible that this is just an incredibly offensive prank or something more personal. We'll find out.

In completely unrelated news, check out this reaction to an article by Mark M. Alexander on the Republicans chances to hold on to the House this fall.

Omega writes:

What's wrong?

The inability of our Republican leaders on down to see the democrats as genuine enemies and their desire to instill tyranny. I guess you could compare it to the way the dems think of Al kaida, if you you just talk to them they'll change their ways and become friends. I view the democratic party as those who would destroy our nation for the sake of power over others' hopes and dreams. They must be destroyed at all costs! This IS a fight to the death....Let's Roll!!!

Not that there is necessarily any connection between this sort of mentality and putting a horses head in a local Democrats pool.

Warning! Low Posting Ahead!

There is one story of the day, and I can't write on it because I don't know what to write.

Except to hell with Hezbollah and to hell with Israel and to hell with people who support Hezbollah and to hell with people who support Israel and to hell with any organization that supports killing civilians, and to hell with any body who supports any organization that supports killing civilians.

What else can you say?

If you pick a side, Israel or Lebanon you are calling for the death of the other side. Or so it seems. If you don't pick a side you are calling for the death of both sides. Or so it seems.

So I'm having a hard time figuring out how to be witty and entertaining on this issue.

In other news I am keeping track of that story in Wawayanda New York (the Horses Head), and if it does turn out to be a dumb prank I'll let you know.

The Town of Wawayanda, New York

The town of Wawayanda, New York is situated in the Poughkeepsie-Newburgh metro area. It has a population of 6,273 as of the 2000 census, and a median income of $61,885. The names derives from the Algonquian word for a winding stream. Looks like a pretty place.

The town council has 4 Republicans and one Democrat. And on Tuesday somebody put this in the swimming pool of that lone Democrat.



That's a sanitized photo. A horse's head.

Police are still looking for the culprit.

I can already hear my Republican friends explaining to me that I don't know for sure it was a partisan attack. They could be right.

And then even if it turns out to be partisan, my conservative friends will explain to me that every movement has idiots, and you shouldn't judge the whole against the part. Most Republicans and most Conservatives would reject such thuggish targets, and they are who I should look to to understand Conservatism. Again, they may be right.

But nobody on the right is criticizing Ann Coulter for her calls to eliminate Democrats. They are ignoring outrages by David Horowitz or Michelle Malkin (while getting very upset over the idea that Liberals might want to get Joe Lieberman out of office).

You know the Nazis were a pretty big joke, until they weren't anymore.

Got this from Orcinus, which is a great website, but easy to misspell.

Why Does My Heart Feel So Bad

Larry Elder is black conservative. I struggled for a few moments to drop that fact gracefully, but than decided to just say it. That may color your perception of this article, in which he chastises President Bush for failing to rip into the NAACP when he spoke to them last week. He even has some suggestions for what President Bush could say.

"Ladies and gentlemen, good news. While racism can never be purged from the hearts of all people, it no longer represents a force potent enough to hold back anyone in America who works hard, invests in education and avoids making poor moral choices. Because of the hard work of your organization and countless men and women of all races, America has come a long way. Despite America's flaws, we can now say that we have the fairest, most free, more upwardly mobile and more open society in all of human history. We have black CEOs of Fortune 500 companies. Black people occupy positions in government at the very highest levels. The black middle class grows and thrives. It is an insult to hard-working black men and women to suggest that, but for race-based preferences, they never would have made it.

"The real problem facing this country is a growing sense of entitlement -- of you owe me, blaming slights of the past on those living in the present. Well, all a state can be, is just in its own time. As Bill Cosby once said, America has done its part. Now we must do our part."

I wonder what Larry Elder's life is like that he can look at America and say that it is the most upwardly mobile society in all of human history. I don't understand why in order to love America, as a Conservative, you basically have to put blinders on and believe that all other nations are unjust tyrannies compared to your own country.

I suppose it's the same sort of love that allows a Conservative to be convinced that the Federal Government is two steps away from taking away everything he owns while simultaneously believing that he loves America and all liberals don't.

As for the idea that we've whipped all our racial problems, and any thing that happens to Black Americans is their own fault, well, I can see why President Bush didn't choose to go that route.

Lamont Vs. Lieberman; Revenge of the Bloggers. Or Not.

Joe Conason has a great article out on the lack of power of us bloggers. Even Blog-O-Fascists. Believe it or not, very few of my minions actually do what I say. Fortunately I live in a bubble of denial.

A trait I share with Joe Lieberman and his supporters, who would rather believe his failures stem from a few disgruntled bloggers than from dissatisfaction on the part of Conneticut Democratic Party members.

According to the standard version, Mr. Lieberman is the victim of ferocious "liberal bloggers" from around the country. Dispersed across the United States, these meddling left-wing activists somehow conspired to launch Ned Lamont's primary challenge, and then somehow mesmerized voters, perhaps via the Internets, to reject the Senator they had chosen three times before. Combining Internet technology with progressive ideology, the miasmic and unwholesome blogosphere now threatens to swallow poor Joe in a cloud of angry, buzzing bytes.

Poor Lieberman. Still I suppose his bubble of delusion keeps him happy, and that's what's important in this life. To be happy.

Oh, and Mr. Conason - it's blog-o-sphere, not blogosphere.

why are you looking at me like that?

This story has already been heavily blogged, but, involving as it does, Ann Coulter, I have to blog about it too.

Ann Coulter believes that Bill Clinton might be a latent homosexual. Because he seems to enjoy sex a lot.

She revealed this . . . intriguing theory on the Donnie Deutch show, as reported at Wonkette.

Ms. COULTER: I think that sort of rampant promiscuity does show some level of latent homosexuality.

. . .Ms. COULTER: It’s reminiscent of a bathhouse. It’s just this obsession with your own — with your own essence.

DEUTSCH: But why is that homosexual? You could say narcissistic.

Ms. COULTER: Right.

DEUTSCH: You could say nymphomaniac.

Ms. COULTER: Well, there is something narcissistic about homosexuality. Right? Because you’re in love with someone who looks like you. I’m not breaking new territory here, why are you looking at me like that?

I have to say it's that tag that does it for me. Just cracks me up.

Non Religious Jews don't have the Right to Criticize Israel

Or that seems to be the point to Ben Shapiro's latest article.

Identity as a Jew is important in this debate only when that identity means a binding tie to the Jewish nation as a whole and to the God that bound that nation together at Sinai.

So young Ben's jewishness is relevant because he is a believer and because he has the right opinion on Israel (i.e. Israel has the right to do whatever it wants to defend itself, without regard to civilian casualties or common sense). If a Jew does not agree with the right opinion on Israel, he must be a self-hating non-believing Jew.

Young Ben isn't much for nuance, so I guess I can see where he might have a hard time conceptionalizing a person who wishes Israel well, but also wishes they would make smart and humane choices.

Truly Disgusting

Well with all that's going on in the Israel and Hezbollah war, and the subsequent human fallout, it's easy to lose track of what's really important. But thankfully we have Walter E. Williams to remind us.

Deaths of civilians? Nothing compared to the threat posed by Congress trying to regulate internet gambling. Because you see that is a congressional overreach. Congress doesn't have the power to do that (or 90% of the rest of the stuff they do) if you follow Walter E. Williams theories (and nobody does).

For the record I agree with him that this probably wasn't the most well thought out law; that said, I think it's telling that with all going on, this is what he cares about. Comforting in a way.

Supicious and Disturbing

Remember my loyal minions; do not do anything suspicious and disturbing. If you do, you run the risk of getting the crap arrested out of you.

Six friends spruced up in fake blood and tattered clothing were arrested in downtown Minneapolis on suspicion of toting "simulated weapons of mass destruction."

Police said the group were allegedly carrying bags with wires sticking out, making it look like a bomb, while meandering and dancing to music as part of a "zombie dance party" Saturday night.

"They were arrested for behavior that was suspicious and disturbing," said Lt. Gregory Reinhardt, a police spokesman. Police also said the group was uncooperative and intimidated people with their "ghoulish" makeup.

One group member said the "weapons" were actually backpacks modified to carry a homemade stereos and were jailed without reason. None of the six adults and one juvenile arrested have been charged.

So watch yourselves. Your beloved Blog-O-Fascist doesn't want to lose a single minion to "The Man."

Also, for future reference, looking at this website is kind of "suspicious and disturbing."

Talking to People Acknowledges their Existence

There are people ought there who disagree with your beloved Blog-O-Fascist. But I, in my wisdom, simply do not acknowledge such people's existence. They don't exist (despite what I just said). I refuse to dignify anybody who disagrees with me by acknowledging their existence.

This is the same technique used by the Bush administration. They were willing to talk to their friends; but unwilling to negotiate with their enemies, as chronicled in an article at Salon, by Laura Rozen.

"We would love to practice diplomacy with people who are worth talking to," said a current Bush administration official who asked not to be identified. "But you've heard it before: Don't reward terrorists by giving them any legitimacy or negotiating with them. Maybe if they came over to the right side of civilization, then there would be something to discuss. There's a way to go about these things. Their way is not the way of normal people."

Unfortunately for the Bush Administration, this view of diplomacy is being challenged by a growing number of people, including some conservatives.

"In diplomacy, you do not negotiate peace with your friends," says former Undersecretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Edward Djerejian, who served as ambassador to Syria and Lebanon during the George H.W. Bush administration. "You negotiate peace with your enemies and your adversaries. That is one of the highest tasks of diplomacy.

"In the Arab-Israeli equation, people often say we have to put pressure on the parties to make peace," Djerejian continued. "There's some truth to that. At the same time, you have to deal with all relevant parties in order to obtain the political buy-in and chart out the common ground to make necessary compromises to come to an agreement. For that, you need dialogue and muscular diplomacy."

"Real conservatives have never minded talking," insists Arthur Hughes, a former ambassador to Yemen under the elder George Bush and former charge d'affairs of the U.S. embassy in Tel Aviv. "It needs to be set up properly, to make sure there is no misunderstanding. But remember when [Reagan's former Secretary of State] George Shultz -- no liberal --convinced Reagan that the PLO in Tunis were fit discussion partners?"

My decision to not acknowledge those who disagree with me has no real consequence; the Bush Administrations disdain for diplomacy has serious consequences.

Bigotry means Not Giving Conservative Christians What They Want!

Any mention of the fact that some Christians want to impose their religious values on the rest of us is, once again, bigotry.

Poor Charles Schumer has fallen afoul of this, as he made these comments during the Stem Cell research debate (click here to see comments in context).

There is a group of people in America of deep faith. I respect that faith. I have been in enough inner-city Black churches, working-class Catholic parishes, rural Methodist houses of worship, and small Jewish synagogues, to understand that faith is a gift. The trouble with this group, which I call the theocrats , is they want that faith to dictate what our Government does. That, in a word, is un-American. It is exactly the reason the Founding Fathers put down their plows and took up muskets to fight.

If you do not like stem cell research, don't use it for yourself or your family, but don't tell millions of Americans who may not share your faith that they cannot use it, as well.

We have seen this repeatedly with Schiavo, or the required teaching of creationism in the schools, and now with stem cell research. Unfortunately, the President and too many in this Chamber and too many in the other Chamber have gone along and said that faith, wonderful and noble as it is, should determine what our Government does.

This administration is not pursuing what most Americans want, but following the dictates of the narrow few. Fortunately, we live in a democracy. In a democracy these issues are debated.

Yep, that statement attacks all Christians and all people of faith, according to Paul Weyrich, who seems to be popping up on my radar pretty regularly these days. He quoted the green section above (leaving out the larger context of the comments), and called for Weyrich to apologize to Christian Conservatives for infringing on their rights.

To call a group of people of strong faith theocrats because they want to exercise their rights as citizens and participate in government is astounding but not surprising. Senator Schumer would like to silence his critics.

You see Mr. Schumer they are not theocrats because they want to exercise their faith, nor because they want to participate in the political process. They are theocrats because they want their particular religious prejudices to be enshrined in law. They want to keep scientists from performing potentially life saving science.

And they got their way.

Do the Democrats have a Plan?

Do they need one?

First things first; it's always wise to describe your political enemies as dullards who don't know what they are doing, politically. Stand back a little, stand on higher ground, survey the political landscape, pick out a mistake your political opponent is making, and underline it, pontificating sadly about how this failure makes them unlikely to win in the next election cycle.

People want to bet on the right horse. Even if they support the losing candidate, they will support him more if they think he is going to win.

Mary Katherine Ham's latest article decries the Democrats for failing to put forward a plan of what they are going to do if they are put in the drivers seat. In one sense she's right; we do need to put forward more of what we are in favor us. On the other hand, it wouldn't matter if we did, if we let Republicans and the Media define us; we can talk about programs until we are blue in the face. Unless they can find specific attacks against our programs, they will continue to pretend we care for nothing except hating Bush.

But it wouldn't hurt for us to nationalize this election more than we have.