House of Eratosthenes

Whiskey...Tango...Foxtrot... VII

2006-10-28T13:19:00.000-07:00

Whiskey...Tango...Foxtrot... VII Like they say. "They're at it again." In January I had recorded some thoughts about the exchange between Bill O'Reilly and David Letterman...in which I think both sides would agree, the following sums things up accurately. O'Reilly shared some coherent thoughts after accumulating a serviceable knowledge about the given subject, and Letterman responded by freely admitting his ignorance, and being a smartass. Five months later, I had opined grandiloquently about what heap-big trouble we had made for ourselves, now that we had a discourse going in which half of us were irreversibly convinced Letterman had somehow won this thing. I mean, I was just stunned. Like I said, I come from Earth...a place where keeping the argument going, after 'fessing up "I'm not smart enough to debate this with you point by point" is unthinkable. Keeping it going is unthinkable -- calling victory on it is even moreso. Silly me. That's the way things are on Earth. My home. Guess I should be more tolerant of people who come from other places. Well. Everything that was old is new again. O'Reilly asked Letterman, point-blank, if Letterman wants the United States to win the war in Iraq. Simple question -- Letterman can't answer it -- and woontcha know it, the weird purple-blooded aliens out on Planet "You Win An Argument By Talking Around The Issue," otherwise known as Planet-Blue-State, think -- once again -- Letterman handed O'Reilly his own ass. Well, very impressive. But if it's not clarified what, exactly, the goal is -- what does it even matter if Letterman "won" by whatever definitions his deranged fans may choose to put in place? Who CARES? Do you want the United States to win, Dave, or don't you? My thoughtfulness demands an answer before pursuing your argument any further.

Bumper Sticker

2006-10-28T09:42:00.000-07:00

Bumper Sticker Being "pithy" is a real challenge for me. At an age when most kids were learning how to give off the right "vibe" with each other, I was reading the encyclopedia to pass the time. When it came time to get a job, when other kids were learning the fine points of customer service at the fast food restaurant or the shoe store, I was a software developer. As a result of that, I may have some strengths figuring out what must be communicated, but I'm handicapped in figuring out what could be left out. I look at such things the way a software developer looks at them: If something's in need of definition, and it goes undefined, that is a "bug" waiting to happen. So I get a lot of criticism for the length of what I have to say. Most of it's deserved. In fact, the high compliments that go with it about "good writing" or "great writing" or whatever...I'm mostly convinced that's undeserved. A writer is supposed to know something about his audience's mindset. And in the final analysis, I really haven't got a God damned clue. I'm always the last to know. So I can't write pithy stuff. And if, somehow, we escape a Democratic Congress next year, a fate which we richly deserve...and Republicans can hang on to control of Congress, which they do not deserve...whoever makes that happen, will have written some pithy stuff. Which I can't do. Not often. But I did think of something. The situation is summed up nicely, I think, by the border issue. The Republicans in Congress have approved building a third of the fence we should have had all along. Just a third. Seven hundred miles. They have authorized it...the funds are not there to pay for it. In short, they're paying "lip service" to the fence, and to border control in general. They say they're dedicated to it, they pass stuff that kind of goes in that direction, but they will not actually get it done. Democrats are dedicated to "immigration reform." They won't even say what that is, let alone actually do some stuff consistent with whatever they'd say it is. But they're completely united on one thing: Republicans are screwing it up, and we need to put them in charge. And thus it is with every issue on down the line. Republicans are dedicated to an idea, and their performance in moving toward that idea is a) good b) lackluster c) poor d) disasterous e) bass-ackward. Democrats are dedicated to...some cool catchphrase that will get people a) energized b) pissed-off c) energized and pissed-off. On all issues, the catchphrase is supposed to communicate an idea, but which idea it communicates varies from noggin to noggin among the people who are getting energized and pissed-off. Nobody knows what a Democratic Congress would do about immigration, or the War on Terror, or even the finer details of any of the issues Democrats like: Universal healthcare, minimum wage, rolling back tax cuts, abortion on demand. Democrats and the mainstream media -- but I repeat myself -- command us to pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Don't worry about what they'd do. The status quo is so bad, we need to communicate our anger...by putting them in charge. Well, in charge of what? What they want to lead, is so massive, so important, that this whole argument makes sense only to those who tune out of the whole process. They're talking to the folks who are so "overwhelmed" driving to soccer practice, picking up six-dollar foo-foo drinks at Starbuck's, and bellyaching about not having enough cash for gas. They'll just clear out that half-hour on Tuesday morning to vote how angry they are about gas prices, and couldn't give a shit about politics. But those are the people who decide things. People out of the reach of windbags like me, who don't know how to express pithy ideas. And because of that, the country is about to be run by people whose agenda is...who knows what. The best information to be gathered, is that the plan for fighting the War on Terror, is going to be for our leaders to command us proles, to stop thinking about it. And almost certainly, that will be done by means of bright shiny objects. Increases in minimum wage, bold new plans for healthcare...each of them calculated to address a social issue, never quite solving it for good. It'll be more about the noise, less about actually addressing anything. Just like the good ol' days. Two words for Starbuck's-slurping, soccer-momming, gas-price-bitching myrmidons: "Congressional Material." With a question mark afterward, and placed over this picture. That's what it's all about. Most people would agree, an election isn't about registering your angst about things. It's about selecting leaders who are going to make important decisions about things. Most people would agree with that...even Democrats agree with it, when they try to make the election all about Mark Foley. It's just, the folks who are going to put Democrats in Congress, aren't following through on it. They'll say they are voting for someone to bring about "change." But if you ask them what the change is going to be, only 10 out of 100 will have an answer for you -- and those ten answers will be all different. Congressional Material. That's what this election is all about. Make the candidates spell out what they plan to do, and we can have an election about who's congressional material and who isn't. For the challengers to say "I'm all pissed off and you should be too!" and let them get away with that...that's not leading to an election about congressional material. That is what's called a bitch pitch. And it's not the candidate's job to prevent that. It's the electorate's job.

Memo For File XXXI

2006-10-28T07:08:00.000-07:00

Memo For File XXXI Quoth our 32nd President, our "A Little Dab (o'Socialism)'ll Do Ya" President, the guy who locked up all the Japanese-American citizens -- lemme repeat that, citizens -- in camps simply because of the blood in their veins. The guy who prepared America for the modern world by, of all things, transforming it into a collectivist utopia; God only knows how good things could have been if it was a supply-sider carrying us across that critical bridge. We learn of this via some starry-eyed left-wing douchenozzle, via the much more venerable Fetching Jen. President Roosevelt argues that his hybrid-socialist revolution is simply a continuation of the American Revolution; it's the natural next-step. In fact, I think the douchenozzle hit the nail on the head here: "Our Founding Fathers had either not anticipated that need when they wrote our Constitution, or else they had felt that our fledgling country was not yet ready for that concept. But as FDR pointed out in his speech, many things had changed since then."

And so it was to win freedom from the tyranny of political autocracy that the American Revolution was fought. That victory gave the business of governing into the hands of the average man, who won the right with his neighbors to make and order his own destiny through his own Government. Political tyranny was wiped out at Philadelphia on July 4, 1776. Since that struggle, however, man's inventive genius released new forces in our land which reordered the lives of our people. The age of machinery, of railroads; of steam and electricity; the telegraph and the radio; mass production, mass distribution-all of these combined to bring forward a new civilization and with it a new problem for those who sought to remain free. For out of this modern civilization economic royalists carved new dynasties. New kingdoms were built upon concentration of control over material things. Through new uses of corporations, banks and securities, new machinery of industry and agriculture, of labor and capital-all undreamed of by the fathers-the whole structure of modern life was impressed into this royal service. There was no place among this royalty for our many thousands of small business men and merchants who sought to make a worthy use of the American system of initiative and profit. They were no more free than the worker or the farmer. Even honest and progressive-minded men of wealth, aware of their obligation to their generation, could never know just where they fitted into this dynastic scheme of things. It was natural and perhaps human that the privileged princes of these new economic dynasties, thirsting for power, reached out for control over Government itself. They created a new despotism and wrapped it in the robes of legal sanction. In its service new mercenaries sought to regiment the people, their labor, and their property. And as a result the average man once more confronts the problem that faced the Minute Man. The hours men and women worked, the wages they received, the conditions of their labor-these had passed beyond the control of the people, and were imposed by this new industrial dictatorship. The savings of the average family, the capital of the small business man, the investments set aside for old age-other people's money-these were tools which the new economic royalty used to dig itself in. Those who tilled the soil no longer reaped the rewards which were their right. The small measure of their gains was decreed by men in distant cities. [emphasis mine]

Now if you're sharp, you can already see the circuitous route that is being set up. Till the soil for small measure of gains decreed by men in distant cities; have a revolution to declare your independence; exploit your opportunity to the fullest by starting a business and employing several of your peers; make a profit and incur capital gains. Then...after the natural next-step revolution, the socialist upheaval -- once again, see the measure of your gains decreed by men in distant cities. Roosevelt says the circle has to do with the industrial revolution. We've exchanged one tyrant for another -- the magnate. It's ironic that what he's set up here, is a situation where the government becomes the new tyrant..."small measure of their gains was decreed by men in distant cities." How is the minimum wage determined? How is the marginal income tax rate determined? How is the capital gains tax rate determined? Who decides if we have a death tax or not? Cyclical. Roosevelt agrees with me on this...we simply disagree as to how it's cyclical -- who the modern George III and House of Commons really is. Quoth Eric Blair, a.k.a. George Orwell, writing as "Emmanuel Goldstein" in Nineteen Eighty-Four...about which we learn via me.

Throughout recorded time, and probably since the end of the Neolithic Age, there have been three kinds of people in the world, the High, the Middle, and the Low. They have been subdivided in many ways, they have borne countless different names, and their relative numbers, as well as their attitude towards one another, have varied from age to age: but the essential structure of society has never altered. Even after enormous upheavals and seemingly irrevocable changes, the same pattern has always reasserted itself, just as a gyroscope will always return to equilibnum, however far it is pushed one way or the other. : The aims of these three groups are entirely irreconcilable. The aim of the High is to remain where they are. The aim of the Middle is to change places with the High. The aim of the Low, when they have an aim...is to abolish all distinctions and create a society in which all men shall be equal. : Thus throughout history a struggle which is the same in its main outlines recurs over and over again. For long periods the High seem to be securely in power, but sooner or later there always comes a moment when they lose either their belief in themselves or their capacity to govern efficiently, or both. They are then overthrown by the Middle, who enlist the Low on their side by pretending to them that they are fighting for liberty and justice. As soon as they have reached their objective, the Middle thrust the Low back into their old position of servitude, and themselves become the High. : Presently a new Middle group splits off from one of the other groups, or from both of them, and the struggle begins over again. Of the three groups, only the Low are never even temporarily successful in achieving their aims. [emphasis mine]

I see a connection.

We're All Such Independent Thinkers IV

2006-10-27T05:38:00.000-07:00

We're All Such Independent Thinkers IV From One Good Move: Katie Couric interviews Michael J. Fox. Double-irony. Michael J. Fox says he couldn't give a damn about pity and just thinks he's got a right to air his opinion like anybody else. "Just have a discussion about it, and see what happens." Great idea. And yet the whole point of the interview is that if somebody is suffering, you've got to let them have the last word or else you are a COCK. Actually, that's Limbaugh's position too. We aren't really having a free and open discussion, we're just pretending to do that. The new rule is that Mr. Fox has to have the last word, end of story. Make it happen, you are a Cool Person^TM. Keep it from happening, by voicing a contrary opinion, you're a cock. The other irony is that while the argument "these cells aren't going to become a person anyway" is logically valid, and thus a good point, whether it is the end of the issue or not is a matter of personal belief. Well, now. It's just awfully tough for me to comprehend the idea that as taxpayers, we have a right to stop a huge marble cross or Star of David or Crescent or statue of Buddha from being erected in our state's Supreme Courts, simply because it contradicts our personal beliefs...but taxpayers have nothing to say about it when government is doing something they see as tantamount to murder. I'm not talking about something that can be proven to be murder, or something that can be proven not to be murder. Just something that's up to one's personal belief. I don't see how this rule pertains to the cross-in-the-capitol situation, and not the embryonic stem cell situation. The only other thing I'd have to say, and this is probably a bigger concern to me than those other two, is: If we're going to "have a discussion about it and see what happens" let's have a discussion about things that are true. There's no such thing as a "embryonic stem cell research ban." Oh, and to the best knowledge I have about the situation, Limbaugh hasn't prevented anyone from speaking out with viewpoints contrary to his. Ever. Update 10/28/06: As is usually the case, what I find interesting about this is not so much what has happened, and not even what is being said about it, but how these things are being said. There's something about the extreme left wing. They have so much to say about how things are and what should be done about those things. And it seems some among them can't ever tell you any of it, without instructing you on what to think. Ever. How you should come to think the thing they want you to think, seems to be beyond their capacity. It seems the concept of "skepticism" is something completely foreign to them, and they're completely, utterly, unprepared for it.

Rush Limbaugh may not be this country's most disgusting human being, but he surely ranks among the top 10. You're undoubtedly familiar with his latest outrageousness - claiming that Michael J. Fox was really faking those Parkinson's disease palsied shakes when he cut campaign ads for candidates who, like Wisconsin's Jim Doyle, favor embryonic stem cell research. Fox, who came down with Parkinson's about 15 years ago and was forced to essentially retire from his acting career, thus became the latest victim of the well-honed Republican attack machine made famous by the so-called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth during the 2004 presidential election. Limbaugh, with his audience of like-minded flame-throwers, is a key player in the well-organized cabal that uses innuendo and, more times than not, outright lies to savage anyone who dares to disagree with the right-wingers who long ago took the Republican Party hostage. In a response to charges by conservative talk-show host Rush Limbaugh, Michael J. Fox defended his appearance in recent political campaign ads, saying he was neither acting nor off his medication for Parkinson's disease. You have to hand it to them - they're very clever. Although few of them ever served in the military themselves, they've been able to turn war heroes into cowards. Just ask Democrat Max Cleland or even Republican John McCain - one lost his legs and an arm because of an enemy grenade, the other was a prisoner of war for more than five years - who were targeted by a well-organized campaign that started with Karl Rove in the White House and was spread by Limbaugh and his right-wing imitators on talk radio. And, of course, there was John Kerry, a decorated and wounded Vietnam War veteran, who was made out to be a wimp by a propaganda machine whose favorite candidate hadn't even shown up for National Guard drills. This year they've characterized an Illinois congressional candidate, Tammy Duckworth, an Army pilot who lost both legs in Iraq, as a "cut and runner." So Michael J. Fox is only the latest to be the target of the cruel attacks that have nothing to do with the issues, but everything to do with planting seeds of doubt and fueling the whispering campaigns. Limbaugh, of course, always tries to leave himself a way out. "If this was not an act," he said of the Fox ad, "then I apologize." All of which is nothing more than a joke, of course, since to raise the issue at all accomplishes the mission. The pity of it all is that all too many Americans fall for these tactics of character assassination. It will never end until the people stand up and say "enough." [emphasis mine]

I have to chuckle at that implied litmus test involving service in the military. I don't remember things being that way at all in 1996...the year a Republican "decorated and wounded veteran" ran for President against an incumbent Democrat with lackluster military service credentials. These people don't communicate ideas. They tell people what to think and when to think it. They figuratively pop open the cranial cavity of the "listener," stick the idea in, and sew things shut again, bypassing any critical inspection whatsoever. It's not just their preference. They simply can't do it any other way.

Beccy Cole

2006-10-26T06:04:00.000-07:00

Beccy Cole Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler and Brutally Honest, and probably a whole lot of others, have provided me with a valuable education about that country music stuff in which you plebes like to immerse yourselves up to your necks. Beccy Cole. An Aussie who just might inspire me to give the genre another listen. What kinds of people have been tearing her "posters off the wall" anyway? Well, we know the answer to that of course. Anti-war people...who shy away, Kerry-like, from the question of whether the job needs to be done, and then go on to "respect the troops" by repeating anecdotes and urban legends about rapes, naked people, flushing the Koran, over and over again -- only rarely can be found to say anything else about the soldiers closest to the danger. Well now. Since anti-war people have shown so much reluctance to arguing about whether the job needs to be done -- they go right up to the "Saddam Hussein was not dangerous" thing, but not one step further -- let's use an analogy to take the emotionalism out of it. Let's think of a job we all agree needs to be done. Um...changing a flat. Yes, that's it. Changing a flat. It's a JOB, okay? The driver, or car-owner, or a gentleman, is going to take on the job upon which the other three passengers depend. It's the left-rear tire on a busy freeway, so there's some personal danger involved with this. Pitch-black, raining like a sonofabitch. What would we all think of the sullen, cantankerous passenger in the back seat who is opposed to tire-changing...but whenever confronted with this realization, denies that he is opposed to tire-changing? How seriously would we take him if he insisted -- insisted! -- that he's a big fan of the guy changing the tire, but whenever the guy outside drops the lug wrench, pisses and moans about the sound it makes when it strikes the pavement? Demanding that everyone inside the nice comfy, cushy car, get a big ol' noisy debate going about the proper way to tighten the lug nuts, and whether the guy outside, whom he supports so much, is doing it right? Whether the guy is changing the right tire. Oh and he won't let you express any opinion that changing the tire is the right thing to do -- if you're in the warm, comfy, cushy car with him. No, you should be out there if you think it's such a swell idea, while the loudmouth "holds court" inside with his ideas left unchallenged by anyone still inside with him. The decision has been made that the tire needs changing. The changing is underway. As of December 2003, the flat tire has been removed. The tire-changing critic won't EVER shut the fuck up. How seriously would we take that guy? How about the notion that those of us who support the tire-changing, are in the wrong place, being inside the car? Would that be a good argument? Because it seems to me, not only would it be unnecessarily dangerous to all concerned having more people outside than the job demands...not only that...but if anybody's out-of-place sitting in the car, it'd be the tiresome complainer in the back seat who wants to talk about all the stuff the tire-changing-guy is doing that doesn't meet his approval. In fact, next time we go anywhere, it seems obvious the one guy who insists we should just keep on truckin', nobody ever performing any repairs of any kind on the car, under any circumstances whatsoever, no matter what's going on...I dunno. Seems really, really obvious that if he's still coming with us next time, he's riding in the trunk with duct tape over his mouth. Maybe after the tire's changed we can get that arrangement going on the way home. Anyway, I'm rambling. I do that when my horizons have been expanded.

Passing Up Tips

2006-10-26T05:39:00.000-07:00

Passing Up Tips Via Boortz (you need to scroll down to "NOT SERIOUS ABOUT THE MEXICAN INVASION", since as of right now his permalinks aren't working for this). We get to find out how incredibly serious the feds are about illegal immigration.

A national backlash against illegal immigration has many police chiefs squirming behind their badges. They're the faces of law enforcement in a country that doesn't always enforce immigration laws. But Roswell Police Chief Edwin Williams has found an unlikely ally to help him feel true to his duty: the fax machine. At least once a day his jailers fax the names of inmates suspected of being in the country illegally to immigration agents in Atlanta. It's a practice Williams started a decade � and roughly 10,000 names � ago, long before illegal immigration grew into a front-burner issue. Today, Roswell stands alone in the area covered by Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) regional office in Atlanta. No other jurisdiction in the Carolinas or Georgia sends such a list, said Kenneth Smith, the office's special agent-in-charge. The north Fulton city of 100,000 has faxed the booking sheets of 1,396 detainees to ICE in the past nine months alone, according to police department records. Immigration agents have picked up three of them, Williams said, or one out of every 465.

Don't forget to check out the chart at the bottom of the article. Okee dokee, I'm sure during an interview to explain this impressive lack of diligence, the feds are going to say something to the effect that this is the wrong approach, they'd follow up much better if Chief Williams followed the proper channels. Whatever. I'd just like to ask a hypothetical question about this. What if the electorate took this much, much more seriously than whoever is on the receiving end of these faxes? How would the electorate be behaving now, right before a midterm election? Suppose this issue was in the top-two or top-three on the minds of nearly all voters. What kind of a climate would we have... ...well. We'd have a decidedly anti-incumbent mood. We'd have a fever mildly expressing a bias toward the minority party, and suggesting that there will be a bloodletting in twelve days. But something that, at the same time, presents some resistence to being translated to a party preference. We'd have something just nodding toward the marginal possibility that Republicans might keep both houses...but if they do, boy howdee, they'd better watch their P's and Q's. Just a throw-the-bastards-out kind of thing. An "If you keep your seat it's only because we decided the other guys are worse" kind of thing. Both parties would be worried about their respective bases staying home. Democrats would be campaigning on "we are not the other guys," they'd slam us all with eleventh-hour sex scandals and work overtime on agitating and mobilizing the grown-up hippies. Oh and of course, they'd vigorously oppose any attempt to verify ID at the polling place. Republicans would be campaigning on "don't forget what the issues are," and they'd tip-toe around the observation that they've been negligent in standing for things, promising to do better. They'd find new and creative ways of making this pledge without going on record agreeing that things are screwed up. Rare, of course, would be the mainstream news story that would actually talk about this. Right? Isn't that what we'd have? Well. What exactly would you say is going on right now?

Best Republican Commercials

2006-10-25T05:24:00.000-07:00

Best Republican Commercials Right Wing News has a top-ten list, for the 2006 season, with honorable mentions. My favorite is this one by Larry Elder.

He...Needs To See This...

2006-10-24T20:17:00.000-07:00

He...Needs To See This... Once again, Michael Savage made me wish I had a longer commute home. He was opening his phone lines to a question based on two premises: 1) Republicans are far, far better than Democrats when it comes to national defense; and 2) in his personal opinion, this by itself is not an adequate reason for him to get out and vote for them. Maybe he figures it's an adequate reason to pick Republicans over Donks, but it's not good enough to get him off his ass over to the polling booth, to actually punch the ballot. So he was asking his listeners for a few more reasons. I live 1.75 miles from work (of COURSE I have measured it). If I were to ring in to his switchboard the very second I turned my ignition key, I'd still be waiting to talk to him by the time I was home, cold bottle of St. Pauli Girl in hand. So...he'll have to find a way to keep on pluggin', without my input. Well, he needs to see this latest ad by David Zucker. You see, it's not about the actual amount of money that is taxed, or that is spent. If that is the case, we need to put Democrats in charge because the Republican Congress has spent more money per year than has ever spent before. And then, we need to plan on replacing the Democratic Congress with a new Republican one in 2008 or 2010, since that Congress will surely have broken all records as well...seems like a pretty futile exercise, right? No, it's not about the actual dollar amounts. It's about the relationship between the government, and the governed. To the Democrats, the taking of the money is every bit as important as the giving of that same money. It's not so much about gifting those stolen assets to the poor, downtrodden -- um, actually, to those who live their private lives in ways upon which the bureaucracy smiles, whether those lifestyles are productive or not. No, it's not really about that. It's about the infliction of pain upon those groups that do not merit the approval of the bureaucracy. Smokers. Working stiffs that make more than 100k a year. Investors. Small business owners. Republicans are all drunk on the elixir of "Buy More Votes With Public Funds." That is true. In this sense, they are no better than Democrats. But at least, the act of taxing is a real necessity. It is a necessary evil. A means to an end. Democrats...have become intoxicated on a wholly different elixir. And they've remained in their drunken stupor for a generation, or more. They're all about...if we tax the right people, the act of taxation, has a certain nobility to it. We should work on taxing them even more. Saving money for the taxpayer? Screw that! We're Democrats. We're all about targeting the correct people for taxation. We tax people who are evil...people who are evil because the "majority" has voted them that way. The more we can tax them, the better. If we can tax them into nonexistence, that's better still. Of course that raises the question...from whence do we get our tax revenues? We are Democrats. We believe in big people telling little people what to think. So you are commanded, Wizard-Of-Oz style, not to worry about that.

Whiskey...Tango...Foxtrot... VI

2006-10-24T19:31:00.000-07:00

Whiskey...Tango...Foxtrot... VI Via Best of the Web: Why do we tolerate candidates like this. Even if you agree with them, and even if you think the other guy is so terrible. Why does anyone tolerate them? You punch the hole next to these guys' names, and you are part of the problem. It's a carbuncle on the ass cheek of American politics, and it reflects poorly on us all.

Inquirer: Let me ask you to shift gears to the anti-terrorism initiatives. Last night in the debate, I think you said that you'd support warrantless wiretapping. How does that square with your suspicion about this White House? Why would you be willing to let them do that without judicial oversight? And on the Military Commissions Act, would that have been something you would have supported? In general, your outlook on anti terrorism initiatives. Casey: Yeah, I think going backwards the, with regard to the detainees and interrogation, look, we've had people like John McCain, and you could give other examples as well, but people who have looked at this for a long time who have been very serious about making sure that we are very tough in our interrogation, that we get as much information as possible from those we detain and interrogate and also John McCain, showing the kind of independence that Rick Santorum never seems to show, took on the administration and I think they, based upon their experience, I think they got it right and I think I would have support that. Secondly, on the question of wiretaps, my position all along has been we've got to do everything possible and give every tool that government agencies need, intelligence, law enforcement, give them the tools they need to fight this war on terror. And I think we, in terms of wiretapping, whether its terrorists, known terrorists, or suspected terrorists, we've gotta give this government all the tools it can. And I think what we've seen in the past is the system that has been set up when its operated according to the law, and when the administration goes and puts a wiretap in place and then comes back later and gets a warrant after the fact, the system that has been set up is a pretty solid system, but they often don't comply with it. You can support having a lot of tough wiretapping, but also support the kind of tough oversight of the administration, which I think has been lacking. And I think we can have the two in balance at right. Inquirer: Well, it might have been misreported this morning, but it certainly seemed to me as if you were endorsing the NSA program which is warrantless wiretapping without court oversight. Casey: Well, I think, look, my position all along has been you've got to have the ability to wiretap known or suspected terrorists, and I am going to make sure that everything I do in this area is focused on anti-terrorism and making sure that we are being as tough as possible to ferret out any kind of plot or and kind of terrorist activity. Inquirer: Bob, it's real simple, and it seems to me you are dancing around it. Either you believe that the President or his designees need to go to the FISA court and provide some probable cause for the wiretapping, or you don't. They say they don't. They say they can do it on their own say so and there's no oversight of whether the person they're wiretapping is actually credibly a terrorist suspect or not. That's the issue. Do they have to go through the FISA court or not? Nobody's debating that we need to wiretap suspected terrorists. Casey: You know very well that Senator Specter has worked very hard on this to try to get this right and I think with bipartisan cooperation, working with people like Senator Specter, as I know I can, that we can get this right. I don't, I don't, I don't see what the... Inquirer: It's a real simple question. Do they need to go through the FISA Court as the FISA law has said since 1973 or don't they? They say they don't. We say they do. What do you say? Casey: I think it's worked well. Inquirer: What has worked well? Casey: I think it's worked well when you use that system and you use it in the context of making sure that we are doing everything possible to, to... Inquirer: So, are you saying that the president has been breaking the law since 2002, or whenever the NSA program started? Casey: I'm saying that people like Senator Specter have a lot of questions about whether or not the law was broken. I don't think anyone has made a determination about that. I think that's pretty clear.

May I address the Bob Casey, Jr. loyalists for just a few seconds. This asshole wants to make life-and-death decisions about protecting your family from terrorists who would cook their own weiners on a big hot plate just to blow your kids into so many bite-sized McNuggets. And if you went out to buy some crummy five thousand dollar car on a Friday night, and the greaseball used-car salesman was only a quarter as evasive as the Senate hopeful is being in this interview, you'd walk the hell out of there and not look back. On the principle of the thing. To protect a crummy, stupid little five thousand dollar investment. Versus -- your...childrens'...LIVES. Oh yeah, I know that makes me some kind of Republican scare-monger. Yeah, I get that. Well guess what. "Global Warming" is not a proven threat just yet...terrorists blowing themselves up to take out a few thousand of us, randomly-selected, IS a proven threat. Remember?

This Is Good XXVII

2006-10-24T19:22:00.000-07:00

This Is Good XXVII Via Boortz: Very Funny Ads.

Professor: Faculty SHOULD Be Liberal

2006-10-24T19:14:00.000-07:00

Professor: Faculty SHOULD Be Liberal Just something to remember next time someone forcefully denies the liberal bias in the academia. And it should lead to a question: Does the denier agree with the position of this person who says this is the way things should be? And if so, are these positions to be taken seriously? That the liberal bias ought to be existing, and the educational institution is derelict in it's duty to bring it about?

Professor: Faculty SHOULD be liberal Donald Lazere, a University of Iowa visiting professor, will present a lecture and discussion entitled "Two Cheers for Political Correctness: Why Higher Education SHOULD Have a Liberal Bias" from 5 to 7 p.m. Friday, Oct. 27, in Room S401 in the Pappajohn Business Building. Lazere's presentation, sponsored by the UI Project on Rhetoric of Inquiry (POROI), will be free and open to the public. Lazere will make the case that daily life in America is so saturated with conservative conventions that the resulting biases are not even perceived as such but simply assumed to be the norm of neutrality. "It is a legitimate role for professors in liberal education to make students aware of liberal or leftist viewpoints that challenge the biases in these conservative conventions. The frequent unfortunate result, however, is that many students -- as well as conservatives in the larger society, in media, and in government -- are inclined only to stigmatize the challenging views as biased, not the conventions they challenge," said Lazere.

Mmmkay. Well, look. Colleges and universities are already getting a bad rap from the business community, for failing to prepare graduates with the selection of skills needed to present resumes, pass through interviews, etc. etc. "Those who can, do; those who can't, teach" goes the maxim. I wouldn't want to see this situation deteriorate any further. And yet, the guy does have a point. If the students graduate without a sampling of diverse points of view, the educational institution could be said by some to have failed in its mission. So how about a disclaimer for all the liberal points of view that are presented behind the ivy walls, for diversity's sake and for diversity's sake alone. "Your instructor has worked hard to offer you a smorgasbord of conservative ideas that work in the real world; now, for diversity's sake alone, we are going to give you an offering of liberal ideas that DON'T." Just put that little preamble on the beginning, and then let the left-wing love-fest commence in that context. I'd be down with that. Come to think of it, so should Prof. Lazere. Oh and this other silly back-and-forth discussion on whether there's a liberal bias in our universities, or not. That can stop now. Right?

On Embryonic Stem Cell Research

2006-10-24T18:59:00.000-07:00

On Embryonic Stem Cell Research It's thrust into the news once again, as Rush Limbaugh is in hot water -- somebody's definition of "hot water," somebody, somewhere -- over his "insensitive" comments about Parkinson's Disease sufferer Michael J. Fox.

His body visibly wracked by tremors, actor Michael J. Fox appears in a political ad that was the subject of widespread discussion on Monday after conservative radio commentator Rush Limbaugh claimed Fox was "either off his medication or acting." A victim of Parkinson's disease, Fox speaks out in the ad for Missouri Democratic Senate candidate Claire McCaskill, who supports embryonic stem cell research. "I think this is exploitative in a way that's unbecoming of either Claire McCaskill or Michael J. Fox," Limbaugh said on his syndicated show. On his Web site Tuesday, Limbaugh appeared to back away from his accusation. "All I'm saying is I've never seen him the way he appears in this commercial for Claire McCaskill," says Limbaugh. "So I will bigly, hugely admit that I was wrong, and I will apologize to Michael J. Fox, if I am wrong in characterizing his behavior on this commercial as an act, especially since people are telling me they have seen him this way on other interviews and in other television appearances."

In response to this CBS news story, I did something really funny and strange and weird. Hey, this is the House of Eratosthenes...it's named after a guy who ran around peeking in water wells, eventually figuring out the earth is round, and how round the earth is, in an age where conventional wisdom said the earth was flat. House of Eratosthenes. Not "House of Some Guy Who Believes Everything He's Told." So I did my funny thing. I clicked the button on my trackball. I clicked open Rush Limbaugh's website to see what he had to say for himself. Yeah that's right...I went to the place CBS said they got their information, and gave it a gander. Silly me.

Michael J. Fox Is Not Infallible; He's Just the Latest Victim Used by the Democrat October 24, 2006 BEGIN TRANSCRIPT RUSH: One of the big issues in the Missouri Senate race -- as you know, we touched on it yesterday -- is the Michael J. Fox commercial which is entirely misleading and which is in itself an attack ad, and it is filled with disinformation about embryonic stem cell research and how Jim Talent wants to criminalize it. Embryonic stem cell research -- and, by the way, Fox is doing similar commercials in Maryland now for Ben Cardin against Michael Steele. But embryonic stem cell research is currently legal and completely unrestricted in both Maryland and Missouri and in the vast majority of other states. It's largely personal and institutional ethics that keep scientists from cloning research. The debate we're having is almost always about governmental funding or radical measures like the one currently on the ballot in Missouri, which is Amendment 2, which would write a right to cloning into the state constitution of Missouri, and it's one of these cleverly worded things that makes you: if you vote yes, you're voting no, and vice-versa. So we'll talk more about the Michael Fox situation because, as I knew yesterday, the Drive-By Media, including things like Inside Edition, are all panting (panting) to make something out of this that isn't. We will address that, but Michael J. Fox entered the political arena long ago. He became a US citizen in 2000. He's from Canada. He was active in the Kerry campaign in 2004 and he's entered the political arena again with this series of commercials for Ben Cardin in Maryland and Claire McCaskill in Missouri. One of the tactics the Democrats have -- and they've used this consistently. They bring forth people who they think are victims for the purposes of exploiting them, and when you bring forth -- for example, if you're talking about embryonic stem cell research, and you want to convey the notion that the Republicans are opposed to it, and in effect they're for people having Parkinson's Disease. Make no mistake that's what the intent is.

None of that, so far as I can tell, directly contradicts what's been presented to me in the CBS piece. But it makes some great points worth noting. Not that any of it changes my position on stem cell research. I have no religious objections to it whatsoever, nor do I have any personal beef with using up taxpayer dollars on the research. But at the same time, I fully appreciate there are other taxpayers, who do. Nobody, with any scientific credentials, or with a name and reputation worth defending, is willing to put their nuts on the block and say "Michael J. Fox needs stem cell research to cure his condition." Nobody is willing to say Michael J. Fox is doomed forevermore, to anything, without that kind of research. Nobody's willing to say Michael J. Fox enjoys some kind of hope for his future condition, that is dependent on this kind of research. So the way I figure it, people like Michael J. Fox need this kind of research, just about as much as your average Catholic needs a statue of the Virgin Mary erected on the steps of City Hall. Right? Oh sure, if the research does work out, it would mean a whole lot more to him than that...but nobody's willing to say that's the way things will go, or even that there's a decent chance that's the way things might go. Scientifically, this research is nothing more than a political prop. And a statue of the Virgin Mary on the steps of City Hall, while it would be pleasing to the Catholic voter, it would be deeply offensive to the Jewish, Muslim or Atheist voter. (Do Atheists get a capital "A"? Do they want one? I dunno.) Except...I'm really not quite so sure Jews and Muslims hold it as a sacred belief, that they'd be committing some kind of mortal sin by tolerating the statue. The Judeo-Christian voter who values prenatal human life for religious reasons, is being asked to look the other way while babies are being ground up. Oh yeah, reality is a little more scientific and refined than that crude metaphor. But not meaningfully so. And that's how I see it. Use a sick person like Michael J. Fox to stump for Democrats who support embryonic stem cell research...or use Christopher Reeve...or anybody else. It's no different from saying "So-and-so is a Catholic, and he'd really like to see a big marble cross in the rotunda of the Supreme Court." It's no different. Not unless someone wants to insinuate Michael J. Fox actually needs the research to take place. And nobody's willing to come out and say that. They only imply it.

The Don't Show Me State

2006-10-24T18:45:00.000-07:00

The Don't Show Me State I am a registered Republican and I am what I am told amounts to a "conservative" blogger. I take the security threats -- the hypothetical security threats -- with regard to the Diebold machinery, seriously. If someone wants to propose a plan to fix this threat, or legislation to ban the machines until the threat is addressed, I will support them. In fact, insisting on a paper trail is not good enough for me. I would support a reasonable plan to address this...even before anybody brings me concrete evidence of such a compromise having ever taken place. This is a left-wing hot-button issue. I'm crossing over the aisle by lending my support to said issue. If I'm supposed to be running my blog to promote Republican-friendly causes, in this particular installment I'm doing a pretty shitty job of it. So I am calling on all left-wingers and Democrats who might trip across this blog. Which, of course, as has been repeatedly noted, nobody actually reads anyway. Will you support me in insisting on measures to authenticate voters at the polls, and to ensure their eligibility to vote in our elections?

People in the good state of Missouri need photo identification to cash a check, board a plane or apply for food stamps. But the state Supreme Court has ruled that a photo ID requirement to vote is too great a burden on the elderly and the poor. Go figure. Public polls consistently show that an overwhelming majority of Americans--regardless of age, race, ethnicity or socioeconomic status--favor voter ID laws. And nearly half of the nation's states have passed them. Yet a string of recent court decisions has blocked their implementation in some places, thus siding with Democrats and liberal special interest groups who would rather turn a blind eye to voter fraud. A Georgia judge ruled a voter ID law unconstitutional in September. Earlier this month, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals blocked enforcement of a similar law in Arizona, only to be unanimously reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday. (While the Supremes didn't decide on the merits, their willingness to let the ID requirement be enforced in next month's election suggests some encouraging deference to state officials who want to protect the integrity of the ballot.) Also this month, a Seventh Circuit appeals panel heard arguments in a case concerning Indiana's voter ID requirements. And the Michigan Supreme Court will consider a voter ID challenge in November.

Not holding my breath...

Um, Hey, That's Illegal

2006-10-24T18:24:00.000-07:00

Um, Hey, That's Illegal This tactic we see with regard to Julia Wilson, the foolish girl who threatened President Bush on her MySpace page, is nothing new. She committed a federal crime by threatening the President. That's not my interpretation of things, that's just things the way they are. And as far as any relevant question you'd care to pose about the whole stupid affair, that just about settles it. Up is that way; down is that way; Julia Wilson committed a crime. Now, can you commit a crime and still be a victim? Absolutely. And in what we consider to be the "modern" era, you can advertise your victimhood to the point where a substantial number of people will forget all about the crime you committed. And if you can create enough noise about it, you'll rock the boat so much that the crime you committed, doesn't even matter anymore. Only a few of us are in power, you see. All the rest of us, our opinions don't matter in the final analysis. And people who are in power -- for reasons that are mostly unexplained to me, still -- are beholden to those among the rest of us who are easily distracted, if the powerful are not easily distracted themselves. In other words, we live in a time where any decision made that really counts for something, is easily swayed toward forgiveness of that which ought not be forgiven. Not forgiveness, really. Forgetfulness is more like it. This bizarre kind of authoritarian Attention Deficit Disorder. Criminal-as-victim: "Hey look! A bright shiny object!" And quicker than you can say "whiplash," suddenly no crime was committed at all...save for the treatment of the person who committed the crime. Now if you're the person who committed the crime -- why not give it a try? Why not play a round of bright-shiny-object-roulette? Or three rounds, or more. You have nothing to lose! But as this intrepid blogger reminds us...Julia Wilson committed a crime.

The girl was quoted as saying that the Secret Service agents were rather harsh in their questioning and were "unnecessarily mean." Okay, and threatening their boss and our President isn�t mean? I wonder how the girl would feel if her life was threatened. Would that not be mean? The Secret Service take threats against their President very seriously. No fourteen year old girl � nor anybody in the U.S. for that matter � is going to get in their way of protecting the President. The Secret Service probably wanted to find out if the girl was involved in any terrorist groups, had like-minded friends, and possibly if she contacted others to aid in an assassination attempt. Age doesn�t really matter when a threat is made. If a person is old enough to make a credible threat against the President, then that person is old enough to take the intense verbal questioning that the Secret Service has.

The blogger's masthead makes the statement that he writes logically. Well, we try for that objective here too...as to whether we succeed, we'd rather leave that up to the readership to decide for themselves. But if it is to be decided by me about this fellow's writing, if I am to confine my verdict just to this post alone...I'll give him a passing grade. Actually, I'm favorably impressed. He's twenty-five. I'd like to monitor him and see what he puts out when he's twenty-six. Good work. Ms. Wilson, herself...well, there's still some time to straighten out. I can't give her advice without getting in back of a long, long line anyway, and I'm not sure just one or two well-thought-out tidbits would do the trick. I'd start with, next time, let the facts about the issues sink in first, and then let the passion follow. And choose the hills upon which to die (not a threat). And know what a public forum is and what a private sanctuary is. And be slow to accept compliments your elders give you, just because they lean in the same direction ideologically. And, and, and...yeesh. Well, the poor girl's just a mess. But a young mess. There's time.

Memo For File XXX

2006-10-24T18:14:00.000-07:00

Memo For File XXX I never get tired of watching Fargo, and I'm not entirely sure why. It could be the oddball Scandinavian slang and dialect, it could be that it's only an hour and a half, it could be that it's one of those "Nobody's what you'd call 'NORMAL'" type movies. Or, it could be that even when you place it alongside a comprehensive listing of the "Hero's Journey" events, it does a very nice job of following them all. The Campbell H.J. works on a subconscious level, so it could be that. Surely, much of the credit has to go to the script. It's one of the cleanest film noir scripts ever written. Or greenlit, anyway.

Don't Repeat 1974

2006-10-24T07:43:00.000-07:00

Don't Repeat 1974 Via News Blog Central: Don't Repeat Mistake of 1974.

In early 1973, the Dow approached new highs in a booming economy. In the 1972 election, the new left was rejected in almost every state. The Paris Peace Treaty was concluded with North Vietnam memorializing its pledge not to interfere militarily in the affairs of South Vietnam. The nation was prosperous and at peace. Within a short time, the mainstream media were able to dismember and destroy the Nixon Administration, using as their sword the Watergate affair. In the congressional elections of 1974, Republican candidates were pounded, losing 48 House seats and five Senate seats. Until the 1990s, the so-called �Watergate Babies� (i.e. left-wing Democrats) ruled Congress. As its first act after the 1974 election, the new Congress cut off all aid to South Vietnam. Within a short period of time, this led to Communist conquest of all of Indochina, the massacre of at least 4 million of our friends in the killing fields of Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam, and the displacement of millions of "boat people."

What was it I was just saying about truth, and it's well-established right-wing bias?

Democrats Are Dangerous

2006-10-24T07:12:00.000-07:00

Democrats Are Dangerous Via Webloggin: Just Why Democrats Are 'Dangerous' When It Comes To America's Defense.

Here�s the Democrats� national defense record for the last 40 years: A. Democrat President Johnson misjudges the Gulf of Tonkin incident, pursues the Vietnam War until a liberal CBS TV announcer thinks we�re losing and says we should quit. So we quit and lose. The victorious communists then kill 2 million innocent civilians. B. Democrat President Jimmy Carter during the Cold War withdraws U.S. support for our longtime military ally, the Shah of Iran. Carter doesn�t like his human rights treatment of Soviet spies in prison. The shah is overthrown, and Ayatollah Khomeini returns, seizes power and creates an Islamic nation. Opponents are killed, the idea of suicide bombers is introduced to the PLO, and Iran�s oil wealth is used to spawn and support Hezbollah, a terrorist militia that killed 241 Marines in a Beirut bombing and that lately attacked Israel. Iranian radicals storm our embassy, taking 52 American hostages for 444 days. Carter fails in an amateurish attempt to rescue them. Eight military personnel and eight aircraft are lost in a desert foul-up. Democrat Carter, self-assured and well-meaning but dangerously naive, was responsible for bringing into power an Iranian Islamic regime that�s now creating nuclear weapons to wipe out Israel and blackmail the U.S. and Europe. Iran has further provided weapons and support to Shiite militia and death squads in Iraq and could provide nukes to al-Qaida, with which it has a working relationship. After the Soviets meet the inexperienced Carter, they invade Afghanistan. Then the communists capture Ethiopia, South Yemen, Angola, Cambodia, Mozambique, Grenada and Nicaragua. The Afghanistan invasion attracts young Osama bin Laden, who raises money and recruits other Muslims to fight the anti-Soviet jihad. After the Soviets leave, this band becomes al-Qaida.

The mini-history goes on for awhile from there...and there's a lot leading up to it. I remember Stephen Colbert drawing a lot of approving yuks out of left-wing hippy land when he made a comment to the effect that "the truth has a lot of liberal bias to it" or something like that. Heh. Step back and look at the BIG picture. The truth does seem to have a bias, but not in that direction.

Religious Scientist Taints Science With His Faith

2006-10-24T03:57:00.000-07:00

Religious Scientist Taints Science With His Faith That's a more accurate headline than anything else you'll read about this guy, anywhere. Yes, atheism is a religion. And as a religion, when it comes to scientists who "practice" it, it gets away with a lot more crap than any other religion could.

Does Bush check the Rapture Index daily, as Reagan did his stars? We don't know, but would anyone be surprised?

That right there is some brilliant "scientific" reasoning, Dr. Dawkins.

He'd Have Questions II

2006-10-24T03:05:00.000-07:00

He'd Have Questions II From the early 1960's with "My Favorite Martian" into the next decade, and with a brief resurrection in "Mork and Mindy," we used to have this interest in the shipwrecked space alien. The mini-genre limped along by exploring facets of our lives "earthlings" took for granted, but that a developed intellect from another environment would find stange for a number of reasons. Liberals, nowadays, have me convinced that perhaps bringing the mini-genre back would be a worthy exercise. We do far too many strange things, that are normal to us only because we've become acclimated to them over time. They wouldn't...couldn't...make any sense whatsoever to someone visiting from beyond who was not so acclimated. And here, I'm referring to the arguing conservatives and liberals do over what's a good social idea, versus what is not. Liberals say whatever a conservative thinks is good, sucks ass, and whatever the conservative doesn't want to do, is great; and vice-versa. This is all part-and-parcel of a two-party system. Thanks to The Otto Show, we get a great example of this kind of whining over here, where a lefty guy struggles to make sense out of his own beliefs.

If not for the liberals in the world, we would still be living in caves. Neo-Cons have no imagination. Because of this they fear change of any kind. The only thing that ever remains the same is that things change. A Neo-Cons, will never willingly explore new avenues. They discover nothing except by chance, and never take chances unless forced by unavoidable circumstances. Liberals ask questions, and find new and better ways. They embrace change and innovation. They believe in the saying "If at first you don't succeed, try, try, again." But Know to try a different way each time to avoid the same mistakes that kept them from succeeding, this way, they learn from their mistakes. Neo-Cons are afraid of the future because the don't learn from the past.

Huh. I wonder what kind of past that guy's been looking at. My recollection is, "learn[ing] from their mistakes" means to make sure liberals never run things. Perhaps I, and that liberal guy, are showing how a personal bias works. I remember some things, he remembers different things. The dispassionate-but-intelligent-and-interested space alien would be down with all this, I think. But here's where he'd have the problem. Certain ideas, such as freezing the minimum wage and the cutting capital gains taxes, would illuminate the effects of not only those policies, but their opposites as well. They would also illuminate the effect of personal decisions, good and bad, on personal destinies. In other words, if the free market has a greater role in determining our standard of living, it becomes much easier to see what works and what doesn't. If our standard of living is determined by something other than the free market, the contrast is injured and this distinction becomes much more difficult for everyone. And without exception, I notice, liberal policies tend toward this difficulty. In fact, that seems to be the definition of a liberal idea. Pumping more money into a failing public school district and requiring parents to continue sending their children there, doesn't have very much to do with punishing productivity by rolling back tax cuts. Taxing people after they've died, doesn't have very much to do with making it illegal to hire people for less than some arbitrary "minimum wage." There is no common thread running through those ideas -- except one. It is the erasure of the contrast between good ideas and bad ones. The confusion. Liberal policies confuse. They make it harder to figure out what works and what doesn't work. And so I think the dispassionate-but-reasonable space alien would want to know this: How come you earthlings spend so much energy arguing about what ideas are good for everybody and what ideas are bad for everbody -- and yet, only half of you support policies that would prove what's good, and the other half of you seem to be resolutely opposed to ever finding out for sure? You earthlings seem to agree on what would highlight the differences and erase the uncertainty forever. You also appear to be weary of arguing. Why not just spend, let's say, a decade or so, putting aside the arguments and just doing these things that highlight the differences? Then you'd know. Come to think of it, I'm not even a space alien. And this has had me befuddled for quite awhile.

The More Things Change...

2006-10-23T07:38:00.000-07:00

The More Things Change... From George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four:

Throughout recorded time, and probably since the end of the Neolithic Age, there have been three kinds of people in the world, the High, the Middle, and the Low. They have been subdivided in many ways, they have borne countless different names, and their relative numbers, as well as their attitude towards one another, have varied from age to age: but the essential structure of society has never altered. Even after enormous upheavals and seemingly irrevocable changes, the same pattern has always reasserted itself, just as a gyroscope will always return to equilibnum, however far it is pushed one way or the other. : The aims of these three groups are entirely irreconcilable. The aim of the High is to remain where they are. The aim of the Middle is to change places with the High. The aim of the Low, when they have an aim...is to abolish all distinctions and create a society in which all men shall be equal.

High == Republicans in Congress Middle == Democrats in Congress Low == Liberals who want to vote for Democrats Am I right, or am I right?

Thus throughout history a struggle which is the same in its main outlines recurs over and over again. For long periods the High seem to be securely in power, but sooner or later there always comes a moment when they lose either their belief in themselves or their capacity to govern efficiently, or both. They are then overthrown by the Middle, who enlist the Low on their side by pretending to them that they are fighting for liberty and justice. As soon as they have reached their objective, the Middle thrust the Low back into their old position of servitude, and themselves become the High.

Aw gee, no way could that possibly happen after the glorious midterm revolution of 2006 right? I mean gee whiz, we've only been promised Social Security is going to be "shorn up" for, like, I dunno, two generations now.

Presently a new Middle group splits off from one of the other groups, or from both of them, and the struggle begins over again. Of the three groups, only the Low are never even temporarily successful in achieving their aims. It would be an exaggeration to say that throughout history there has been no progress of a material kind. Even today, in a period of decline, the average human being is physically better off than he was a few centuries ago. But no advance in wealth, no softening of manners, no reform or revolution has ever brought human equality a millimetre nearer. From the point of view of the Low, no historic change has ever meant much more than a change in the name of their masters.

This Is Good XXVII

2006-10-23T06:54:00.000-07:00

This Is Good XXVII Via The Absurd Report, via Webloggin'.

Summit VI

2006-10-23T05:42:00.000-07:00

Summit VI Barron's has an interesting way of calling it.

We studied every single race -- all 435 House seats and 33 in the Senate -- and based our predictions about the outcome in almost every race on which candidate had the largest campaign war chest, a sign of superior grass-roots support. We ignore the polls. Thus, our conclusions about individual races often differ from the conventional wisdom. Pollsters, for instance, have upstate New York Republican Rep. Tom Reynolds trailing Democratic challenger Jack Davis, who owns a manufacturing plant. But Reynolds raised $3.3 million in campaign contributions versus $1.6 million for Davis, so we score him the winner.

And they conclude what, now?

Our analysis...suggests that the GOP will hang on to both chambers, at least nominally. We expect the Republican majority in the House to fall by eight seats, to 224 of the chamber's 435. At the very worst, our analysis suggests, the party's loss could be as large as 14 seats, leaving a one-seat majority. But that is still a far cry from the 20-seat loss some are predicting. In the Senate, with 100 seats, we see the GOP winding up with 52, down three.

Well, I respectfully disagree. Republicans should hang on to the Senate, I think. Last I checked, the worst-case scenario was a 50-50 split with Cheney breaking any ties. I think we're headed for that scenario. It's become increasingly difficult to imagine the Republicans hanging on to the House. But what if it shakes out this way? Good for the War on Terror; and I suppose we really don't have any more important issue than that. But -- what about presentation? What are the Republicans going to do to mend their rickety connection with the electorate, and demonstrate why it's so important to keep the Democrats out? The way things are going, even if the Republicans win, it will just mean our poiltical climate remains unchanged. You get immediate, and undeserved, respect if you huff and puff about the "dangers of global warming" -- a threat unproven, and at this point, not even credible. Should you pontificate, instead, about dirty little bearded men who want to kill us so badly, they'll piss bloody pulp to do it -- a threat which has been demonstrated -- you get from your fellow countrymen a bunch of ridicule and derisive snears. Should Republican politicians go on the offensive and take on this unthinking, mechanical, lock-step code of mindless taboos and Newspeak? Should they risk that kind of political capital? If they emerge, tattered but intact, after the 2006 midterms...they most assuredly won't do this. They'll allow the silly blue-state Hollywood culture to remain in place, unchallenged and therefore authoritative: We should all be worried about Chicken-Little threats, and pay no attention to the genuine threat behind the curtain. Not that I want the donks to win. It just seems like a no-win proposition either way. The soldier-slandering baby-killing global-warming-alarmists control the glittery entertainment world...or they control Congress. If our Republican leaders are lazy, and the voting public is also lazy, then what's the difference really?

More Joyful

2006-10-23T05:37:00.000-07:00

More Joyful Heh.

Scary Peace-People III

2006-10-23T03:48:00.000-07:00

Scary Peace-People III Jim Moose is the father of Julia Wilson, the highschool-freshman class Bush-hater who was pulled out of class and questioned by the Secret Service for threatening to kill the President. Now, a lot of people wouldn't like the way I worded that. What I'm supposed to say to describe Julia's predicament, has been established long ago. I'm supposed to decorate my description of Julia with meaningless platitudes like these (link requires registration)...

The latest Sacramento resident to be questioned by federal agents in possible threats against President Bush is a 14-year-old girl with a heart on her backpack and braces on her teeth, a freckle-nosed adolescent who is passionate about liberal politics and cute movie stars. Her name is Julia Wilson, and she learned a vivid civics lesson Wednesday when two Secret Service agents pulled her out of biology class at McClatchy High School to ask about comments and images she posted on MySpace. Beneath the words "Kill Bush," Julia posted a cartoonish photo-collage of a knife stabbing the hand of the president. It was one of a few images Julia said she used to decorate an anti-Bush Web page she moderated on MySpace, the social networking Web site that is hugely popular among teenagers. [emphasis mine]

The name of the anti-Bush web page, according to the article, is "'People who want to stab Bush' -- Julia said she doesn't remember the exact name because she soon changed it." Gee, how adorable. Like a heart on a backpack, or freckles or something. Anyway, I'm supposed to just ease you into all this stuff. She didn't "threaten to kill the President," she posted some kind of photoshop caricature of the President being stabbed with a knife, and insinuated that a passion for stabbing the President is a prerequisite for joining her group. Threatening to kill the President...that's just a concise summary of the situation that's utterly compatible with all known facts. How unfair of me. Julia has become something of a martyr for a whole anthology of liberal concerns: Our vanishing civil liberties that nobody anywhere can put into a meaningful list, President Bush's contempt for cute freckle-faced children with hearts on their backpacks, the rapidly declining level of discourse in the country for which they blame everyone except themselves, etc. Julia's father, Jim Moose, had this to say yesterday about the brouhaha his daughter has stirred up in an op-ed:

Sadly, I had expected such highly partisan reactions, which were completely predictable in the currently poisonous political atmosphere in this country. My wife and I agree that Julia's behavior was wrong, and deserved to be sanctioned. Believe me, she has learned her lesson. As to the charge that we should have carefully monitored her MySpace page, we respectfully disagree. We know our kids better than anyone else, and because they are all good kids -- Julia has two siblings -- we have chosen to respect their personal privacy on such matters, although we have been diligent in warning them that human predators inhabit the Internet. Had we realized that the Secret Service was reading her MySpace page, perhaps we might have paid more attention. To my mind, our policy of giving our kids some "space" in which to learn from their own mistakes does not make us "neglectful parents." The charge is particularly absurd as directed to Kirstie, who despite great intelligence and talents that could have launched her into a successful professional career, has instead chosen to stay at home the last 21 years to devote all of her energies to raising our children. I am intensely grateful to her for these efforts. She and I have the strong belief that we ought to treat our children as though we trust them, until they give us reason not to (which has happened on occasion). Thus, until this incident with the Secret Service, we saw Julia's MySpace page as akin to a personal diary. We respected her privacy.

Now, this is just wombat-rabies bollywonkers crazy, assuming Jimbo really believes in it. But I don't think he does. His command of the English language is at least adequate; he's taken the time to anticipate the response of fellow Bush-bashing liberals, and cherry-pick the facts that would most assuredly get some kind of a rise out of them. Not exactly rocket-scientist stuff, but it takes something to do all that. I just see knowing the difference between "private" and "Internet" as far, far below that. As in, being "shocked!," Captain Renault like, that the Secret Service would be reading something posted on the web for all the world to see. Local blogger "Fetching Jen" has written about this time and time and time again. But I thought her original post, about the October 13 story, was most interesting.

Yesterday when my son came home from school, he told us that a rumor was floating around the school that a freshman was pulled out of class by Homeland Security. Then we heard that the rumor was true:
U.S. agents question teen The latest Sacramento resident to be questioned by federal agents in possible threats against President Bush is a 14-year-old girl with a heart on her backpack (blah blah blah)... : The couple are disturbed, however, that federal agents questioned a child at school -- without her parents present. And First Amendment lawyers question whether the Secret Service over-reacted to a 14-year-old's comments on a Web site made for casual socializing. "I don't condone what she did, but it seems a little over the top to me," said Julia's father, Jim Moose. "You'd think they could look at the situation and determine that she's not a credible threat."
Excuse me... not a credible threat? That she even made the threat is outrageous, beyond poor judgment and illegal. Yes, it is against the law to threaten the President. Where does a 14-year-old high school freshman get this level of anger? From her parents, of course. Hey, great parenting folks. She must be a really nice kid. And according to my son, she's a piece of work, exhibiting frequent outbursts at school whenever she disagrees with something a classmate says or does. And her parents are neighbors and vocal supporters of the uber-crazy liberal Steve and Virginia Pearcy (WorldNetDaily: New effigy: Bush lied, I died) who hung the dummy soldier from their roof in an anti-war effagy with the sign, "Bush Lied, I died" on the uniform. [emphasis mine]

Jim Moose says his daughter has learned her lesson. I'm just wishing someone, somewhere, was discussing exactly what lesson it is the girl needs to learn. Don't threaten people? Try to get into the other person's shoes before you go off the handle and bully them? Takes all kinds to make a world? Or...us poor, poor little anti-war liberals need to watch what we say in that evil George Bush's Amerika because the First Amendment doesn't exist for us? I'd just like to know what has been learned from all this. Mr. Moose has exhausted his opportunity to write an op-ed for his local paper, just recycling a cherry-picked assortment of factoids from the whole sorry episode. Throughout his opinion piece, what opinion he would like to proliferate from these factoids, or what he thinks is notable about them, is rather unclear. The point of it seems to be that we shouldn't worry about his daughter and what danger she may pose to herself or to others. He agrees what the daughter did was dumb; he thinks the Secret Service was out of line in questioning her without a parent present. What, exactly, does he think was dumb about what she did? What does Julia think was dumb about what she did? My concerns are aroused, in no small part, by the second-to-last paragraph of Mr. Moose's piece:

As some people commenting on the story have noted, at least Julia has passionate beliefs and cares deeply about politics. One of the Secret Service agents had similar comments after talking with her. The things about Bush that Julia dislikes the most are his bigoted attitude toward gays and lesbians and his know-nothing attitude toward global warming. Though we share these perceptions, she has reached them independently, and she feels them with fervor. The most disillusioning thing about our recent experience is that it has proved to us all too starkly how ready, and even anxious, many people are to judge others harshly without sufficient evidence to form thoughtful opinions, and how truly mean some people are. I attribute these revelations in part to human nature, and in part to the degraded status of our political culture. I note that President Bush uses the verb "kill" all the time with respect to "evildoers" whose humanity he refuses to acknowledge. I note, too, that our governor achieved his fame through a series of movies in which he methodically slaughtered seemingly hundreds of one-dimensional enemies.

This, to me, is just stunning. "...it has proved...how ready, and even anxious, many people are to judge others harshly without sufficent evidence to form thoughtful opinions." Uh...yeah. You know Jim, maybe that comes from growing up in a household wherein you learn that your mindset is the only mindset worth having, and anybody who disagrees is something less than human. Deserving of the receiving end of a good, healthy outburst. Or to have their picture put on the Internet with a dagger photoshopped next to them, and a good old-fashioned hate group set up dedicated to their personal destruction. Gee, I guess any among us can step into Julia's crosshairs by disagreeing with her about any one of a number of things. Global warming and gay marriage will do the trick nicely. Fetching Jen's original question, "Where does she get the anger?," seems apropos. In fact, from absorbing all the material that has made its way to me about this girl and her appalling lack of judgment, Julia doesn't seem to be burdened by anger quite so much as an inability to recognize a different opinion as potentially worthwhile. Worthwhile, or...even if it isn't, you know, if that other person with the different idea is allowed to have the last word just one time, things will still be okay. About the sufficient evidence to form thoughtful opinions: Am I to believe she really knows that much about gay marriage or global warming? She can't know too much more about climate change compared to anyone else, and what everybody else knows about it is damn little. So what we have here, is a girl who sees nothing wrong with organizing on-line hate groups, inspired by motives that amount to...very, very little. She simply wants to eliminate people who don't think the way she thinks. Oh yeah, and as an afterthought if she gets in trouble and is confronted by the concern that someone might actually be hurt, she'll do some backpedaling. That right there is the trouble with peace people. What opinions they have -- these opinions demonstrate their benevolent nature, so nothing else needs to. They "gave at the office," you might say. Words, deeds...if any of these are interpreted by some to be poorly-mannered, or malicious, or even dangerous -- what is the problem with that? They're good people. It's proven. They have peaceful opinions. And they're willing to kill for them. Julia said it best herself: "I mean, look at what's (stenciled) on my backpack � it's a heart. I'm a very peace-loving person...I'm not going to kill the President." Yeah, of course, the Secret Service should have known that. Can't you just see Secret Service Agent Columbo, apologizing to Julia for having taken so much of her valuable time? Some of the scariest people we've got in our country right now, are our scary, scary peace-people. Thing I Know #70. Courage has very little to do with being outspoken.

Memo For File XXIX

2006-10-22T13:04:00.000-07:00

Memo For File XXIX Last winter I had a family council with my son about movies that have "Doofus" Dads in them. The reason for this, was that we had just seen such a movie and I had come to appreciate, over time, that this was part of a trend. I had no idea how big a trend it was, until we were finished. We found something, like, 50 or 60 movies like this. Movies are not trivial. Movies are important. During their formative years, our children come to form their opinions about the world around them...through movies. Nobody wants to admit this, since if the person admitting it is a kid, he makes himself look like a dolt, and if that person is a parent, he looks like he's abdicating his responsibility. Well, the truth of the matter is you can't stop this. Maybe there's an opportunity available if you're still married to the kids' mom. Maybe not. I don't care. I found a way to turn lemons into lemonade. I'm not in a position to fully control what my son can see, but I'm in a great position to instill healthy habits about how to process it. So that's exactly what I did. But wow. Sixty movies? I had no idea. Since then, I have come to learn something else about movies with "Doofus Dads" in them. My resentment toward this mind-numbed, silly movie-making habit isn't so much as a Dad; although it is partially about that, since it makes my job as a Dad much harder than it should be. No, most of my resentment is as a consumer of movies. I figure, when I spent money on a movie, I'm paying someone to be creative. Going solo, going on a date with "She," going as a fam and paying through the nose for overpriced candy and popcorn. Or renting. Or catching on cable. I figure, there's some huge money going toward someone to render the service of showing a ilttle bit of Goddamn creativity. That is the advertised service, it's paid-fer in advance, so let's see it. The "Doofus Dad," I have come to realize, isn't simply a father-figure who is a doofus. There are three rigid, rock-hard, uncompromising, distinguishing characteristics for the Doofus Dad.

He is unintentionally funny, such that while your appreciation of the humor may involve sympathy with the actor, it must also involve salient disrespect to the character himself;

He is dysfunctional in a way that creates problems for himself and those around him, usually this is in the area of time management, wherein his balance is tilted toward work and away from family;

He is oblivious, or at least quiet, about his dysfunction, until the last ten to fifteen minutes of the movie when he has his sickeningly predictable "OMYGAWD!!" moment.

Pretty structured, huh? But let's concentrate on that second bullet about the dysfunction. There's a lot going on just within that.

The trope about spending too much time away from the family is recycled in cookie-cutter fashion, way out of scope of anything that could represent real life problems in any numerically proportional way.

Spending time away from family may involve not being absent from the family itself, quite so much as missing out on special occasions.

The attribute of honor often figures prominently in this. Broken promises and all that. The filial characters do a lot of bellyaching and pissing and moaning about "you proooooooomised to come to my sooooooooccer game!" and crap like that. (Side note: When my son is being intellectually lazy as all nine-year-olds are going to be from time to time, I really appreciate the crap out of being held to promises I didn't make. Piss up a rope, you lazy Hollywood people who are probably childless yourselves. Assholes.)

I notice a common theme in the "dysfunction" of actually caring about what the family actually achieves and desiring to hold the family membership, individually or as a whole, to some standard. In Cheaper By The Dozen II, the two dads are competing with each other and, toward this end, demanding effort from their wives and offspring. It is implicitly understood that these guys are assholes. Not because they're ruining what should be a fun recreational activity, but because of their expectation of effort. Which, back in my day, was exactly what Dads were supposed to do. (Those were the Dads that deserved the capital "D".)

The repeated failure to uphold promises, leads to a tragic fracture of trust with the children. This is usually exploited by means of having the adorable moppet-kid flash a melancholy expression at the camera the minute the Dad makes a promise, so the audience can see the poor little tyke doesn't know what to believe anymore.

The act of instilling values in the kid, or even showing an interest in the kind of values the child should learn to respect as he matures, is repeatedly assaulted by the movie inustry for no reason whatsoever. Often a Dad comes to occupy the "Doofus" role for the sin of simply expressing a personal opinion, other than the most politically-correct, about anything. Anything at all.

Usually, it's left unresolved just from where the tyke should learn "Dad" type things -- right and wrong, how to change a tire, what's wrong with the world & what individuals should try to do about it, etc. etc. One thing is for sure: It isn't Dad. Most of the time, it's the space alien or strange animal responsible for the main plotline of the movie; nearly as often, this question is left completely unresolved. One other choice is an unstated implication that after the closing credits scroll by, the Dad will indeed bear the responsibility for teaching "Dad" type stuff to the tyke, but only after he has cleared up his glaring problems -- invariably, by abjuring himself of being a "Dad" at all, and instead evolving into a position of some weird older best-friend type guy.

Long list, huh? And yet...out in our highly-creative "Hollywood" land, we got an awful lot of product being pumped out that conforms to it, every word of it, hand-in-glove. I was noticing that about, of all movies, this one. Claire Danes is on the phone with her father at the beginning of the movie, which is a clever way of establishing that Claire Danes is in the movie and so is her character's father. Subject of the phone call? The father, a general in some unspecified branch of the military, has work related obligations and can't make something. Wedding, or something. And Claire Danes whiiiiiiiiines away, in perfect allegiance to the tired ol' trope, "You prooooooooomised!!!" Now I don't want to spoil the movie for any who may have not seen it. But this has nothing -- NOTHING -- to do with the plot. It is completely detached, unrelated, even awkward. ASSHOLES. It's like, when the script is being written, someone's in the room ready to bust kneecaps if the "Doofus Dad" cliches aren't religiously tossed in. Like I said, I really resent this as a Dad. I resent it even more as a person who pays big money -- well, big money to me, anyway -- for what are supposed to be highly imaginative and creative intellectual products, meticulously sculpted to make one or several memorable experiences for my family, such that we end up closer to each other for having sat through it together. That's what movies used to be. I don't think they even want to be in that business anymore. Well, as the customer it's up to me to define what the job is, and they impress me as not really wanting my money that badly.

Whiskey...Tango...Foxtrot... V

2006-10-22T11:54:00.000-07:00

Whiskey...Tango...Foxtrot... V Quick. Name a news service that is oh so unbiased or, at least, has a sterling reputation for same. A news service that takes great pains to remain objective no matter what the subject matter. Mainstream as mainstream can possibly get, entrusted with the noble endeavor to inform those who... Oh, stop laughing already. Anyway, the answer would be "Reuters." That hard-hitting news organization that doesn't even use the word "terrorist." Reuters, which needs kneepads and a bib whenever it "interviews" Democrats.

If Democrats win control of the U.S. Congress in the Nov. 7 election, it would turn the Capitol upside down and create a political nightmare for the already embattled President George W. Bush. : "In some ways it would be a nightmare for Bush, but in other ways it could be an opportunity," said Norman Ornstein, a congressional scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

Zowie! We're already off to a great start in this analysis. The "scholar" explored how a Democratic party victory next month would be bittersweet for the President, presenting him with both a "nightmare" and with "opportunity"; our unbiased news service decided to pick up on the negative intangible, which plainly was not intended to receive the emphasis -- and teased the story with it. Great move! No agendas here! What did the scholar mean by the "opportunity" angle?

Ornstein said Bush, who denounces Democrats as soft on terrorism, could move toward the political center and reach out to Democrats in his final two years in office to overhaul U.S. immigration laws and the Social Security retirement program, two goals he has failed to accomplish. But Ornstein said that was unlikely. "I've talked to a lot of people who know him well and are really close to him. I have yet to find one who thinks he will change his modus operandi dramatically," he said.

Okay, here's the money question, since we're all a bunch of voters who are thinking of voting for Democrats next month. This is what it's all about: What does "overhaul" mean in that context? What are you doing when you "overhaul" the immigration system? What are you doing when you "overhaul" Social Security? Let in more illegal immigrants? Throw the doors wide open? Slam them shut for good? Something in between? What? Make Social Security pay out more? Put more people on the receiving end of the program? Maybe tie Social Security and immigration together, so that illegal immigrants can get a whole lot of Social Security money? What are we talking about here? I need to know! I'm thinking of voting for Democrats! I need the information! Silly me. You aren't supposed to want an answer to that question. I guess...I have the "opportunity" to go looking for it in some other article. Reuters doesn't think it's relevant. What do they think is relevant. Well, the next few paragraphs tell us...

Democrats deny Republican claims they would try to impeach Bush and remove him from office. Instead, they plan to push their own agenda, "A New Direction for America," which includes raising the federal minimum wage for the first time in a decade, ending some tax breaks to oil companies and making college more affordable by reducing federal student loan interest rates. Democrats also promise to implement recommendations from the 9/11 Commission to bolster security, ease the threat of global warming and, in response to influence-peddling scandals on Capitol Hill, clean up the way Congress does business.

Reuters went on to demand answers as to how this was going to be done. How are Democrats going to change the global climate? Eh...no. No, they didn't. They didn't ask a single question about this stuff, or if they did, it didn't make it into print. Yeah, that's right. All you get is the crappy promises made. No plan. Just free advertising, that's all. Reuters, great job...you can stand up now. Don't forget the breath mint, and you need to wipe that slime from your chin. I'd just like to go back in time, let's say, twenty years and say Hey everybody! Guess what's going to be unbiased, objective, hard-hitting news in 2006? Well believe it or not, one of our major political parties is going to pledge to change the freaking weather and our centrist, unbiased, agenda-free mainstream news organizations are going to not ask a single critical question about it. I'm not kidding! That's really the way it's going to be in twenty years. Would they believe me? Well, I was around in 1986...no way would I have believed me. I would think this would be much crazier than the boasting about the time machine in the first place. And yet...here we are.

Not In It For The Attention, Mind You... V

2006-10-22T07:54:00.000-07:00

Not In It For The Attention, Mind You... V On Friday this blog, which nobody actually reads, was discovered by Webloggin' and now we are listed. With an impressive fanfare.

Webloggin Welcomes Morgan Freeberg, New Author of Blogging Excellence! By the Webloggin Editor October 20, 2006 at 1:33 pm in Feature Article We are very proud to announce that Morgan Freeberg from �House of Eratosthenes� has joined the Webloggin Community of Blogging Excellence!!!! Morgan calls his blog �the blog that nobody reads� but in reality he has developed a following of regular readers. So why is it called the blog that nobody reads? Morgan explains this best.
So the question has naturally arisen from that readership, why does it persist in calling itself �the blog that nobody reads�? Yeah, subtitles can be cool. Superman is the �Man of Steel,� and Hooters is �Delightfully Tacky, Yet Unrefined.� But what�s up with a subtitle that is starkly at odds with the truth? And what�s going on with that name? House of Erato- What? Who? Here it is, the long-awaited FAQ that explains all. However, it�s a Bill Clinton flavor of �all� � it depends on the meaning of the word �all.� Unlike our 42nd President, however, I�m not going to deliberately lie to you and then send my cronies out to appear on Sunday morning talk shows, intoning that the lie was okay because it was never your business to begin with. I�m taking the initiative in telling you, so it�s automatically your business, and it�s true.
So there you have it. Well actually there is quite a bit more. My favorite is �This blog is meant to be a monologue, but a dialogue is always better.� You can read Morgan�s FAQ here. While you are at it please stop by his blog and check out everything he has to say!

Webloggin' editor is way too kind. Three exclamation marks? Well, I'll take 'em. So is it really The Blog That Nobody Reads? Well...kinda, yeah. But as I've noted, the subtitle has a lot more to do with intent than with achievement. We don't say outlandish things around here to generate more hits, like...foolish nonsense insinuating our elected officials are starting wars to get revenge for attempted hits on their daddies, or for oil profiteering, or crap like that. No sir...when we spout craptacular nonsense of that sort of magnitude, it's because we believe it to be true. When you go the other way, allowing what's "true" to be affected by your desire for more traffic, you replicate a problem that currently infects, not only the "blogosphere," but the mainstream media as well. You begin to say things to get people to look at you, and lose your dexterity in dividing what's proven from what is not -- and what's unproven one way or t'other, from what's blatantly false. And so we have global warming. This blog, which nobody reads anyway, keeps in mind that "global warming" is proven or is pretty much proven...but at the same time, the idea that technology is contributing meaningfully to it, is in serious doubt. There is a significant likelihood that the importance of the human technology, may one day be proven as well -- and that, even then, the prognostication that our actions may have a deleterious effect on our continuing survival, is mythical. The supposition about looming extinction at our own collective hand, is complete balderdash. There's never been a serious reason to believe it, ever. To the contrary, gloomy omens of our self-destruction are every bit as old as written communication itself, perhaps older -- they have never faded away into dormancy. Ever. Not for long. But The Blog That Nobody Reads is always open to new information. Point is, that is just not the kind of idea that's going to get you a lot of traffic. So we're way down the list of the blogosphere ecosystem, #8244 right now, on a list which places DailyKOS at #3. That's the way thinking is. You may reach a conclusion based on what you heard that will get you a lot of attention, which is the way other editorials and blogs do it. Or, you may reach a conclusion upon which you, personally, would be willing to bet something important. Like a body part or the life of a loved one. That's what we do here at The Blog That Nobody Reads. We think -- sensibly. You will see, here, repeated references to "on your left nut thinking," or the prospect of taking your left testicle and putting it under a sledgehammer while swearing...to the opinion you reached. Being more willing to bet the family jewels on the idea you have reached, than to bet 'em on the opposite. It's a way of thinking most people don't do nowadays. And yet, everything we use to communicate our ideas to each other, every device, every protocol, every little thing that powers those other things -- without exception -- was invented and put in production by men who thought that way. Would I bet my personal fortune that I can use this generator to light a city without any gas? That I can use a packet header to tell the network what peer should receive the payload? That this page will display properly in a browser lots of other people have? People who think that way, build things...and then we use those things they built, to communicate stupid, silly, crazy ideas that don't make a lick of sense. And...pictures of girls in skimpy clothes. Well, the Blog That Nobody Reads doesn't fault men for being men. We cast our jaundiced eyeball, instead, on the silly stupid ideas. Or to be more precise about it, upon the people who genuinely believe them, simply because someone's taken the trouble to communicate them. It reflects poorly on our generation. Our children will look back on us and regard that as the hobgoblin of our times. We place credibility on the idea most likely to get attention, ignoring the ideas least likely to do this -- we'd be a lot better off doing the opposite. So that's why this is The Blog That Nobody Reads (although you need to read the FAQ to get a detailed explanation). As for traffic, since labor day we've declined from a lethargic, sleepy state into a catatonic one. We're showing a few signs of heading back up upward into "sleepy," a trend which will be almost certainly be reversed as we head into the holidays. On average, we're more-or-less hovering around the century mark, a hundred hits a day or just shy of that. It's not a very "happenin'" blog at all. But our "following," what there is of it, is very loyal. We're pretty pleased about that. And the "linkage" throughout the blogosphere is on the upswing, partly because of networks like Webloggin'. It would appear based on the timeframe involved, that because of the listing on Webloggin' Friday afternoon, the Blog That Nobody Reads was promoted from a "Flippery Fish" to a "Crawly Amphibian". We used to be number nine-thousand-something...now we're number eight-thousand-something. If that does turn out to be part of a long-term trend, I believe it would say a lot more about people-on-average than it does about this blog. I think people are tired of all the bullshit. I think they're ready to go back to thinking the way television-inventors thought, rather than the way television-watchers think. Several times a day, we are asked to believe that an invasion of Iraq is still up to some meaningful referendum. Deep down, we all know it isn't. Deep down, I think everybody understands this was a decision made by the White House in the spring of 2003 -- after that, it was a done deal. No point debating it, unless you want to discuss what we are to do "next time." Well, if it's all about what to do next time we have a lunatic like Saddam Hussein -- and you'll notice, this isn't something that ever involves a lot of waiting -- I think most people understand that whole business of "Doing Nothing" isn't a really swell idea. These are just sensible conclusions. They're opinions you end up forming when you think as if your left testicle depended on the tethering of your thinking to the plane of reality...not when you say crazy crap to get attention. As for whether people are titillated by it, my only hope is that when they spend the time reading it, they get something back that's worth their investment. I'm not out to sell advertising and I'm not out to sell newspapers. You will read things here, though, that you won't read in any newspaper. The two sentences immediately preceding, have a connection with each other...which is a sad, sad thing. But I think it's changing.

Factory Blowing Up

2006-10-20T07:03:00.000-07:00

Factory Blowing Up Via Galley Slaves, video of a fireworks factory blowing up. Cool. Unless you're the owner of the factory, I s'pose.

Why Do Black Americans Still Vote For DemocRATS? II

2006-10-20T06:40:00.000-07:00

Why Do Black Americans Still Vote For DemocRATS? II Via Bullwinkle Blog: There's a radio ad out that seems to be inspiring some controversy. Not disagreement, but controversy.

In the battle for the black electorate, liberals, who make up the overwhelming majority of black voters, have long disagreed with conservatives over ideology, public policy and economic strategies to better the lives of African Americans. But when conservatives placed the civil rights movement in a Republican context, black liberals said, they crossed a line.

I have no explanation as to why this would be controversial. None. Well actually, just one. And it comes from the Bullwinkle Blog itself:

Ever since then [anecdote involving "Daddy" King and President Kennedy] Democrats have considered the black vote their personal property. [emphasis mine]

Yes, it does seem to be a touchy issue. Left completely unexplained, by everyone, is why it's a "touchy issue" which party will get some individual's vote...because of the color of that individual's skin. Another ad will give me, a white guy, reasons to vote for a Republican...that's not "controversial." Another fellow may be targeted by another commercial, and this commercial "crosses a line." His skin is a different color, but his vote counts exactly the same way mine does.

How Liberals Fight Terrorism

2006-10-20T05:40:00.000-07:00

How Liberals Fight Terrorism If the following is not made into a Republican campaign commercial, and the Republicans do indeed lose, then some careers in Republican-campaign-land need to come to an inglorious and permanent end:

"(House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi's) opening statement covered a full range of Democratic issues: fiscal responsibility. The minimum wage. The trade deficit. Student loans. Health care. Energy independence. Social Security. Medicare. Then came the questions. "This is now the third election in a row in which they've raised security issues just before the election," the first questioner said of the Republicans. "Why won't it work for them a third time?" ..."This is what, I guess, campaigns will be about," Pelosi conceded with some reluctance. "It shouldn't be about national security." [emphasis mine]

You know, that could have fit on a bumper sticker. "It shouldn't be about national security" with a grinning, psychotic donkey face right next to the words, caricatured in a hybrid sort of way to offer the Minority Leader's more outlandish facial features. Does this absurd woman do anything in her personal life? By her logic, when you drive a car, it shouldn't be about staying on the road, and when you cook it shouldn't be about making something edible. Anyway. The article is just chock full of surreal quotes like the above. Prepare to be amazed. Update: I've been subscribed since early summer, I think, to the Democratic National Committee's newsletter. Howard Dean has gone way out of his way to make sure I understand, in explicit detail, exactly how he and his party will stand up to that most nefarious of world threats...the Republicans. On what his party intends to do about terrorists, I haven't got a clue. He doesn't seem to, either.

For The Anti-Death-Penalty Types VI

2006-10-20T05:26:00.000-07:00

For The Anti-Death-Penalty Types VI People oppose the death penalty because it makes them feel good to oppose it. There is no other reason to argue against it. Among people who claim to value human life, there really is no reason to argue against it, because you have to have a death penalty in order for a culture to reach critical mass and continue to exist in relative safety for the innocent people who live there. Yeah, yeah, European countries with wonderful crime statistics. Bite me. I said "critical mass" up above...this is important. Anybody who says it isn't, hasn't been looking at the problem very carefully. A nation comes to maturity and becomes more and more commercialized and...well, when you're not familiar with the territory, where would you like to go walking after seven o'clock? In a strange farmland? Or in the financial district of a strange city? Would you blame the higher personal danger in the urban zone on the municipal laws in effect there? No, it's not the laws; it's the zoning. It goes hand-in-hand with doing more things for commercial purposes. The industrialization, the occasional blighting of neighborhoods that goes with it -- it exposes the fact that some people simply have their gears stripped and can't live with the rest of us. They'll kill; we, too, will kill innocents, by proxy, by letting the stripped-gear set walk around. We have a moral obligation not to do this. This is ugly stuff, but it's all supported by the facts. Some of us feel good when such facts are ignored. They think it makes them better people. The lives of innocent children depend on those people not being allowed to vote, and I'm afraid that's about as complicated as things get. Today's tragic evidence comes from the Seattle P.I. Anti-death-penalty types need to be aware of this story, so they can get a refresher course on how utterly screwed up the human model can get.

After Hurricane Katrina, Zackery Bowen and his girlfriend Adriane Hall appeared in news stories as examples of young people who had pressed on in the battered city despite evacuation orders and a lack of power and water. Their story came to a disturbing end this week: Bowen leapt to his death from a hotel, leaving a note that led police to a French Quarter apartment where they found a woman's charred head on the stove, limbs in the oven and torso in the refrigerator.

It's just not one world, and we are not one species. Fortunately, this time, the trash took itself out.

How To Write A Headline

2006-10-20T05:18:00.000-07:00

How To Write A Headline For the record, I'm sick to death of headlines that follow the rules below. I have MSN Messenger installed at home, and for some reason MSN Today^TM seems convinced I'm a woman. Even the stories decidedly pointed toward the masculine set, e.g., "Meeting Her Parents," "How To Make Her Less Clingy," "Is It Time To Get Your Prostate Checked?" have that soothing, feminine touch. Not that I'm manly enough to know the difference between a field goal and a home run or anything...but the soothing feminine touch doesn't do a whole lot for me. I'm left with this Bugs Bunny type reaction of "He don't know me very well, do he?" Well, the MSN Today folks, I guess, are just really good at following instructions:

1. How to. Everyone loves a how to headline. * How To Quit Smoking in 30 Days Or Your Money Back. * How to Write a Novel in 30 Days. * How to Lose Weight Fast. Why do these headlines work so well? Because they promise a solution to your customers' problems... 2. Question. These headlines ask a question (obviously). If you want this headline type to work, it better ask a question that your customers want an answer to. * Are you spending too much on your car insurance? * Will your marriage fail? * Will you know what to do if you're in an accident?

So you mean there are people who actually like that kind of headline. Blecch.

Liberals Gone Wild!

2006-10-20T05:16:00.000-07:00

Liberals Gone Wild! Victor Davis Hanson must have been reading my blog, in an honest effort to figure out what his opinions are supposed to be. Either that, or he's been noticing the same things I've been noticing.

The Democrats have not elected congressional majorities in 12 years, and they've occupied the White House in only eight of the last 26 years. The left's current unruliness seems a way of scapegoating others for a more elemental frustration - that they can't gain a national majority based on their core beliefs. More entitlements, higher taxes to pay for them, gay marriage, de facto quotas in affirmative action, open borders, abortion on demand, and radical secularism - these liberal issues don't tend to resonate with most Americans. To compensate, leftist pundits, billionaire philanthropists and politicians, from current officeholders to ex-presidents, work to ensure that isolated moments of Republican ineptness (George Bush strutting on a carrier deck in his flight suit) and wrongdoing (repulsive e-mails from a perverted Congressman Mark Foley) blare out as the only issues of the day. This distracting drumbeat, not their own agenda, is the only strategy for success in the next election.

Go read the whole thing...

Let's Push Some Buttons

2006-10-19T19:46:00.000-07:00

Let's Push Some Buttons One of the tragic things to happen to American discourse, is that we tend to get caught up in what outlandish things we can say to get attention. Like for example...nobody would bet any real money that mankind is causing global warming, and facing extinction as a result. Or that we'd be better off if men were barred from holding public office for the next hundred years, or that Saddam Hussein made life better for people in Iraq than the way things are with him gone. Nobody would bet any serious money on those things. Certainly not important body parts. But people say things like that all the time. It's the price we pay for being an affluent society. People get to say silly, outlandish things all the time. And they don't pay any price for saying these things. We're too comfortable to pay prices for holding the wrong opinions. And this ends up hurting our collective ability to think problems through logically. So let's go all the way. I say, let's just circumvent the tricky issue of how to get to the things we want...and discuss what it is we want to do. I think that's what is lacking in 2006, right before our elections. Here we go. This is my "America" button. Push this button, and over in Iraq our guys are going to win and the terrorists are gonna lose. Nevermind how. The terrorists get captured or killed. Maybe the really good ones drop dead of heart attacks, and all the rest of them crap their pants and get captured. Or something. Point is, we win. Instantly. Guaranteed. All you have to do, is push the button. Would I push it? Hell ya! Get outta my way, I'd push the button. Okay, now this is my "No America" button. You push this, and we LOSE. That's right, the terrorists kick our asses. I would not push that button. No, no, no, no, no. If I could take it apart, I would snip the wires. Osama bin Laden, of course, would like that button pushed. And so would a bunch of other dirty evil men. But I don't want that button pushed, and I don't think you do either. Mmmkay? This is where things get tricky. If you push this button, it's World War II all over again. We're going to have our elections and the Democrats are going to kick ass. Not only that, but all Republicans will wake up tomorrow with their heads full of Democrat thoughts. Everybody's going to have an irrational fear of Pat Robertson breaking into their bedrooms and busting them for having sex in the wrong position. And confiscating their condoms. All Republicans lose in November. All Democrats win. President Bush resigns, and (somehow) a liberal Democrat takes his place as our new President. Immediately. Oh, and the button also does what that first button does. We kick ass in Iraq. As far as I'm concerned, that right there is a fair trade. I'd push it. Push it, push it, push it, push it. Of course, the Democrats would get ALL the credit for kicking that terrorist ass. Everyone would go "Yay, Democrats! They kick terrorist ass!" I know that's silly...but anyway, that's all good. I'd push the button. Ah...well, you know what this button does. Push this, and nobody cares about Democrat issues. We all wake up tomorrow with an unquenchable thirst for dead terrorists and tax cuts. Republicans win, and...we kick ass in Iraq. Yeah, I'd push that button of course. Now, Democrats...which of those buttons would you push? And therein lies my point. We seem to have hit this bizarre little chapter in American history where one of our major political parties, has evolved into perfect and total opposition to, quite simply, knowing what to do. I personally know of a few Democrats who would join me in pressing that first button. Just a few. For all the rest of them -- and this includes the ones I see on television, as well as the ones I know -- the Shakespearean question of "to press, or not to press" is met with...some kind of silly speech. "Well, what I WANT is for George Bush to pull his head out of..." Anything to avoid stating the actual goal, in terms that are easily understood. "I don't want to push the button that would make America lose, personally, but under the leadership we have NOW..." Just more speeches. That's it. Throughout the twentieth century, when Democrats won elections, they did so through the populist route: We perceive a lot of people want this thing, right or wrong...if your financial interests are aligned such that you also want the thing, you should vote for us. Other people have different interests but there are more of us than there are of them, and we're going to win. In other words, from the gold-standard issues, right up until Watergate, they won by identifying their peers and I apply that plural in the most narrow definition possible: Companions who share interests. You and I don't both have to like orange sherbet, or football; if what's good for me is also good for you, climb on board. More of us, than there are of them. Here it is 2006, the nation is bitterly divided...and yet, Democrats lost three elections in a row. Barely. Between Watergate and today, they've won not by defining peerages, but by sliming the other guys. It doesn't work very often. What they need to do, is to go back to forming peerages. Defining common interests that appeal to so many people, that it really doesn't matter who would be outside of those interests or who would be hurt by those interests. I have to think the movers-and-shakers in the Democratic party know this. And yet, they won't tell us which buttons they'll press and which buttons they won't. Neither will their rank-and-file. They've got a situation going where they can't do this. And they seem to like it that way. That's kind of unsettling.

Cheer Up

2006-10-19T06:35:00.000-07:00

Cheer Up Let me be the first to comment on the self-inflicted damage we do when we put our faith in irrational optimism. From early on, I've had an appreciation that the rosey outlook offered by optimism is not only lacking in value; it tends to do damage. I've seen it. In fact, pessimists have a leg-up in achieving superior results. I've seen that too. But pessimism works only so long as it's confined to the situation-at-hand, and curtailed from poisoning the vision for the future. And in apply to the situation-at-hand, it's only a help so long as it provides a superior fastening to the plane of reality. An election is near, and we have a lot of pessimism. It is engineered -- engineered, I say -- to do anything, anything, anything but provide a superior fastening to the plane of reality. More like a de-coupling. George F. Will sets us straight. Read up.

Nancy Pelosi vows that if Democrats capture Congress they will "jump-start our economy." A "jump-start" is administered to a stalled vehicle. But since the Bush tax cuts went into effect in 2003, the economy's growth rate (3.5 percent) has been better than the average for the 1980s (3.1) and 1990s (3.3). Today's unemployment rate (4.6 percent) is lower than the average for the 1990s (5.8) -- lower, in fact, than the average for the last 40 years (6.0). Some stall. : The Jack No. 2 well, in deep water 170 miles southwest of New Orleans, recently discovered a field with perhaps 15 billion barrels of oil -- a 50 percent increase in proven U.S. reserves. This news triggered a gusher of journalistic gloom: More oil means more woe -- a reprieve for that enemy of humanity, the internal combustion engine, and more global warming, more air pollution, more highway fatalities, more suburban sprawl. The recent 20 percent decline of the cost of a barrel of oil, from a nominal record of $78.40 (which, adjusted for inflation, was well below the 1980 peak of $92 in 2006 dollars), has produced an 81-cent decline in the average cost of a gallon of regular gasoline in 70 days. For consumers, that is akin to a tax cut of more than $81 billion.

If you don't have a good understanding of the difference between a fact and opinion -- not quite as simple a matter as it sounds -- you use the honor system when you depend on your "news" sources to tell you what's up, as opposed to who to vote for. And if those "news" sources don't understand this critical difference, then they use your vote as a barometer of how well they're doing their jobs. And nobody in this country, on either side of the aisle, wants things to work that way. Er, let me rephrase that. Nobody with a reputation worth defending will admit to that.

Memo For File XXVIII

2006-10-18T06:06:00.000-07:00

Memo For File XXVIII Yesterday in the Best of the Web column, James Taranto poked fun at the Democrats for coming up with yet another slogan.

The Democrats have a new slogan, the Associated Press reports:
Ned Lamont uses it in his Connecticut Senate race. President Clinton is scheduled to speak on the idea in Washington this week. Bob Casey Jr., Pennsylvania candidate for Senate, put it in the title of his talk at The Catholic University of America--then repeated the phrase 29 times. The term is "common good," and it's catching on as a way to describe liberal values and reach religious voters who rejected Democrats in the 2004 election. Led by the Center for American Progress, a Washington think-tank, party activists hope the phrase will do for them what "compassionate conservative" did for the Republicans. "It's a core value that we think organizes the entire political agenda for progressives," said John Halpin, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. "With the rise of materialism, greed and corruption in American society, people want a return to a better sense of community--sort of a shared sacrifice, a return to the ethic of service and duty."
Isn't this about the 87th slogan the Dems have come up with? Remember "culture of corruption," "America can do better," "enough is enough," etc.? Maybe the Republican slogan should be "slogans are not enough." Then again, maybe they are enough. It now seems within the realm of possibility that Democrats will take one or both houses of Congress in three weeks, even though they are campaigning on not much more than not being Republicans. But the Republicans are campaigning on not much more than not being Democrats. To our mind the Republicans have the better of this argument, but there is something to be said for punishing the party in power if its performance has been subpar.

I was intrigued by this speech using the phrase 29 times, by the challenger to Sen. Rick Santorum's seat in Pennsylvania. So I scoured the web and eventually found a full transcript on Bob Casey's campaign website. It's a damn good speech, neatly capturing everything that has ever appealed to humanity about this "common good" concept. He presents the result in such a way that, if you're unacquainted with this debate, you're left thinking "who could possibly argue with that?" In other words, his speech does exactly what speeches are supposed to do.

When I was growing up, most parents believed that their children would have better lives and more opportunities than they themselves had, and we all believed in the promise of tomorrow and a brighter future. A perfect example of that belief was my grandfather, Alphonsus L. Casey, who went to work in the darkness and danger of the anthracite coal mines as a mule boy when he was just 11 years old. The novelist Stephen Crane wrote about miners and mule boys "toiling in this city of endless night." And he described how mule boys would carry a lamp and "run ahead with the light" in the darkness. Only in a country like America could a mule boy go on to earn a law degree and create a new life for himself and his family, one that would inspire his son to carry a different kind of light as the governor of Pennsylvania. But something seems to have changed in recent years. Instead of hope, fear threatens to become the pervasive feeling in this country. We now live in a country where, according to a recent Pew study, only one third of all parents expect their children to be better off than they themselves are. And around the world, America is losing the moral authority that has made us the standard for other nations to emulate. Many factors play into these changes. But at the core is something quite simple: Many of our leaders have lost their moral compass and no longer seem to believe that the purpose of government should be to promote the common good. : The common good must first be based upon a solid foundation of justice. As Saint Augustine taught us: "Without justice, what are kingdoms but great bands of robbers?" Justice cannot abide 34 million people in poverty and 8.3 million children without health care. Justice cannot ignore the suffering of millions of parents in this country who have to face the soul-crushing thought that they might have to tell their child to go to bed hungry�or who realize that they simply cannot afford the medical treatment their child needs.

In the month or so since Casey's speech, it's been commented-upon here and here. I'm most impressed by what Bob Casey did not say. If you click open the transcript and read it word for word, you will most assuredly not see something like this: "I have opportunities my parents never had, my parents had opportunities my grandfather, the mule boy, didn't have. This improvement of each child's hopes and dreams, over his parents' hopes and dreams, was made possible by respect for the common good." Bob Casey does not say that. He does not say "My grandfather was able to make life better for his children, because as a mule boy he had some really great health benefits." These are things upon which his sales pitch, logically, must depend...those, or something like them. He goes to great lengths to lead his audience to believe these things, but nowhere in the entire speech does he take the responsibility of actually saying that. He can't say that, because it would be provably incorrect. The simple fact of the matter is, his idea is nothing new. It's as old as the hills. Civilizations have risen and fallen on this principle of the common good and the subordination of the individual. Throughout the millenia, the human race has shown a proclivity toward "natural selection" -- a tendency to say "Hey, this worked out pretty swell! Let's do a whole lot more of it!" -- and the Common Good schtick has never managed to float to the top. Oh sure, it's rejuvenated like Frankenstein, repeatedly. It has a lot of appeal for people. But it requires the rejuvenation. Where a civilization prospers, the "common good" is never central to the prosperity; instead, those who seek to promote such a concept, swoop in like long-lost "relatives" discovering the guy who just won the lottery. A scrutinizing and energetic read over the Wikipedia page helps to provide the reason why the whole deal really isn't as good as it sounds...

The common good is a term that can refer to several different concepts. In the popular meaning, the common good describes a specific "good" that is shared and beneficial for all (or most) members of a given community. This is also how the common good is broadly defined in philosophy, ethics, and political science. This concept is increasing in popularity as moral vision for the progressive left in American politics. [emphasis mine]

Wikipedia is a resource anyone can edit, and I'm going to leave this alone because it states the essentials accurately. But I have criticism here. It trivializes what is important, and emphasises what is trivial. I'm leaving it alone because I think the way people interpret what they see is the responsibility of the reader, not of the writer. So let's allow the definition to stand, but add this comment. All...or most. That determines everything. Absolutely everything. Substantial numbers among us, on both sides of this conservative/liberal barrier, would agree: If something is good for all of us, let's go ahead and do it. And we would further agree, if something is bad for most of us and good for just a tiny portion of us, let's not do that. What if something is injurious to some among of us, and at the same time, good for the majority of us? I'm not talking about a working, functional, nuclear-powered car that would cause short-term economic hardship to the petroleum industry. Some guy owns a gas station, he's forced out, and re-enters the business world in a different occupation with more promise. Over the long term, he goes through an adaptive process and ends up the richer for it. That isn't really "injury." No, I'm talking about real injury. Like a progressive tax. There's simply no "upside" to paying a higher tax, even if other people think you "can afford to" pay it. And that's what "common good" really is. It's a rationale for inflicting genuine injury on selected subsets of people which are assured to be in the minority, so the act of injury can find shelter in a democratic process. Taxing smokers. Taxing rich people. Taxing businesses. "Don't tax you don't tax me; tax the guy behind the tree." Casey talks about principles he learned from living in a family with eight children. But the word atruism doesn't appear in his speech, one single time. That word would provide the substance for which people are looking, as they lend Casey's comments their sympathy. That's what people really value. It means concern for the welfare of others. Like, for example...I don't care if this proposed tax will never impact me, I don't care if it will only hit "rich" people who "can afford" it. Punishing people for being productive is morally wrong, so I'm going to oppose it. That. That's altruism. The "common good" folks, throughout human history, present themselves as being more altruistic. They never, ever, quite seem to end up that way. There's a reason for that. What they really want, is a license to determine what the common good really is, and they want this to work kind of like Agent 007's "license to kill." The phrase "common good" is carefully constructed to commit, conceptually, to nothing. It doesn't promise to improve society over the long term, it doesn't promise not to hurt people. It doesn't even promise to confine itself to actions most people would like, or even to help more people than it hurts. It doesn't promise any of those things. If it was capable of commitment to greater aid than injury, on a nose-count basis, it would be called "populism." But that's not what it is. It's bureaucracy over common sense. And it leads to dystopian societies, again and again. Democrats who want to run on the phrase, probably know this to be true. After all, they've chosen to start a debate about "common good" in the fall of 2006, rather than in the winter of 2005. They can't afford for people to think about it for too long. Update: The older I get, the more of a link I see between this "common good" stuff, the forementioned dystopian society, and a deterioration in the ability of the masses to think critically. It makes sense when you put yourself in the shoes of the dictator; how do you go about controlling the lives of large numbers of thinking people? You don't. It's like herding cats. But when people form their cognitions of reality and their hopes and dreams, based on the cognitions, hopes & dreams of those around them -- it has to be much easier. And so we have "common good". Once the resources we've placed in public trust are marshalled toward that, then reality is no longer entrusted to the common man. There are things you know to be true, with which the public officials agree with you -- and then there are the ideas you have for yourself, on which the public servants dissent. The latter of those two, simply don't matter. Nothing will be done about them. Lately, we've had this hot movie-making trend where you make the dystopian society into a model for George Bush's America and therefore a model for conservatism. But when you go backward in time, when much more eloquent prose was written about the dystopian society -- when such tomes were based on the real-life challenges that faced Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum and Yevgeny Ivanovich Zamyatin, you see that historically such oppresive regimes have been carefully constructed by our liberals. That is to say, our collectivists. Not conservatives, but those dedicated to oppressing the spirit of the individual, subordinating it to the flimsy ambitions of the apparatchiks. In few places is this more apparent, than in the first chapter of George Orwell's "Nineteen Eighty-Four":

The next moment a hideous, grinding speech, as of some monstrous machine running without oil, burst from the big telescreen at the end of the room. It was a noise that set one's teeth on edge and bristled the hair at the back of one's neck. The [Two Minutes] Hate had started. As usual, the face of Emmanuel Goldstein, the Enemy of the People, had flashed on to the screen. There were hisses here and there among the audience...The programmes of the Two Minutes Hate varied from day to day, but there was none in which Goldstein was not the principal figure. He was the primal traitor, the earliest defiler of the Party's purity. All subsequent crimes against the Party, all treacheries, acts of sabotage, heresies, deviations, sprang directly out of his teaching. Somewhere or other he was still alive and hatching his conspiracies: perhaps somewhere beyond the sea, under the protection of his foreign paymasters, perhaps even � so it was occasionally rumoured � in some hiding-place in Oceania itself. ...Before the Hate had proceeded for thirty seconds, uncontrollable exclamations of rage were breaking out from half the people in the room. The self-satisfied sheep-like face on the screen, and the terrifying power of the Eurasian army behind it, were too much to be borne: besides, the sight or even the thought of Goldstein produced fear and anger automatically. He was an object of hatred more constant than either Eurasia or Eastasia, since when Oceania was at war with one of these Powers it was generally at peace with the other. But what was strange was that although Goldstein was hated and despised by everybody, although every day and a thousand times a day, on platforms, on the telescreen, in newspapers, in books, his theories were refuted, smashed, ridiculed, held up to the general gaze for the pitiful rubbish that they were � in spite of all this, his influence never seemed to grow less... In its second minute the Hate rose to a frenzy. People were leaping up and down in their places and shouting at the tops of their voices in an effort to drown the maddening bleating voice that came from the screen. The little sandy-haired woman had turned bright pink, and her mouth was opening and shutting like that of a landed fish. Even O'Brien's heavy face was flushed. He was sitting very straight in his chair, his powerful chest swelling and quivering as though he were standing up to the assault of a wave...The horrible thing about the Two Minutes Hate was not that one was obliged to act a part, but, on the contrary, that it was impossible to avoid joining in. Within thirty seconds any pretence was always unnecessary. A hideous ecstasy of fear and vindictiveness, a desire to kill, to torture, to smash faces in with a sledge-hammer, seemed to flow through the whole group of people like an electric current, turning one even against one's will into a grimacing, screaming lunatic. And yet the rage that one felt was an abstract, undirected emotion which could be switched from one object to another like the flame of a blowlamp.

Arbitrarilly, let's just add twenty years to this. What does this look like...a Bush rally, or a Kerry rally? Really? Undirected emotion flows through a crowd that has surrendered to group-think, and has long ago made a regular ritual out of hating a designated individual with a blind frenzy. They remember that they hate the man...so much better than they remember why, exactly. Substitute "George Bush" in place of "Emmanuel Goldstein," and what you're left with -- well, it could be any meeting of any one of a number of leftist groups. It could be a typical radio show on the now-defunct Air America. So what is the ideology of a dystopian society? Millions of people think the above describes conservatism, perfectly. It's what conservatism is all about. They think that...because they've been told to think that. But thinking people, can see the similarities for themselves. And not too much in the conservative camp, has resembled what's exerpted above. But an awful lot of liberal stuff has. An awful lot. "Common good"; the Nineteen Eighty-Four novel neatly captures exactly where it gets you. Is this what we need right now? Really?

Couldn't Have Said It Better Myself... XXI

2006-10-17T05:03:00.000-07:00

Couldn't Have Said It Better Myself... XXI I simply can't think of a better way to say this, or of anything to add to it.

If there is any among you who still thinks the mass media isn�t in the pocket of the Left, you merely have to compare how the Plame affair went from being the biggest scandal since Capt. Dreyfuss to a non-story once the crime couldn�t be laid at the feet of Karl Rove or Dick Cheney. Of course, inasmuch as Valerie Plame was not an undercover operative, it was never a big deal. But once it turned out that Clinton colleague Richard Armitage was Shallow Throat, the media buried the story back among the classified ads. Liberals who are aware that I�m not religious sometimes take me to task for not criticizing the religious Right with the same zeal I bring to bear on what I refer to as the religious Left. (For those unfamiliar with the term, it refers to those zealots whose bible is the Gospel According to James Carville. The prophets of the faith include Howard Dean, Ted Kennedy and Jimmy Carter.) The fact is, I have nothing against Christian fundamentalists. Mainly, I disagree with them on the issue of abortion. But I don�t think that those in the Pro-Life movement are evil, whereas I think those on the other side, those who promote 13 and 14-year-olds having abortions without parental consent, are.

Go read the whole thing...

Why Do Black Americans Still Vote For DemocRATS?

2006-10-17T04:53:00.000-07:00

Why Do Black Americans Still Vote For DemocRATS? Via David Drake: Why Do Black Americans Still Vote For DemocRATS?

Bashing the Boy Scouts II

2006-10-17T04:29:00.000-07:00

Bashing the Boy Scouts II The City of Berkeley is allowed to withhold funds and aid to the Boy Scouts, while allowing similar aid to similar organizations, based on the Scouts' restrictions against atheists and homosexuals. The California State Supreme Court has ruled, and the U.S. Supreme court has declined to hear the appeal.

Six years after the Supreme Court ruled the Boy Scouts could ban gay leaders, the group is fighting and losing legal battles with state and local governments over its discriminatory policies. The latest setback came Monday when the high court without comment refused to take a case out of Berkeley, Calif., in which a Scouts sailing group lost free use of a public marina because the Boy Scouts bar atheists and gays. The action let stand a unanimous California Supreme Court ruling that the city of Berkeley may treat the Berkeley Sea Scouts differently from other nonprofit organizations because of the Scouts' membership policies.

For something that has become such a touchy issue, this whole thing about where public funding goes -- it doesn't appear to be drawing an equal representation of all interested groups. Rarely does the electorate get to directly vote on it. And I suppose that by itself is okay, in matters of constitutionality. Whether one document logically comports with another, is not a matter for voting. But it seems a little strange to me; I can't remember the last time a leftist, secular organization, of any kind, was denied funds or aid from a public treasury on the strength of more traditionally-minded segments of the populace feeling alienated by the principles and practices of that organization. It would appear this wind blows only one way. Now, I think we would all agree if it's all about "fairness," this is something that should be fixed before any important decisions are made. About anything. There's more...

On a separate matter, federal judges in two other court cases that are being appealed have ruled that government aid to the group is unconstitutional because the Boy Scouts of America requires members to swear an oath of duty to God.

Huh. Such a case would necessarily ask, once again, how high is that "wall of separation." Whatever the answer is, I hope it comfortably explains what's documented here:

[Thomas] Jefferson's actions as President of the United States are important guidelines in understanding what he meant by the "wall of separation." In 1803, one year after the Danbury letter, Jefferson made a treaty with the Kaskaskia Indians, wherein he pledged money to build them a Roman Catholic Church and to support their priests � all from federal funds. Jefferson apparently saw no conflict between asking Congress to implement the treaty's provisions by appropriating funds, and the prohibition that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . ." In addition, Jefferson signed three extensions of "An act regulating the grants of land appropriated for Military Services, and for the Society of the United Brethren for propagating the Gospel among the Heathen." This act granted free of charge titles to sections of land to the United Brethren. In addition to holding the land in trust for Indians who were already Christians, the United Brethren used resources derived from cultivating and leasing the land to send out missionaries to proselyte among the non-Christian Indians. Once again, had Jefferson been an absolutist, as the Everson Court suggests, he would have vetoed not one, but all three extensions of this act. Thus, the Danbury letter is significant because when taken out of context, it provides the foundation for an absolute separation of church and state. Not only was Jefferson referring to the federal government, but his activities while in office also indicate that he was not an absolutist.

This is another lingering question I have. Not just about what Jefferson, et al, did -- but why we, today, spend so little energy inspecting these little anecdotes. It's supposed to be all about "constitutionality." I think most of us, whatever our biases, would use the Doctrine of Original Intent in inspecting the Constitution. The Constitution is 215 years old, and most of the guys who had a role in writing it and ratifying it, spent years afterward doing lots of stuff and writing lots of other stuff down. Original Intent -- shouldn't we be examining evidence of their intent?

Sidebar Update VII

2006-10-17T03:57:00.000-07:00

Sidebar Update VII I'm not entirely sure what the point was linking back to me here, but I'll take it. And I'm going to blogroll him too, because I'm heavily biased in favor of motorcycles. And the Infidel and the Vampyr and Hatless and Sweet, Familiar Dissonance, and of course the unfairly maligned Locomotive Breath. More: Pillage Idiot, Politechnical Institute, For Your Conservative Pleasure, Strata-Sphere and Macsmind. Update 10/18/06: Hey guess what? N.Z. Bear at The Truth Laid Bear finally fixed that corrupt database record that represented this blog, which nobody actually reads anyway, in his "ecosystem." So I actually have inbound links now. I always did, but now his system actually counts them without crashing...which means I have ranking. I'm an "insignificant microbe" no more. So now that we have an accurate, non-zero count, the magic application says I am a...wait for it...I'm a Flippery Fish, ranking #9412. That's above the Slimy Molluscs and below the Crawly Amphibians. Cool, I'll take it.

Scalia Debates ACLU

2006-10-17T03:42:00.000-07:00

Scalia Debates ACLU Via Jay at Stop The ACLU...

Via AP:
Justice Antonin Scalia on Sunday defended some of his Supreme Court opinions, arguing that nothing in the Constitution supports abortion rights and the use of race in school admissions. Scalia, a leading conservative voice on the high court, sparred in a one-hour televised debate with American Civil Liberties Union president Nadine Strossen [link mine]. He said unelected judges have no place deciding politically charged questions when the Constitution is silent on those issues. Arguing that liberal judges in the past improperly established new political rights such as abortion, Scalia warned, "Someday, you�re going to get a very conservative Supreme Court and regret that approach."
Bingo! Scalia slams them here. To put things in context, he said this after speaking about what he called judicial aristocracy, and how one day the consequences of putting so much power in the hands of nine lawyers might come back to bite them. The news report doesn�t include it, but all Nadine Strossen had to say to this was, "Let�s hope not." This response was quite revealing if put in the proper context. She was pretty much saying that bad calls are o.k. as long as they go in the direction of the ACLU�s philosphy [sic].

Trying to find video. Pretty busy morning. I'll get back to that project later.

We're All Such Independent Thinkers III

2006-10-17T03:07:00.000-07:00

We're All Such Independent Thinkers III Quoth Noreen at Independent Bile, this past spring, in the post that sent her site to my blogroll...

...if I hear anyone saying "Is it just me, or....." or "Am I the only one who..." then I move away from them as fast as I can. And, by the way, the answer to those questions is "No" and "No", because invariably, the things that these cunts believe themselves to be the only ones saying, doing or thinking, are incredibly mundane things that half the population say, do or think as well. And even if these "AM I the only one" types happen to be boasting about slightly rarer traits than usual, like : "Am I the only one who collects feathers" or: "Am I the only one who enjoys being bitten by dogs", you can bet that there still are other people who do those very things as well, because the world is enormous.

All of which is certainly a bunch of entirely valid observations, but if the problem was limited to just those, Noreen would be going off on this bunny trail without me. People collecting feathers don't bother me one bit. People wondering if they're the only ones collecting feathers, likewise, can do that all day long as far as I'm concerned. But blogger friend Aup from Just Muttering made a salient observation about this:

In my experience, that verbal nonsense is a passive-aggressive trick that some people use to get people to say "oh no no, it's not just you" and then share something. I hate it.

And there ya go. Pondering the situation a little more closely, one sees there really isn't much reason to string those five words together but to coerce a false sense of agreement from the apathetic. Example: I freakin' hate Seinfeld. Suppose for the moment you have never watched Seinfeld. You don't give a rat's ass about Seinfeld one way or the other. I know you don't watch Seinfeld, and really don't care for it or against it. I know this. But I want to pursuade you to my point of view -- at least, cosmetically. And I know if I say "I freakin' hate Seinfeld" you're going to say "I've never watched it" and nothing else. What if we're not alone? What if we're in the presence of someone else who also never watched Seinfeld and doesn't know what to think of it? The conversation might go against me...after all, gee, like 67% of us have never watched Seinfeld. Maybe we should tune in sometime! No, that won't do at all. I freakin' hate Seinfeld, remember? So I take a different approach, is it just me, or does Seinfeld suck??? Ah! Now, there's no way to be "hip" unless you know something about Seinfeld. It's an invitation to those unacquainted with Seinfeld that...if you don't know anything about the matter under discussion, you'd better start pretending that you do. And oh by the way, the "prevailing viewpoint" is that it sucks. One guy just decided that for the rest of us. Truly an exercise in the tail wagging the dog. You might say it's a Jedi mind trick, that only works on the weak-minded. Well, the liberal resource AmericaBLOG would like to give it a try.

Is it just me, or has Google News become useless? Their definition of "news sites" seems to include an ever increasing number of simply bizarre Web sites that aren't even the top in their category of site. Meaning, they've tried to include blogs, but only some blogs, and many of the ones they have you'll never have heard of, and many of the ones you have heard of are just plain bad. When I'm doing a news search, I want news site - not blogs, not left-wing conspiracy sites, or right-wing religious nutjobs. News. If they want a blog search enging, that's fine too. But the current state of affairs has taken a great news search engine and turned it into a bunch of noise.

That's the post. All of it. Every single word, every single comma. That's right; no examples given, just the "is it just me" schtick. Upon what dullard could such feeble magic possibly work? Well, along comes Markos Moulitsas, founder of DailyKOS. Coerced not only into agreement, but into action as well.

I agree with Aravosis:
Is it just me, or has Google News become useless? Their definition of "news sites"...
Google News is becoming unusable. They need some serious soul-searching about what they are and what their mission is. A "news" operation needs to present news, and credible news at that. That means get rid of the blogs (mostly opinion), get rid of the no-name sites, the conspiracy sites, and the rest of that crap. I voluntarily asked for Daily Kos to be removed from Google News since it was returning results from this site that quite frankly weren't up to the sort of standards I expect out of a service offering up credible news. Obviously, I was alone in trying to preserve the integrity of the service. Not even Google News seems to give a damn.

Again, no examples given. And, unbelievably, the problem is not called out by someone making requests to Google News and being frustrated by a list returned by the search engine of "no-name sites...conspiracy sites, and the rest of that crap." No, the complaint is being made by the guy whose "crap" is included in what's presented to others. Moulitsas' banning of Google News has made the headlines of C/Net. Moulitsas, once again, has helped to demonstrate what liberalism is all about. Permitting the free flow of information and ideas -- only so long as it makes his side look good. You want news about, let's say, red socks. Someone on DailyKOS might have written an article on how he forgot to take red socks out of the wash and his little white "Buck Fush" tee shirt got bled all over, and IT'S GEORGE BUSH'S FAULT!!! And if that were to be returned in your search results, why, you might get the idea that some of our liberals are a little, y'know, kooky. Just a tad bit soft in the head for the time being. So Moulitsas, et al, are going to use social activism once again -- to make sure you don't find out how kooky they are. Not to make sure Rosa Parks can sit where she wants. But to keep liberal weirdness under wraps. Most among us don't give a rip about conservatives or liberals, but would rather be concerned about learning stuff from the "innernets" when we want to learn about it. In their interests, I would have hoped an exchange of examples would be forthcoming. Neither KOS nor AmericaBLOG thought that was worth exploring. Is it just me, or is that interesting?

Summit V

2006-10-16T07:24:00.000-07:00

Summit V Twenty-two short days to go. So how's it gonna be? The NRO says it will go shitty, but Bush and Rove think different. I'm siding with NRO. But there is substantial reason to disagree. Like, for example, the lingering issue with our current adminstration's foreign and domestic policies. I'm relying on the premise, widely-accepted by many others, that these policies are reviled by many. And simply disliked, by many more. And approved, but only grudgingly, but yet many more. I'm taking this as a given. But...there are reasons to challenge this. For example, if the policies are so unpopular among so many demographics of the electorate, from whence comes the urgency to make such an incendiary issue out of the hired help? I got that in the back of my mind. The incumbent party wants to make an issue out of the opposing party's prospective Speaker of the House of Representatives. The challenging party wants to make an issue out of the incumbent party's...advisory-type guy. Challenging party -- needs to pull it's head out of it's ass. But what's new.

Why Men Are Paid More

2006-10-16T07:22:00.000-07:00

Why Men Are Paid More And it was written by a woman, every single word.

Did Karl Rove Do This?

2006-10-16T07:20:00.000-07:00

Did Karl Rove Do This? Wouldn't it make perfect sense if he did?

Road Rash

2006-10-16T07:18:00.000-07:00

Road Rash Dress for the slide, not for the ride. H/T: Boortz.

Incomplete Instructions

2006-10-16T05:53:00.000-07:00

Incomplete Instructions I have much more ability at writing instructions than at following them. To watch me follow someone else's instructions, is an experience for which I probably should be charging people. Anything that is open to mis-interpretation, I can mis-interpret without trying to. It's a wonder to behold. You don't have to wait very long at all to watch it happen. I'll get hopelessly stuck...or, with great confidence, pick the wrong interpretation...while the guy who actually wrote the instructions, and hundreds of other people who successfully followed them, struggle with the epiphany that any part of it was open to interpretation at all. To paraphrase Forrest Gump, Ah'm not a smart man, but I know when instructions are incomplete. And former President Clinton's instructions to me, are incomplete.

Former President Bill Clinton told Iowa's Democratic Party faithful on Saturday that the actions of "an extreme sliver" of the Republican Party have backfired and "profoundly divided" the country. "We've got a big responsibility. Forget about 2008. Forget about the politics. Just go out and find somebody and look them dead in the eye and say 'You know, this is not right'...This is America," Clinton said. "We can do better and this year, it's a job that Democrats have to do alone." [emphasis mine]

The Reuters dispatch does not specify what "this" is. I guess I'm supposed to fill that in. What has America done, that is out of place in America. To answer that, I have to figure out what America is. Well, in 1797 Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Act and President Adams signed it into law. Was that American, or un-American? During Andrew Jackson's presidency, we had the Cherokee Trail of Tears. The Supreme Court declared the forced migration illegal, and President Jackson is associated with the apocryphal quote "Justice Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it." If the President's words did not comport with this, his actions certainly did; the Trail of Tears proceeded. Was that American? Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus. Was that American? Congress passed an income tax. Like any government, ours has always taxed people...it seems a little un-American for the government to make it their business how well each of us is doing in a given year. Or does it? The states were denied representation in our nation's capital when we passed the Seventeenth Amendment. President Wilson threw people in jail, for opposing his policies during World War I. American, or un-American? Franklin Roosevelt, the "American Caesar" closed the banks, outlawed gold, imposed a 70% marginal tax rate on the highest earners, poured cream into ditches while babies starved, and threw tailors in prison for charging more than 35 cents to mend a shirt. American? The Supreme Court thought not; they tore his New Deal measures to shreds, but knuckled under when he threatened to pack it with six new justices. After that, it became a docile little lamb. So long, judicial oversight. American? I'll not even go into the Japanese Internment, everybody seems to agree about that. Not everybody seems willing to discuss it though. The people have been instructed to forget it, and they have complied. Is that American? John Kennedy made his little brother Attorney General. Was that American? Decades later, Democrats running for office who had absolutely nothing to offer, campaigned on "bringing back Camelot." American? And out of that history full of contradictions and turmoil, we come to Things The Way They Are Today. And former President Clinton asks us to measure those things against a yardstick that has, by any reasonable measure, sustained sufficient abuse to permanently retire as a measuring device. What does he mean when he says something doesn't belong in America? Against what does he make this measurement, other than his own selfish conceptualization of right and wrong. And does anyone have a personal, moral compass subject to weightier and more devastating challenge, than our 42nd President? Out of relative oblivion, arises this presumption that "American" is an adjective so conceptual and so pure, that one can harrumph about how it applies to this thing over here and doesn't apply to that thing over there, without taking the slightest effort to define what it is. And that it's perfectly valid to bitch and kibitz about what horrible things are "being done to the Constitution," without even having taken the time to look at the Constitution since the sixth grade, let alone know what it says. I know this to be true, because a lot of people have been following President Clinton's advice. To the letter. He says "go out and find somebody" and I've been that somebody. Things are being done that are un-American...I subject this premise to the kind of inspection any rationally-thinking person should bring up. Nothing heavy, mind you. Just normal questions I would want to have answered if, hypothetically, I wanted to take their message and propagate it further, wishing to be sufficiently informed as I do so. It's too much scrutiny for them. This "look them dead in the eye" thing goes sailing out the window. They end up looking at their toes. Or off in the distance. Trying to extract, out of some ether, an answer they need that they do not have. Once one inspects the Constitution, it appears it's being followed; once one takes the time to actually read the Geneva Conventions, and measure them against what we're doing -- one struggles to assert, logically, how they even apply. I think I know what President Clinton means by "America." I think he envisions a utopia where there aren't any Republicans. That definition -- none other -- supports what he has had to say lately. His words, and his actions, are consistent with a dictate that electing more Democrats is not an means to some other end, but an end in itself. Just...get them in. If "America" has something to do with this, to the best of my knowledge he has yet to explain how.

This Is Good XXVI

2006-10-15T10:28:00.000-07:00

This Is Good XXVI Nothing heavy or clever going on here, I mean, not on my part anyway. Just flipping around YouTube watching beer commercials. Five of the best: Now, we all KNOW women are much, much more sophisticated and mature than men. Everybody knows this. And yet, how would you explain this to the space alien who was intelligent, completely unacquainted with actually meeting men and/or women from our planet, but had been monitoring our satellite television signals? How would you explain this...that this planet's beer commercials are so damn funny, and all the feminine hygeine product commercials are so stilted and cliched and stupid? The space alien would probably be one of the worst male chauvinist pigs on our planet, and he'd be like...what? Just going by what I saw here. Maybe after he drove on our freeways for awhile, he'd gain a better perspective.

Ugly American

2006-10-15T06:43:00.000-07:00

Ugly American A lot of people like to talk about how poorly-behaved Americans are. In recent years, this has become a widespread phenomenon that threatens to wear the word "boorish" completely out of the English lexicon, like wearing the high-traffic path out of a carpet. In fact if you were to arrange all Internet content into a massive pie chart, I would estimate on an item-by-item basis, that half of it, of course, would be porn; maybe 7% commercial enterprises; another 5% conspiracy theories about the 9/11 attacks; an additional 3% would be other political opinions, like mine; 2% blog pages about motorcycle riding, knitting, and the like; toss in another 1% or 2% to cover all the bitching about Meredith Viera and Star Jones leaving The View, and all the rest would be a bunch of bullshit bloviating about Americans. We make our women wear tops on the beach, we swagger, we don't extend our pinkies, we eat salad with the dinner fork. Well, for anyone wishing to make a list capturing the content of that big ol' slice, don't forget to add this.

"The rise in anti-Americanism is a threat to our national security," [Keith] Reinhard says. "The more people dislike us, the more easily they can be recruited by our enemies. In this global world, we need all the friends we can get."

Reinhard, a former international marketing executive hailing from New Zealand, has founded an activist group called BDA, and the BDA has put out a sixty-page booklet to address this problem.

To overcome such perceptions, Reinhard founded the Business for Diplomatic Action (BDA), a group of educators, executives and citizens working to combat the spread of anti-American sentiment. Although its primary focus has been business travellers, the BDA recently extended its efforts to all Americans travelling abroad -- its World Citizens Guide, booklets and pamphlets offering a crash course in other nations' histories, religions, traditions, peoples and languages. : The World Citizens Guide is colourfully illustrated and includes images of nations' flags, facts about each country and common sense tips that would benefit any traveller. The 60-page, passport-sized booklet was created for students who study abroad. Its success ushered in the pamphlet, an abridged version, for business travellers. The booklet, which also includes an interactive mini-CD, includes the 50 most useful words in Arabic, French, German, Italian and Spanish. It suggests that Americans should learn the norms of the countries where they travel and follow them to prevent someone from unintentionally sending the wrong message. For example, the book says: "In most European countries, the correct way to wave hello and goodbye is palm out, hand and arm stationary, fingers wagging up and down. Common American waving hand moving side to side means no -- except in Greece, where it is an insult." [emphasis mine]

Well, packaging is extremely important, and Reinhard's product impresses me as a positive contribution, because of the way it's packaged. After all, the content itself, is loaded with problems I'm being asked to overlook. Stringing together what this article says, after all, what I've been told is that an ignorant American might go to Greece and show his ignorance by waggling his hand side-to-side; some offended Grecian will then become more susceptible to being recruited by America's enemies. Is Greece really loaded with natives who are one hand-waggle away from becoming Al Qaeda operatives? Does that really make sense? What scares me is, gee whiz, maybe it does in this world. And if that's the way things are, well, I have a few problems with Mr. Reinhard's proposed solution. I find this interesting. If I were to approach a major newspaper and tell them, "I see a link between people who are acrimonious to Americans, for whatever reason, and America's enemies" I would never be taken seriously, and if the paper decided to take a look at me it would assuredly be in a negative way. Witness the world reaction to President Bush's now-notorious line about "with us or against us." But then I can take the Reinhard approach, do exactly that with the overture of "I want to make some new rules for Americans to follow. I want to point out how boorish Americans are as a whole, and put them on a shorter leash." And hosannas will be sung as the palm leaves are laid at my feet. But it's the same sentiment. Exactly the same. So that's my first beef; the selectivity. Our newspaper editors and political pundits instruct us to sneer derisively at anyone making a link between hostility to America, and terrorism -- even though we can use our intellect to conclude nothing else, but that terrorism is rooted in hostility. And yet, when someone dishes out the right platitudes about Americans being rude to people overseas, suddenly the rules are changed. The second problem has to do with the date. Sure, "I question the timing" has become a stale cliche, in some parts even understood to be an invitation to giggling. Doesn't it fit here? People around the world resent Americans all the time. Why start harping on the issue as we begin the third week of October in an even-numbered year? Why? If it's not an agenda, it could be incompetence. Maybe a little of both. But it has to be at least one of those. Third beef is with the union between the mission statement and the logical premise. As an American, if I'm rude to people while travelling overseas, I might tick people off. Ticking people off is a national security threat because it might lead recruiting by America's enemies. So I should be nicer to people overseas, because America "need[s] all the friends we can get." What kind of friend would this dirty little cretin be? I waggle my hand the wrong way, and he'll listen more closely next time Al Qaeda needs his help blowing people up? Fuck him! What an asshole. Sounds to me, from what Mr. Reinhard said, like America has been way too friendly. Hey, all I'm doing is taking his comments seriously here -- be nice, or else your boorish behavior will be used as a recruiting tool. Well, used as a recruiting tool upon whom, exactly? Just askin'. There'd have to be something wrong with the guy who wouldn't ask. What kind of prospective friends are we talking about here? Fourth problem...and expressing this one, calls upon the reader to make the most out of whatever resources might be available on the receiving end, especially attention span and common sense. My fourth problem with this little project is this: Like millions of other people, I have a lot of ideas for "combat[ing] the spread of anti-American sentiment." America itself, after all, is a nation whose history is rich with spreads of anti-(fill in the blank) sentiments within her own borders. Anti-black sentiment, anti-native-American sentiment, anti-Asian sentiment, anti-Jewish sentiment, anti-Hispanic sentiment. America, like no other country in the world, has played host to a veritable Baskin-Robbins 31 flavors of racial bigotry. And defeated them. We have more experience at this than any other country conceived by God or man. No small feat, when you're dedicated to the free expression of any idea, no matter how repulsive that idea might be. How do you marginalize ugly ideas, when you're opposed to the practice of marginalizing ideas? And somehow, American ingenuity has triumphed, with our honor more-or-less intact. If you're a bigot or a sexist or a homophobe, you must choose your audience very carefully or you will mocked...if you hold a position of authority or trust, you will be driven from it the minute your true nature is exposed, your career likely ruined for good. That's about as marginalized as ideas can get in a country honoring free speech. Now that America finds herself, as a whole, on the "business end" of prejudice and raw hatred brandished on the world stage, it just seems to me we should stick with what works. Use our own experience. We do know something about this. Intolerance toward black people: In this country, it was once the rule. Now it is an exception. What happened? Did we hand out 60-page booklets to black people to stop being so thuggish? No, we did not. Did we bomb townships where anti-black sentiment was known to be expressed? No. Over time, we simply called to the attention of people that anti-black prejudice, was exactly that. Prejudice. Pre-judging. The dissention was exposed as something that said very little about the targets of the ill feeling, and was much more of a shameful commentary on the person nurturing it. It became a symbol of what it is: childishness. Simple-mindedness. One-dimensional thinking. It was exposed as logically untenable. Even the man who hated black people out of personal experience, was exposed as guilty of generalization. Person of color commits a crime against you or your relatives, you come to regard all persons of color a certain way -- that's wrong. Groups are groups, people are people. To go through life as some two-bit racist just because that's what your daddy was, even though you've never met any black people yourself -- doubly wrong. Same goes for persons of another faith, or any other race, or surname. Okee dokee then. America fought prejudice by getting the message out about how to look at people. How mature grown-ups look at other people, and how silly, immature bigots look at other people. It's a success story. So why aren't we fighting this worldwide instance of prejudice and slack-jawed, simple-minded, poorly-thought-out animosity exactly the same way? To put it more concisely, it's just impossible for me to look at some foreigner who got an American hand waggled at him in the wrong direction, and goes on to say "those dirty rotten Americans..." with any more esteem, or tolerance, than the average filthy redneck who suffered some perceived slight from a minority group and went on to say "those dirty so-and-so..." I just don't see any difference in those two situations. None whatsoever. People have had opportunities to explain a logical difference to me; very few have taken the time or energy to do so, and the ones who have tried, have been far from compelling. In fact, in the example of the European guy who encounters a boorish American tourist, I have to ask -- maybe this is my fifth problem with the article -- what does that foreign guy do for a living? Isn't he in the tourist business, or engaged in something related to it? Isn't he at least out-and-about somewhere that's been developed as what you'd call a "tourist trap," like, maybe, St. Mark's Square? Gosh, I've lived in tourist traps before. Seems to me when you're walking through someplace you might meet some tourists, you should expect -- y'know -- pretty much anything. I mean, you wouldn't believe what we see here in America from other countries. Why, just this last spring we had a huge demonstration all over the country from illegal immigrants -- let me repeat that, ILLEGAL immigrants -- from another country. They marched around, and let's just say they represented their native country less than optimally. Some of them even carried around signs to the effect that they ought to take the place over, that the rest of us didn't even belong here! You know, it seems to me that those illegal immigrants, back then, might have been able to use an etiquette guide. It seems to me their behavior might have been interpreted as ugly, thuggish, and more than a little arrogant. It might have led to anti-illegal-alien sentiment. In fact, it did. I don't remember any snotty lectures about manners, or 60-page rulebooks being handed out about how, while you're illegally trespassing into this other country where you have no right to be -- make sure you don't waggle your hand in the wrong direction and accidentally make some enemies. No, to the best I can recall, as this other country was being represented by the "travellers" in a not-quite-sunny sort of a way -- if this resulted in a bad feeling in the natives, it was portrayed as some kind of character issue with the natives. Was I not paying attention at the right time? Did I miss something?

Best Sentence

2006-10-14T22:29:00.000-07:00

Best Sentence I read a lot of stuff. Books, magazines, newspapers, funny pages, journals, articles, blogs. Every once in a great while I see a single sentence that stands out among all the rest -- not only among all the sentences I've read that day, but that week or that month. Because of the nature of the blog, they usually pop up there. Not always. The last sentence I really liked a lot was cobbled together by the Anchoress: "What a foppish snot." Just damn. If that sentence was a pair of boxers, you'd have major arousal going whenever you slipped them on, and you'd change out of them at the slightest sensation of a fart building up. That was nearly two months ago, which just goes to show why I don't hand out awards for these things like some people do. After all, what would that be? Quote of the...month? I can go a whole year, or a good chunk of one, not seeing anything of that caliber. So I've decided to go ad hoc. Best quote awards for...whenever they pop up. One-sentence quotes only. Best sentence award. Something that merits extra-special attention...one sentence long. It happens four times in a week, we'll deal with that...it doesn't happen again for two years, we'll deal with that too. Best sentence -- for today. Goes to "I Don't Like You In That Way" under the post entitled, "Eva Longoria is a Slut". It's actually two sentences. We'll learn to adapt to that, because this is some creative writing worth noting:

Eva Longoria's vagina is like that thing that Jabba the Hutt tried to throw Luke in. It's always open and it's always hungry.

I really don't know from experience if this is true or not, but it jives with what little I know about her. I don't know anything that would contradict this. Hey, she's doing other guys, she's never expressed an interest in me, not that I'd reciprocate...that's good enough. Anyway, it's a non-issue. If she's living like a nun, and the article is slandering her, that is highly skilled slander. Nothing like a Star Wars analogy to describe someone's sex life.

Inhofe and O'Brien

2006-10-14T07:01:00.000-07:00

Inhofe and O'Brien The exchanges between Sen. James Inhofe and CNN anchor Miles O'Brien, have been pretty entertaining and not very much discussed. Wherever MMGW (this blog's acronym for "man-made global warming") is discussed as a possibility, the melting ice caps are getting an increasing amount of attention. I have been waiting for one thing here, and I've been waiting for a very long time. I haven't seen it, and I don't think I'm expecting very much. I want to know how much melting ice we're looking at here. Measure it however you will. Cubic miles, tons, whatever you want. I want to know, worst-case scenario, how much of it is falling into the oceans and melting. And then I want to know how much this brings up the ocean levels. Deriving this, from the answer to the ice question, is just not complicated science. It is simple third- or fourth-grade math. A ton of ice melts and becomes, with some margin of error, so-and-so-many cubic feet of water. A billion cubic feet of water, distributed throughout all the world's oceans, brings up the level so-and-so many feet. How much do the ocean levels rise? I'm not looking for just the answer -- I'm looking for the math that leads to it. The fourth-grade-level math. I'm not asking for very much, here, at all. And it says a lot that I have yet to be satisfied here. Update 10/16/06: Debra Saunders says Global Warming^TM is a religion, not a science.

Noonan IV

2006-10-14T06:20:00.000-07:00

Noonan IV Peggy hit it out of the park once again. But what else is new?

The Sounds of Silencing Why do Americans on the left think only they have the right to dissent? Friday, October 13, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT Four moments in the recent annals of free speech in America. Actually annals is too fancy a word. This all happened in the past 10 days: : [She goes on to list the four things] : There's a pattern here, isn't there? It is not only about rage and resentment, and how some have come to see them as virtues, as an emblem of rightness. I feel so much, therefore my views are correct and must prevail. It is about something so obvious it is almost embarrassing to state. Free speech means hearing things you like and agree with, and it means allowing others to speak whose views you do not like or agree with. This--listening to the other person with respect and forbearance, and with an acceptance of human diversity--is the price we pay for living in a great democracy. And it is a really low price for such a great thing. We all know this, at least in the abstract. Why are so many forgetting it in the particular? Let us be more pointed. Students, stars, media movers, academics: They are always saying they want debate, but they don't. They want their vision imposed. They want to win. And if the win doesn't come quickly, they'll rush the stage, curse you out, attempt to intimidate. And they don't always recognize themselves to be bullying. So full of their righteousness are they that they have lost the ability to judge themselves and their manner. And all this continues to come more from the left than the right in America.

Honestly, I don't know who's delivering more devastating body-blows to the American Left: Peggy Noonan, or Ann Coulter. They're both female. They both have valid criticism for our liberals, which is in turn rooted in solid fact. Both of them use iron-clad logic. And yet the liberal response is to scourge Annie, and ignore Maggie. It seems all the liberals with an opinion about how to respond, agree that these are the appropriate responses, and they're not interchangeable. Why is that? How in the world can the style of delivery be so important, and the content of the criticism be so trivial? Anyway, she's on to something here. But what's new. Liberalism, as we know it today, is unfit for any medium powered by dialog. It is a post-industrial-revolution ideology, an ideology molded and shaped by the pubescent development of electronic broadcasting. It has evolved to take full advantage of technology, now some seventy years old, capable of taking one man's thoughts and thrusting them upon many listeners, viewers or readers. The technology responsible for collecting responses and delivering them back to the original speaker, is much, much newer. It's not that liberals lack the brainpower to participate in a dialog -- it's that the ideology to which they cling, is poorly developed for hosting one. It came to maturity during a period when leading-edge technology encouraged a monolog, and nothing more. So they don't want to "bully," per se. They're just compelled to do so. They can't tolerate a free exchange of ideas, because the principles they seek to support, will not stand for it. Which brings me to...

Air America Parent Files for Chapter 11 By Claire Hoffman, Times Staff Writer October 14, 2006 Red ink finally got the better of the nation's blue-state radio network. The parent of Air America Radio, plagued by management and financial problems since its inception, filed Friday for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. The filing in New York by Piquant, the network's parent company, became necessary after negotiations with one of the privately held company's founding creditors broke down, said Air America spokeswoman Jaime Horn. She declined to identify the creditor, but Piquant has had troubles in the past with its business partner, MultiCultural Broadcasting Inc. The liberal radio network, which bills itself as a progressive spot on the dial, will remain on the air � including on Los Angeles affiliate KTLK-AM (1150) � while operating under Bankruptcy Court protection.

Wassup? This was supposed to be the liberal solution to Rush Limbaugh, et al. Why is the runway never quite long enough to support the takeoff of the Air America jet? And how come the hopes and dreams of liberal talk radio, seem to be pinned to the hopes and dreams, such as they are, of AA? There's something about the medium of talk radio that is hostile to the liberal viewpoint. That, or else the liberal viewpoint has not quite yet been fairly hosted in the medium of talk radio...and AA is enjoying less than sunny prospects, simply because the right people haven't been in charge. Both of those may not apply, and one, or the other, must. Which is it? Well, I'm ready to rule out the second of those two simply because if there's a Rush-Limbaugh-like liberal market in talk radio, yet untapped, this would involve downright vulcanic levels of heat and pressure, fully capable of finding their own outlet if the market fails to create one artificially. AA would have a competitor for releasing this juggernaut of liberal talk-radio-ready angst. More than one competitor. Many competitors. So assuming I'm right, and it's really the first of those two options, that the talk radio medium is not equally friendly to the liberal viewpoint as it is to the conservative one...and therefore, will everlastingly remain that way...it goes to support my response to Peggy Noonan. Yes, liberals are bullies. Not because they want to be, but because they have to be. That is the chosen medium of what they seek to promote, and what they seek to promote, exists to be promoted. Not discussed...just propagated, outward, no response necessary or desired. It's an archaic set of principles, doctrines, rules and axioms designed to be mass-produced and mass-consumed. But not to be pondered, and certainly not to be questioned or criticized. And so, you re-try the Air America experiment a hundred more times, in a hundred parallel universes -- you'll get back the same result a hundred times. While Rush Limbaugh lights his cigars with as many hundred dollars bills as he wants to. Anybody who's listened to AA, and also listens to Rush Limbaugh, knows what I'm talking about. Rush is ready to discuss why he believes the things he believes, Randi Rhodes just chirps away about President Bush being a liar. She's not ready to discuss what the lie was, or why she thinks it was a lie. And so listening to Air America, is boring. Eh, not that The Blog That Nobody Reads is some kind of huge party all the time. But when you can't discuss why you think the things you think, you've got to be boring all the time. It's guaranteed. You're reduced to just repeating the conclusions you've reached, over and over again, until the show's over. If Rush Limbaugh did that and nothing more, we never would have heard of the guy.

Summit IV

2006-10-13T06:13:00.000-07:00

Summit IV There are times I feel sorry for Democrats, at least, almost. Such in-your-face optimism we have seen! And yet, throughout all of this week, I haven't read one single thing about the Foley "scandal" anywhere. Not one thing. Except for this passage, in an article written by a famous, liberal Democrat with high name-recognition...

An article in The New York Times this week makes this same point, stating, "As word of Representative Mark Foley's sexually explicit e-mail messages to former pages spread last week, Republican strategists worried -- and Democrats hoped -- that the sordid nature of the scandal would discourage conservative Christians from going to the polls. But in dozens of interviews here in southeastern Virginia, a conservative Christian stronghold that is a battleground in races for the House and Senate, many said the episode only reinforced their reasons to vote for their two Republican incumbents...[A]ll [interviewed] insisted the episode would have little impact on their intentions to vote." : The Democrats have a lot of work to do if they are to make serious gains in the upcoming elections. Sadly, the Democratic party has lost the white Southern voter who now overwhelmingly votes for Republican candidates. : ...[T]he Clinton years are long gone and the radical left has again taken control of the Democratic Party, as reflected in the election of Howard Dean to the chairmanship of the party. The most recent exhibition of the power of the radical left wing of the party was its ability to defeat Senator Joe Lieberman in the Connecticut primary. Most distressing was the Democrats' abandonment of Lieberman after he chose to continue to run as an independent. Stalwart Democrats, people I support, like Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer, Chris Dodd and others, walked away from Lieberman. They believe that they and Lieberman were bound by the primary results. That is simply not true. There is no law, party rule or ethical principle that prohibits a candidate from attempting to win as an independent. What's more, Lieberman is not only the incumbent, but he is also a recent Democratic Party candidate for vice president. He stated that should he win, he will be part of the Democratic Party Caucus in the U.S. Senate. Interestingly, the people of Connecticut in a recent poll voiced support for Lieberman, who is now 10 points ahead. Last week, I campaigned with Lieberman at Grand Central Station. Hundreds of Connecticut-bound commuters stood in line to shake his hand before boarding their trains. Only two people yelled at me for supporting the Senator.

What happened? Well, late last week everybody forgot all about the Foley scandal. Nutcases with nuclear weapons can make that happen, believe it or not. Ann Coulter sums it up thusly:

At least with former Rep. Mark Foley, you could say the Democrats' hypocritical grandstanding was just politics. But in the case of North Korea, Democrats are resorting to bald-faced lies. Current New Mexico governor and former Clinton administration official Bill Richardson has been on tour, bragging about the groundbreaking Clinton administration negotiations with North Korea -- keeping his fingers crossed that no one has access to news from 1994. In 1994, the Clinton administration got a call from Jimmy Carter -- probably collect -- who was with the then-leader of North Korea, saying: "Hey, Kim Il Sung is a total stud, and I've worked out a terrific deal. I'll give you the details later." Clinton promptly signed the deal, so he could forget about North Korea and get back to cheating on Hillary. Mission accomplished. Under the terms of the "agreed framework," we gave North Korea all sorts of bribes -- more than $5 billion worth of oil, two nuclear reactors and lots of high technology. In return, they took the bribes and kept building nukes. This wasn't difficult, inasmuch as the 1994 deal permitted the North Koreans to evade weapons inspectors for the next five years.

I tried to check up on this five-years-no-inspections thing. I really don't know what Ann Coulter is talking about here. I dug into my pockets and pulled out my handkerchief, calculator, iPod, comb, spare buttons, old chewing gum, and -- ah! -- there it was, my copy of the 1994 Agreed Framework. Section IV seems to be the pertinent one. Couldn't find anything about this. I dunno where she's going with this. Does it really matter? Seems to me we got a situation here -- once again! -- where "prevailing viewpoint" goes off in one direction, and common sense, along with the conclusions of most people who've learned about the matter, runs off in the opposite direction. Democrats came up with cool idea about how to handle the psycho in NK (or his Dad, I suppose), they implemented it, they depended on the good faith of someone who hasn't demonstrated good faith...and their cool idea failed. People understand this -- most people would like it to be a little more complicated and "nuanced" than that -- it simply isn't. The foregoing is as complicated as it gets. Look up the Clinton-apologist viewpoint on this. You'll see a bunch of attempts to change the subject, subtly. Not to address it, but to change it. Carter had a hot idea, the Clinton administration implemented it, they all got snookered, and the idea turned out to be a dud. The cartoon at right sums it up perfectly. H/T: Bullwinkle Blog. I've talked about this at length. No imminent danger, people think one way; imminent danger, people think an entirely different way. One week ago, Kim Jong-Il had not yet set off his device, whatever it is; now he has. Are we talking about the same things we talked about 168 hours ago? No, we are not. The human psyche simply isn't up to supporting a consistent priority scheme, across several different scenarios where danger waxes and wanes. It simply isn't possible for us. If we had that capacity, we wouldn't be capable of surviving. To put it more concisely, when a madman is running around with a weapon, you aren't going to care about sex scandals. You haven't got it in you. -- And you aren't going to elect the same leaders. Kim Jong-Il, or whoever schedules the tests for nuclear weapons in NK, either has abysmally bad timing or else that guy really, really wants our country to have a Republican Congress next year. His country, in a stunningly brief stretch of time, has created a perfect environment for one. I'll help it along. Stephen F. Hayes, of the Weekly Standard: On the "there is absolutely no connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda" MYTH. Yeah, you're God damned right that's what I'm calling it: A myth. Connections, for those who have been paying attention, up the yin-yang. Read. Required reading, for everybody, even if it's over a year old. Well, that's the way it should be, anyway.

Richard Cohen, columnist for the Washington Post, regularly chides the Bush administration for presenting what he calls fabricated or "fictive" links between Iraq and al Qaeda. The editor of the Los Angeles Times scolded the Bush administration for perpetuating the "myth" of such links. "Sixty Minutes" anchor Lesley Stahl put it bluntly: "There was no connection." Conveniently, such analyses ignore statements like this one from Thomas Kean, chairman of the 9/11 Commission. "There was no question in our minds that there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda." Hard to believe reporters just missed it--he made the comments at the press conference held to release the commission's final report. And that report detailed several "friendly contacts" between Iraq and al Qaeda, and concluded only that there was no proof of Iraqi involvement in al Qaeda terrorist attacks against American interests. Details, details.

Did you know about that? How many friends do you have with really outspoken opinions about this, who have no clue about what Hayes said? A really cool blog I found out about when the author made an intelligent, insightful comment about a left-wing guy trying to censor someone. The fellow who was supposed to be censored, was an Iraqi national who took offense at the gathering of phony statistics to bolster the idea that dead Iraqis are all over the place, Iraq invasion is a disaster, blah blah blah. The Iraqi wrote a persuasive article on why he objected to this, made some good points about how the stats were being gathered...I lost the bookmark to that one, sorry. I'll look later. Anyway, the very first commenter starts coercing him to yank the article down before someone has time to read it. Yeah. Right. So this guy put him in his place. Yay, guy! Followed his signature to his home page, and I like what I found there. And now we got a brand new resurrected scandal! Yes, the timing is suspicious on this one too...but at least it's relevant to national security.

A group of House Republicans called Wednesday for a congressional investigation into the improper handling of classified documents by President Clinton's national security adviser, Sandy Berger. Berger admitted last year that he deliberately took classified documents out of the National Archives in 2003 and destroyed some of them at his office. He pleaded guilty in federal court to one charge of unauthorized removal and retention of classified material and was fined $50,000. Ten lawmakers led by House Armed Services Chairman Duncan Hunter, R- Calif., and Judiciary Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., released a letter calling for the House Government Reform Committee to investigate. They asked the committee to determine whether any documents were missing from Clinton administration terrorism records, to review security measures for classified documents and to seek testimony from Berger.

IT'S ABOUT GODDAMNED TIME! Why has it taken this long? Tell me again how "Republicans run everything." Tell me that one again. Sandy Berger should have been turning big rocks into little rocks a long time ago. I have to believe that, in his place, I certainly would be. And now for something completely different: A list of really, really "good" movie villains.

Factoid!

2006-10-11T22:28:00.000-07:00

Factoid! A: Eighteen (18) pounds. Q: Average weight gain per detainee at Guantanamo.

Beamer

2006-10-11T07:21:00.000-07:00

Beamer David Beamer, father of Flight 93 victim/hero Todd Beamer, has been going around reminding people what the fight is all about and our liberals aren't the least bit happy about it.

On yesterday morning's FOX & Friends First I was stunned to see the face of David Beamer, father of Flight 93 hero Todd Beamer, appear on my screen making a political pitch out of the tragedy of his son's death. In front of a montage of clips of his son, the 9-11 towers, soldiers fighting in Iraq and the Shanksville site where United 93 crashed, Mr. Beamer appeared in a political ad and uttered words cleverly designed to mislead FOX viewers once again into believing that somehow Iraq had something to do with the death of his son and 3,000 other Americans. The ad was paid for by Progress for America, Inc.. According to SourceWatch, "the PFA was, from the beginning, 'closely associated' with the Bush administration, the Republican National Committee and 'their consultants.' PFA was established in 2001 to support George W. Bush's 'agenda for America.' The PFA Voter Fund, which was set up in 2004, raised $38 million in support of Bush's 2004 election bid." One of the most prominent names affiliated with PFA is C. Boyden Gray, a major Republican power broker.

Republicans with money! Using it for campaigning! Oh, how evil! Here is the clip...

What gets liberals in an uproar, is that Beamer is implying Iraq has something to do with Al Qaeda. Well, it's a matter of fact that it does, now. Liberals would like to promote the idea that before we invaded Iraq, the two had not a thing to do with each other at all...and the elder Beamer's message poses a problem for this, in no small part because not a single word of what he said can be proven false. That's why Newshounds had to use the phrase "uttered words cleverly designed to mislead"...come to think of it, that phrase, itself, is full of words cleverly designed to mislead. Attention liberals in general, Newshounds in particular: The soldiers to which Mr. Beamer seeks to direct your attention, and the attention of others, are in Iraq simply to do a JOB. A good chunk of the fighting force there, believe in this job, and some of them actually signed up for this job. My point is, Saddam's old regime having something to do with the 9/11 attack is unproven -- that is a completely different thing, from saying it is REFUTED. Completely different. Saddam's old regime had a long, rich history of sneaky, underhanded, "attacks" against the United States, mostly logistic in nature. Aid and comfort to our "provable" enemies, harboring "real" terrorists, that kind of thing. He was a credible threat in the spring of 2003, and the credibility of that threat remains strong today. I have a text file I like to upload in forums wherever and whenever this silly "Saddam was innocent until proven guilty beyond the shadow of a doubt" thing comes up...which is quite often. The text file quotes a single page from a recent book by Stephen Hays, and contains a lot of facts which, so far as I'm aware, have never been disproven or even subjected to factual challenge.

"Iraqi intelligence documents from 1992 list Osama bin Laden as an Iraqi intelligence asset. Numerous sources have reported a 1993 nonaggression pact between Iraq and Al Qaeda. The former deputy director of Iraqi intelligence now in U.S. custody says that bin Laden asked the Iraqi regime for arms and training in a face-to-face meeting in 1994. Senior al Qaeda leader Abu Hajer al Iraqi met with Iraqi intelligence officials in 1995. The National Security Agency intercepted telephone conversations between al Qaeda-supported Sudanese military officials and the head of Iraq's chemical weapons program in 1996. Al Qaeda sent Abu Abdallah al Iraqi to Iraq for help with weapons of mass destruction in 1997. An indictment from the Clinton-era Justice Department cited Iraqi assistance on al Qaeda 'weapons development' in 1998. A senior Clinton administration counterterrorism official told the Washington Post that the U.S. government was 'sure' Iraq had supported al Qaeda chemical weapons programs in 1999. An Iraqi working closely with the Iraqi embassy in Kuala Lumpur was photographed with September 11 hijacker Khalid al Mihdhar en route to a planning meeting for the bombing of the USS Cole and the September 11 attacks in 2000. Satellite photographs showed al Qaeda members in 2001 traveling en masse to a compound in northern Iraq financed, in part, by the Iraqi regime. Abu Musab al Zarqawi, senior al Qaeda associate, operated openly in Baghdad and receved medical attention at a regime-supported hospital in 2002. Documents discovered in postwar Iraq in 2003 reveal that Saddam's regime harbored and supported Abdul Rahman Yasin, an Iraqi who mixed the chemicals for the 1993 World Trade Center attack -- the first al Qaeda attack on U.S. soil. "Then, on March 21, 2004, Richard Clarke, a former top counterterrorism offical with access to all of this information, made a stunning declaration: 'There's absolutely no evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda, ever.'" -- The Connection, Stephen F. Hayes, ISBN 0-06-074673-4, pp. 177-8

So here's my beef. With all of the above, the left-wingers are correct in saying the above falls short of proving Saddam Hussein had anything to do with the attacks of September 11, 2001. They're right in saying that. Just as a Republican would be correct in saying, the Foley mess, and the DeLay mess, and the Abramoff mess do not prove there is a culture of corruption in the Republican party. Liberals, who are supposed to be champions of the rights, privileges, and renewed capacities for people to do their own thinking as sentient and intellectually autonomous individuals...would have the former of those "proofs" held to be absolutely inadequate. And the latter of those "proofs" to be utterly, incontestably sufficient. And in that logical contradiction, they uncompromisingly deny people the right and privilege to think for themselves. To the point where a bereaved father -- the morality of bereaved parents is absolute, remember that? -- observes that the soldiers in Iraq are fighting the same group of people who conspired to kill his son, and boom! Liberals have to make sure they have the last word. David Beamer's words are factually correct, but they make for a political problem for the Democrats who want a referendum on a military operation already engaged. And so Todd Beamer's father has to be shouted down. I know of no evidence to indicate Todd Beamer would disagree with David Beamer's position on this. I do know of evidence indicating Nick Berg held different views from Michael Berg, and that Casey Sheehan disagreed with Cindy Sheehan. No matter. David Beamer is the bereaved parent that has to be shouted down. His words are factually correct, but they cannot be the last ones. The "Al Qaeda had nothing to do with Iraq" platform is far, far too important. Of course you can't prove the negative. Nor does it pass the "left testicle" test -- no thinking man, sufficiently educated about the whole situation, is going to place his left gonad on a block under a sledgehammer, and bet the family jewels that Saddam Hussein was innocent in all this. In the final analysis, the innocence of the old Hussein regime is a matter of religion. It is a matter of faith. One shows one's allegiance to a sect by holding it to be a truism, and proferring it whenever and wherever one has the ability to do so...against the evidence. And of course, by making sure that whenever someone like David Beamer contests it in any public forum, that infidel is never allowed to have the last word. Never, never, not ever!

Couldn't Have Said It Better Myself... XX

2006-10-10T08:14:00.000-07:00

Couldn't Have Said It Better Myself... XX Bullwinkle, addressing the issue of electronic versus paper voting, nailed it shut. Tight.

The Democrats don�t really want a paper trail, they just want to be able to call for a recount every time they lose, no paper trail is the excuse. They�ll still call for a recount every time they lose even if there is a paper trail.

If I was a Democrat, especially if I was in the leadership of the party, I'd immediately begin exploring new and innovating ways of proving him wrong. Hmmm...any interest in doing that? Any at all? They don't want to represent the country, and they have no interest in uniting over dividing. They want to call the shots. A party needs 218 seats in the House to name a new Speaker and put it's own guys in the committee chairmanships. The Democrats want that 218. If they get 217 instead, there will be legal wrangling. Everyone knows this to be the case. If they win that 218th seat through the wrangling, the thirst will be slaked, "The People Will Have Spoken," and they will go about the next piece of business.......angrily. Everybody knows that, too. If you trot on down to the Democrats' office with a nifty plan to get 300 seats, or 350, or 400...nobody there will bother to listen to you. Everybody knows that too! It's all about taking the hill. They end up representing 99.99% of us, or 50.01% of us...it's all the same to them. All the same. Which is really odd, because you'd think with all the legal jockeying after the 2000 elections they'd be really interested in winning a Reagan-type landslide that would be open to nothing but the most reckless challenge. I'm just speaking the obvious here, none of it would be a surprise to anyone, and nobody would spend a lot of breath or energy arguing against it, no matter what their interests. But for some reason, you're not allowed to say this in "public." Not unless you follow it up, real quick, with something along the lines of "...and Republicans are exactly the same." Well, I have doubts that they really are the same. Seems there's a lot of pressure on the Republicans to at least pretend to be a "Big Tent" party. Whereas, whenever I see someone pressuring the Democrats to do something, they're pressuring the Democrats to alienate more people, marginalize more people, and generally start doing a better job telling people to fuck off. They've lost the last three elections in a row. 50.1-49.9, 50.1-49.9, 50.1-49.9. It's always the same. Always just a hair away from that oh-so-crucial midpoint...close...no cigar. Every other Thanksgiving, they end up giving "If Only"'s instead. You would think, with all the mistakes Republicans have been making, Democrats would put more emphasis on winning converts -- a whole lot of them, so that any Republican-friendly shenanigans at the ballot box would have to be unworkably hugely expensive and complicated, to even become a threat. But no. All we see is calling the other side stupid, right up until the election, and in the weeks afterward a whole lot of griping about "Gore/Kerry is too smart to have his message understood" and bizarre insinuations about malfeasance and skulduggery in the counting of the votes. That is not the extent of the evidence backing up Bullwinkle's claims. You should go read the article, to get the rest of it. What are you waiting for?

Not In It For The Attention, Mind You... IV

2006-10-10T04:26:00.000-07:00

Not In It For The Attention, Mind You... IV Nobody ever reads this blog, of course, but the cartoon at right has been doing something rather significant to change that since we posted it Friday. This is due in no small part to the efforts of blogger friend Good Lieutenant at Mein Blogovault, who evidently appreciated what he saw that he decided it merited reflection not only there, but over at Jawa Report as well. Which is cool, very cool...after all, this is how we come to be aware of other individuals in the blogosphere. Some of whom appreciate The Blog That Nobody Reads, like this guy and this guy; others of whom, do not (check out post by locomotivebreath1901 on October 09, 2006 at 06:30pm). I always get a big kick out of people who criticize me for the length of what I write. I see it as a confession...and I don't understand how it can be seen any other way. Here you are, bellyaching about "blah blah blah," meaning, this guy who writes for a blog nobody ever reads -- he says so! -- can't wrap up his stuff in a paragraph or two. So you're not going to finish reading it...but it's very important to let the world know you won't read all of it, and the reason you won't, is because it's soooooooo long. Like fuckin' Goldilocks, bitching about the bed being too big or the chair being too hard. Which means, there's some maximum length, over which, you can be guaranteed not to bother yourself with something. So you don't read anything over a certain quantity. All of which goes to support the idea that what you know is, precisely, jack-shit. Well you know...that, plus a bunch of bite-sized stuff. I understand there are people like this. Why would they advertise it? Why tell the entire world about your Vienna-sausage-sized attention span? [See update below.] Anyway. So people like this cartoon that I didn't draw...which I didn't find on my own...and as more and more people come to read The Blog That Nobody Reads, this starts to bug me. Credit must be given where it is due, and I came by it over at the Rottweiler's site, under a post by user juandos (post #14). Anyway, new visitors, we're plumb-pleased to have you here. Now my conscience is clean. I mean, uh, somewhat. Update 10/11/06: It appears I have misjudged someone and I might even owe someone an apology. I'm checking out "Locomotive Breath" and his blog, and not only does he seem to have some very common-sense ideas, to say nothing of peers o his blogroll, but he's been kind enough to blogroll me as well. D'Oh! Not sure what to make of his original comments...although I must say in my own defense, I've seen other things in the blogosphere that were easier to interpret. I mean, here we go, verbatim: "Blah, blah. Blah, blah, blah, blah & blah. Blah, blah. Blah?" How would you take that? In hindsight, I see I should have lapsed back to the first rule of any Information Technology professional: When in doubt, do nothing. Should've kept my silence. This guy's blog is actually pretty cool. Actually has some stuff that's worth reading. A pity, really. I've bellyached a lot about some of the folks who bellyache about me and my lengthy posts -- that was some of my best snarking yet. If only it were directed more wisely. Ah, well. Live and learn. Update 10/14/06: Hey, on the subject of not being in it for the attention, mind you, wouldja look at this. The Blog That Nobody Reads just got an award, by snarking and bellyaching away, about people who do a lot of whining about reading long things. Quote of the Week.

The author posted an update later, "taking back" these words but I still had to make this my quote of the week because I always feel exactly that way when I read someone complaining that some other blogger's posts are "too long." (I've never had the honor of being on the receiving end of such a complaint.) It's not just that they don't want to take the time to read long articles - some people really don't have the time - it's the tone of the complaints, as if length alone is an actual fault. This does give the impression that the complainer lacks a normal adult attention span. If it really is a matter of having limited time why not just move on?

"Lynn S.," I think, said it better than I did. Although hey -- I'm the guy with the award, and let me assure anyone who pays attention to such things that I have been on the receiving end of such complaints. Many times. It would make some sense, mind you, if there was an undertone to the effect of: "I get the feeling there's something important you have to say here, something it would benefit me to explore, but it's out of the question for me to digest it in the format you have presented it because your shit is way too long." That would make a lot of sense. Who hasn't been there? But let me assure anyone who cares, I am a complete virgin to that kind of constructive criticism. What I see, directed at myself and others, is more along the lines of "get a load of that guy." As in -- "Saddam Hussein was not a threat" -- and The Blog That Nobody Reads comes along, and says, not true. Saddam was a threat here, he was a threat there, he did this thing he did that thing...blah blah blah...and the criticism comes back, "get aload of that guy and how long his shit is." Yeah, RIGHT Einstein. We're only talking about who's dangerous and who isn't dangerous. In a world chock full of venomous vipers who are so dangerous, that the word "dangerous" really has no meaning that these assholes can't completely re-define six times everyday before breakfast. The evidence proving them as such -- nobody with half a brain, who's been paying attention to such things, is going to say we can come to know about one-tenth or one-twentieth of it without clearance and need-to-know. YEAH. And we're supposed to have a knock-down drag-out about whether the guy is a complete fuckin' teddy-bear or not and keep everything down to twenty words or less...or else some anonymous nameless faceless blog-commenter guy is going to point out how long my stuff is and make fun-o-me. Hee hee! I'm doing it again. Oh well, funny things happen when a guy gets poked in the same spot for the hundredth time, and he's writing about it at five in the morning. Anyway. Cool award...appreciate the mention..."Lynn S." has a blog worth reading, and it's headed to the sidebar.

This Is Good XXV

2006-10-10T03:49:00.000-07:00

This Is Good XXV Well no, the situation is not good, it's very, very bad. The article that sums it up, is good. And it really needs a broader audience. Via Political Party Pooper:

North Korea: A fumbled framework By Snoop REPOST: Good thing we can go back and read some of this stuff� Now liberals pay attention, I�m reposting this for you because I have been reading some of your blog posts and you people simply are not dealing with reality.
Posted: January 15, 2003 2003 WorldNetDaily.com On Jan. 13, 2003, former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright blasted President Bush's handling of North Korea in an interview with The Times of London. She told the paper that "her Republican successors had squandered their inheritance from the Clinton administration and unwisely depicted North Korea as a member of the 'axis of evil' with Iran and Iraq." A day earlier, former Clinton National Security Adviser Sandy Berger had also blasted the blunt talk from Bush. "This kind of rhetoric just plays into the paranoia of North Korea," Berger asserted on CNN�s "Late Edition." Berger also rejected criticism of the Clinton administration�s handling of North Korea: "For some people in this administration, I'm beginning to think that blaming Clinton is a substitute for thinking." Thus continues the all-out effort to redeem the 1994 Framework Agreement. Democratic strategists and Clinton apologists understand the stakes. Having been repudiated at the polls in November, Democrats understand that national security issues are likely to dominate the politics of the country for at least a decade, and the Clinton record is the record that all Democrats, but especially Hillary, will have to defend. The trouble is, it cannot be defended. The Clinton administration did almost nothing to contain the menace of al-Qaida, allowed itself and the U.N. to be expelled from Iraq, and oversaw the depletion of the nation�s military readiness. One of the very few "achievements" of the eight years of Clinton "statesmanship" was the North Korean deal. If it turns out to have been a fool�s play, it is going to be very hard to craft the exhibits for the foreign-policy wing of the Clinton Library.

Let us just say, as a hypothetical, this whole sorry situation was put in a manuscript...simplified...fewer characters...let's say Secretary Albright, herself, is a key player in this current election cycle. Let's say she has Nancy Pelosi's job in your manuscript. And let's say on her side of the aisle, there's some flattering name given to this kind of diplomacy so it can be discussed more easily. This Jimmy-Carter-style, "I got him to agree so we don't have to worry about that anymore" kind of diplomacy -- where it's taken as a given that life is just a big Star Trek episode, and nobody ever lies about anything. Don't call it "appeasement," call it -- "Kumbaya" diplomacy. "Faith-based" diplomacy. In your manuscript, the Albrosi brand of foreign-affairs leadership is shown to be utterly ineffectual, and even damaging, by a huge putrid mess along the lines of the sampling of reality chronicled above. And, mostly because of a sex scandal, the Albrosi party manages to retake Congress anyway...even though everybody knows, the way this party negotiates with the tinhorn dictators around the world, just flat-out doesn't work. No, wait. Everybody doesn't just know that...everybody's been shown that. But they go to the polls, and vote on the sex scandal. Of course the publisher is going to reject your manuscript. Of course he will! It's simply too far-fetched. It would never actually happen...in...real........* Update: Pillage Idiot put some enhancements on the graphic above to help get the point across. Great effort, kind of sad that it's needed. Update: Found a script to the first Die Hard movie. You know that ferret-faced guy who says man-o-action Bruce Willis is messing everything up, tries to negotiate with the terrorists like they're okay kinda guys? Gets himself shot? His name is "Ellis" and one of his smartass first lines, inserted into the script to show the audience that he doesn't know what the fuck he's doing, is a silly little jumble of syllables "Sprickenzie Talk?"

Holly: Where are you going? Ellis: I'm tired of sitting here waiting to see who gets us killed first... them... or your husband. Hi there. Holly: What are you going to do? Ellis: Hey, I negotiate million dollar deals for breakfast. I can handle these clowns. I want to talk to Hans. Hans! Sprickenzie talk? : : Ellis: Hope I'm not interrupting...? Hans: What does he want? Ellis: It's not what I want, it's what I can give you. Look, let's be straight, okay? It's obvious you're not some dumb thug up here to snatch a few purses, am I right? Hans: You're very perceptive. Ellis: Hey, I read the papers, I watch 60 minutes, I say to myself, these guys are professionals, they're motivated, they're happening. They want something. Now, personally, I don't care about your politics. Maybe you're pissed at the Camel Jockeys, maybe it's the Hebes, Northern Ireland, that's none of my business. I figure, You're here to negotiate, am I right? Hans: You're amazing. You figured this all out already? Ellis: Hey, business is business. You use a gun, I use a fountain pen, what's the difference? To put it in my terms, you're here on a hostile takeover and you grab us for some greenmail but you didn't expect a poison pill was gonna be running around the building. Hans, baby... I'm your white knight. Hans: I must have missed 60 Minutes. What are you saying? Ellis: The guy upstairs who's fucking things up? I can give him to you. : : Hans [on radio to McClane]: I have someone who wants to talk to you. A very special friend who was at the party with you tonight. Ellis: Hello, John boy? McClane: Ellis? Ellis: John, they're giving me a few minutes to try and talk some sense into you. I know you think you're doing your job, and I can appreciate that, but you're just dragging this thing out. None of us gets out of here until these people can negotiate with the LA police, and they're just not gonna start doing that until you stop messing up the works. McClane: Ellis, what have you told them? Ellis: I told them we're old friends and you were my guest at the party. McClane: Ellis... you shouldn't be doing this... Ellis: Tell me about it. Ellis: All right... John, listen to me... They want you to tell them where the detonators are. They know people are listening. They want the detonators of they're going to kill me. Ellis: John, didn't you hear me? McClane: Yeah, I hear you, you fucking moron! Ellis: John, I think you could get with the program a little. The police are here now. It's their problem. Tell these guys where the detonators are so no one else gets hurt. Hey, I'm putting my life on the line for you buddy... McClane: Don't you think I know that! Put Hans on! Hans, listen to me, that shithead doesn't know what kind of scum you are, but I do -- Hans: Good. Then you'll give us what we want and save your friend's life. You're not part of this equation. It's time to realize that. Ellis: What am I, a method actor? Hans, babe, put away the gun. This is McClane: That asshole's not my friend! I barely know him! I hate his fucking guts -- Ellis, for Christ's sake, tell him you don't mean shit to me -- Ellis: John, how can you say that, after all these years--? John? John? [Hans shoots Ellis] Hans: Hear that? Talk to me, where are my detonators. Where are they or shall I shoot another one?

This shows signs of being a rough draft, since I remember Ellis being shot in the face through the bottom of a whiskey tumbler or something. But the point stands. "Sprickenzie Talk" diplomacy is rooted in the axiom that anytime anybody, anywhere, shows an ostensible willingness to cooperate, it must be genuine and there can be no ulterior motives. Nobody with a lick of common sense would put any faith in it, because nobody with a lick of common sense would put any faith in this underlying axiom. Anybody who gives it five seconds of serious thought, knows this to be true. And yet, how much are we being called upon to risk on it. Again and again and again...as "Sprickenzie Talk" diplomacy is shown to be a loser's proposition, again and again and again. And again. Update: NRO says to condemn the Axis of Evil speech is to condemn Bush for prescience.

He didn�t create the Axis of Evil; rather, he voiced the problem. And if that shocked European diplomats, well too bad. If it�s a choice between national security and enabling European diplomats to remain secure in their illusions, I�d hope both Republicans and Democrats would favor the former...Dialogue is no panacea.

Memo For File XXVII

2006-10-10T02:25:00.000-07:00

Memo For File XXVII Dear Grandchildren, reading this forty years from now: I'll do my best to make this objective and unbiased, to you. I can't word it in a way that would seem objective and unbiased to those who are alive today. In our current times, we wouldn't know objective and unbiased if it bit us square in the ass. We have these things we have learned, which are subject to visceral disagreement and great controversy. We have other things we have learned, which are not subject to any substantive disagreement whatsoever. If you take the things that are not subject to any disagreement, and pursue them with logic and common sense, you arrive at conclusions which...well, don't ask me to explain it. Just watch this. Saddam Hussein used to have weapons of mass destruction. He used to. This is not subject to dispute in any way, at least, not from those who are informed about the situation; it is an established fact. As of 2003, it would seem, he no longer had them. Conclusion? He physically got rid of them somehow, between 1991 and 2003. That last sentence, if I say it out loud in a mixed environment, in a public setting, I am branded a right-wing zealot and a Bush apologist. What does a "moderate" person have to say about it? Honestly, I'm still trying to figure that one out. Based on what I can discern from actually living in the year 2006, it seems a "moderate" person isn't even supposed to be thinking about what became of the weapons. We aren't talking about pop-guns here. I really can't think of a more important question to try to answer...and I don't know of anyone who can... Here's another one. As of a month ago, the head of the CIA says we have killed or captured 5,000 Al Qaeda terrorists (h/t: Politechnical Inst.). If someone, somewhere, thinks he has been lying about this, I've yet to see or hear of that case being made. Nor do I hear anything of the liberal plan to somehow disable 1,000-or-more Al Qaeda operatives per year, on average, as they seek to gain control of our government. Right before an election, I can't think of a more important question to ask; neither can anybody else, to the best I'm aware; yet for a reporter to ask a Democrat candidate, "what are your plans to kill or capture terrorists?" is an unthinkable prospect, and surely such a reporter would be branded as a right-wing hack. In short, we all "agree" this question is pretty important, but we won't tolerate anyone actually seeking an answer to it. The people I am repeatedly told are "moderate" and "unbiased," simply won't permit it. I have more. Like..."everybody agrees" that the popularity of the United States within the world community, is on a steep downturn. When I say everybody agrees, what I mean is that people disagree about what is to be inferred from this, not about the premise itself. The consensus is that we are held in lower regard by other countries, compared to the way we were seen before. It is not uncommon to have debates about our policies in which some of us call our current President a liar, and insinuate some pretty awful things about him...he misrepresented intelligence to get us into a war, he's stirring up a "climate of fear" to solidify his power base, etc. Freedom of speech extends to saying such things, in Yahoo Chat, in bulletin boards, and other places where the international community can easily see the dissention in place within our borders. Not even the slightest social taboo discourages this airing of dirty laundry for all the world to see, as was the case in times past. Conclusion: Perhaps other countries have a lower regard for us not because of our policies, but because we've been so incredibly candid about how divided we are, and how little we care for each other. That would seem to be worthy of acceptance by some reasonable minds, or at the very least some serious exploration -- at LEAST that -- but again, if I say it out loud in a public place I'm a you-know-what. I have yet one more, and it has to do with supporting the troops while opposing the mission in which those troops are engaged. I am told, fairly often, that this is intellectually possible and is even widely, and sincerely, practiced. I have formed the habit of questioning this thusly: Does such support extend to all the troops? Even the troops deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, voluntarily, choosing to sign up specifically for the mission at hand, because of a personal belief in it? Troops who consistently vote Republican? I'm not sure of the answer to that question, because the next thing that happens is a bobbing of the Adam's apple followed by a quick change of subject. Naturally, I only ask such a question in a private setting, because...well, you know the rest. I suppose it's only natural that inspecting current events with some genuine curiosity, something beyond simply mouthing the most widely-accepted platitudes, is always going to be a touchy subject. And I have great confidence you are able to inspect what has happened, in these times, with the same latitude and real freedom that I can use to inspect -- let us say for sake of argument -- World War I. Lessons to be learned from this? Well, it's clear to me that freedom of speech is pretty worthless without a freedom to think for yourself, and a freedom to think for yourself can't be exercised in any meaningful way without a freedom to communicate your ideas in a wide variety of environments. During elections, in between elections, in public but isolated areas, in places where real decisions are made. Directed toward audiences of like-minded individuals, and directed toward others more inclined to challenge your ideas. Perhaps that's why the First Amendment covers the right of the people peaceably to assemble as well as the much-ballyhooed "freedom of speech." Another lesson to be learned from this is that, apparently, one of the best ways to safeguard this right to peaceably assemble -- to take your ideas someplace where they'll flourish, and actually have an effect on things, regardless of merit -- is to constantly, constantly, constantly bitch and moan about having the freedom-of-speech taken away, whether or not that is really the case. It makes no sense, none whatsoever, to say "I am opposed to any and all operations to fight terrorism, but don't you dare say that I'm not committed to fighting terrorism." Or to say "everybody agrees Saddam Hussein was a dangerous, bad guy, but he wasn't really so bad, and he was not dangerous." Or to blame one's own country for all the evil that takes place in the world, pontificating about our own guilt endlessly, and then intone with righteous indignation "but don't question my patriotism." None of those things make any sense. And yet the people who indulge in such neck-breaking contradictions, are about to win a major election. Because of an eleventh-hour sex scandal, with fingerprints of behind-the-scenes manipulation ALL over it. What will they actually DO once they're in? Only you know, grandchildren. The only thing anyone will tell me, is something about investigations and impeachment hearings. What about this thing everybody's supposed to be worried about...the terrorists? My "moderates" tell me that, by simply asking the question, I am contributing to the Climate of Fear. It would appear there is a great deal more to "freedom of speech" than the ability to say something without fear of criminal prosecution. We all have that ability, or at least most of it. But that much larger protection, the freedom of speech...the freedom to conduct a real dialog in which ideas are exchanged -- where questions are asked, with a genuine expectation that something valuable will be learned -- that's a wholly different thing. And I'm afraid that's been lost. Entirely reasonable inquiries can be made, and the next thing that happens is not a reckoning of the most plausible answer, or a pondering of the unworkability of coming up with a plausible answer, but instead, the branding of the person who asked the question as a "kook." Nobody really expects it to go any differently anymore.

Jello, Nail, Tree

2006-10-08T08:07:00.000-07:00

Jello, Nail, Tree So what was my fan mail all about, anyway? It was about that horse's ass Keith Olbermann and his latest rant against President Bush, which I needed to watch just in case I forgot the lessons of my youth...namely, how stunningly useless criticism-for-criticism's-sake-alone can be. How little criticism, by itself, really says when it's offered without an accompanying solution. How much volume and heat it can generate, how righteously indignant it can sound -- and why intelligent, effective leaders rarely listen to it, in situations where it's delivered without a plan. Oh, every snippy paragraph makes the Bush-hating anti-war hippy giggle like a giddy schoolgirl, and insofar as that criteria applies, it's "good." But what is to be made of this? Olbermann refuses to tell us. Instead, he tells us what we are not supposed to make of it...

Yesterday at a fundraiser for an Arizona Congressman, Mr. Bush claimed, quote, "177 of the opposition party said 'You know, we don't think we ought to be listening to the conversations of terrorists." The hell they did. 177 Democrats opposed the President's seizure of another part of the Constitution. Not even the White House press office could actually name a single Democrat who had ever said the government shouldn't be listening to the conversations of terrorists.

Having defined exactly what kind of deception and skulduggery it is in which he thinks the President is engaged, Olbermann then pursues a windy screed, repeatedly referring to the administration's "lies." President Bush may have been referring to a vote that took place in the House late last month on supporting his warrantless wiretap program. I do not know of any other method our country has of "listening to the conversations of terrorists." I don't know of any other means of doing this, I don't think Olbermann knows, and I don't think the 177 know. So President Bush's interpretation has merit, at least with me. That's a matter of opinion. But it's a legitimate opinion to have. Olbermann's entire windy epistle rests on a fundamental premise: If you have that opinion, then you have placed words in someone else's mouth, and therefore you are a "liar." Well...isn't Olbermann, then, exactly what he calls others? The 177 Democrats want terrorists to conduct their conversations in secret, at least from us -- OR -- the Democrats have some other method in mind that will protect the Constitution in all the ways they have in mind and at the same time go ahead an intercept those conversations. They want President Bush to stop OR they have a better way in mind to do what he's trying to do. Both of those may not apply; and one, or the other, must. Logically, this is inescapable. So which is it. Well, Olbermann says I'm a liar if I infer Option A instead of Option B. There is no factual evidence of which I'm aware -- none, whatsoever -- that would support Option B. None. Olbermann named -- none. The 177, so far as I know, named -- none. But if I pursue Occam's Razor, Olby says I'm a liar. Fuck him. Craven hypocrite. Unbelievably, writing for ZDNet, Jeff Cohen argues that "strong criticism of an extremist presidency hardly makes Olbermann a leftist." That's a meme being repeated in a great many places, and it shows the truism that a vast pattern of re-echoing, does little to make a point meritorious. Olby is pursuing the "nailing jello to a tree" defense, the Bart Simpson type of "I never said that" thinking -- which, even if you happen to agree with it, is a pretty far cry from what we need here. I mean, just use common sense here. When you need to get something done, "Federal Express" style -- ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY, HAVE TO -- what the fuck good is it to have a whole bunch of nattering nabobs calling out "don't do it this way don't do it that way"...and then when you say "you don't seem to want me to get it done" angrily lash back with the "I never said that" defense? I mean it's a great way of thinking when you want to obstruct things. But do you do your own stuff this way? Unclog a stopped-up drain? Drive down a winding road on a foggy day? Figure out what pesticide to use in your garden? Scrape old paint off your house, and buy a bucket of newer stuff for the next coat? Bleed your car's brakes? Anything, where you need to figure out a) the state of affairs as they really exist; and b) what to do about them. How useful is it to have someone snarkily challenge you to figure out what they're trying to say, and deliberately make it as difficult as nailing jello to a tree, to pin them down on it? HOW, in the Butthole of Premenstrual Ganesh, does this silly, snippy intellectual exercise get us any closer to where we need to be? Olbermann went on to quote the President saying "If you listen closely to some of the leaders of the Democratic Party...it sounds like they think the best way to protect the American people is � wait until we're attacked again. [emphasis mine]" Further on down in the transcript, Olbermann refers to this as "slander." Why do people keep calling this sportscaster brave? Why do they repeatedly credit him with "speaking truth to power"? He's a hypocrite, plain and simple. All he's doing, is jumping to extravagant, poorly-supported conclusions about the intent behind what others are saying...and denying the President exactly that same privilege, calling him a liar for doing so. Keith Olbermann is exactly what he calls others. Exactly. The only difference is, when President Bush talks about how he interprets the vote cast by the 177, he's posing an argument based on logic and common sense: If you don't intercept the conversations this way, then how? And no answer forthcoming, you're opposed to...exactly what he said you're opposed to. And in drawing his inference that some liberals want no action to be taken until the country is attacked again, he's providing his personal interpretation; his words allow for a reasonable, different, interpretation by other people. He's talking about what it means to him. His opinion. Olbermann, on the other hand, is passing judgment, allowing for no dissenting viewpoint, none whatsoever. A liar is whoever Olbermann says is a liar. He pretends that the facts support his thesis...and they simply don't. What they support, is that Olbermann is guilty of hypocrisy, and we're engaged in a situation in which better-quality thinking is absolutely necessary, or else our continuing existence is subject to random chance.

Discrimination, Prejudice and Preferences

2006-10-07T09:34:00.000-07:00

Discrimination, Prejudice and Preferences This blog, which nobody actually reads anyway, makes a subtle reference to an experiment conducted thousands of years ago to determine the size of the earth. The experiment was conducted by a an ordinary guy...a high-ranking official, a library administrator, a student of philosophy and sciences, but not someone who had any "business" dabbling in such things. And yet, he got the answer more-or-less right. So thinking about what he did, we examine the methods we use today to get answers more or less wrong. Thinking in committees, paying overly-too-much attention to accredited people with letters after their names, subordinating our own common sense to the apparatchiks and charlatans and talking heads and, last but not least, the "prevailing viewpoint." Prof. Walter E. Williams has been writing a series of articles that dovetail beautifully with this, pointing out the three intangible nouns listed in the headline to this post. Those three words are thrown around with great frequency nowadays. They have very specific meanings if you take the time to look them up in a dictionary...when you glean the intended meaning at the time those words are used, their meanings are not quite so well-defined or well-thought-out. That's a problem. It's representative, I would add, of a much, much larger problem. As of Wednesday, Dr. Williams would like to discuss preferences, and I recommend you go take a look at it. Actually, I recommend you read all of this series, article by article, word by word. Makes you think.

Preferences alone do not determine behavior. If we conducted a survey asking people which they prefer: filet mignon or chuck steak, Rolex watches or Timex, Rolls Royces or Dodge Neons, I'm guessing that filet mignon, Rolex and Rolls Royce would win hands down. Having found what people preferred the most, then watch what they actually do. You would find chuck steak outselling filet mignon, Timex watches outselling Rolex, and Dodge Neons outselling Rolls Royces any day of the week. : What minimum wage laws do is lower the cost of, and hence subsidize, racial preference indulgence...If filet mignon sold for $9 a pound and chuck steak $4, the cost of discriminating in favor of filet mignon is $5 a pound, the price difference. But if a law mandating a minimum price for chuck steak were on the books, say, $7 a pound, it would lower the cost of discrimination against chuck steak.

Minimum wage laws lower the cost of discrimination. Well, of course they do. Dr. Williams is examining differentials in price, and any regulation in price -- of which I, personally, have ever come to be aware -- has been a regulation toward normalcy. That is to say, I don't know of any price restriction or wage restriction that says "you must charge an excessively larger price for this commodity, compared to that commodity." I don't know of anything like that proposed anywhere. No, wage and price restrictions tend strongly toward a median. Toward something wishy-washy and lukewarm. Can't have it too high, that'll hurt somebody...too low, it will hurt someone else. So it just makes sense that when you have regulations toward uniformity, differentials gradually disappear. And that means, to borrow from Dr. Williams' phraseology, the "cost of discrimination" is lowered. It has to be. And that means the cost of any kind of discrimination comes down, as the differentials wane away. We say we don't like people to discriminate. Well, this simple logic demonstrates that the desire to fight discrimination, stands in strident opposition to the desire to fight economic discomfort. Those who claim to support both, are either misrepresenting their actions, chasing their own tails, or both. Pretty easy to argue with this by rankling distastefully at the outcome; but the logic that leads to that outcome, seems pretty solid. I'd like to see someone emerge and tell me where Dr. Williams has gone wrong. Not holding my breath.

Fan Mail

2006-10-07T08:49:00.000-07:00

Fan Mail It's just too good to let go. It's a comment by FARK user EvelFarknievel who, hell, could be a thirteen-year-old mentally-challenged kid for all I know. And he, who says "If you are a Republican, I hate you and wish great suffering for you and your fellow Republicans," goes on quite a tear. It always pleases me to read how incredibly wealthy and privileged I am.

Morgan Freeberg has an opinion about everything in his conservative - celebrated blog. And if you disagree with him, he'll try to paint you as a "liberal" who hates America. In this thread he's just called all of us who disagree with him stupid. If he could now just make up some lies about us, and say we're all soft on terrorism, he could apply for a job with the Bush Admionistration. He doesn't realize that most of us can go toe-to-toe with him intellectually. His sprawling intellect is perceptively diminished by his failure to actually think for himself. Mr. Freeberg is not part of the problem. He and people like him are *ALL* of the problem. He and his rich, white, fellow Republicans sit around counting their money and feeling smug that they are so much smarter than the rest of us while blindly following the new dictator of America. He is reading this now and scoffing at the use of the word dictator as overblown hype, not realizing that history has proven the course of action currently being undertaken by this administration has proven in history to be disastrous over and over and over. And over. He probably thinks the war was a good idea. He probably thinks the deficit is simply a necessary by-product of the genius of this administration. He undoubtedly thinks the Constitution is just an outdated piece of paper that has no place in today's world. He thinks this because he feels safe for now. But while he is feeling safe and supporting the Administration, they are taking advantage of that, and Mr. Freeberg's freedoms are quietly disappearing. And like people of other countries who have blindly supported the degrading of freedom by a corrupt, power hungry administration, he will eventually wake up one day and realize how terribly wrong he was and be full of regret. I actually envy him. I'll bet he gets more sleep at night than I do, because he doesn't worry what kind of world is being created for his children. He thinks everything is fine. I wish I could lie to myself that way. I'd sleep a lot better.

Blah blah blah...yeah, not exactly an overture to an exchange of reasoned ideas, is it? Looks more like a plea for high-fives and pats on the back from his liberal buddies. Which, in that thread, I didn't see forthcoming, but I did call out to his attention that apparently he can put words in other peoples' mouths, while I'm not allowed to do the same thing. Which, interestingly, was supposed to be the entire focus of his complaint about me. Ah, well. The topic under discussion was the irrational ravings of Keith Olbermann. That could have been Olbermann himself, using a pseudonym.

Truth and Fairness

2006-10-07T05:57:00.000-07:00

Truth and Fairness In observing what's going on down in Florida, I'm inclined to think of a certain Steven Segal movie, and I think it's this one. There's an unintentionally hilarious scene at the end where the Army helicopters are dusting the good citizens of...whatever town it is...with some kind of vaccine or innoculant. The citizens look up at the helicopters, obviously concerned about whether they are being poisoned. But not to worry, the helicopters have loudspeakers. Someone dutifully explains through the loudspeakers that the powder is harmless. No identification, nothing. The citizens look relieved. Oh, okay, well I'm glad that's all cleared up. The poorly-thought-out segment creates quite a few heady questions for anyone inclined to think about such things. What are governments supposed to do, anyway? Can we believe everything our government tells us? Should we? Well, there's this bizarre wrinkle in Florida law that says the ballots must be printed with Mark Foley's name on them. Absentee ballots have already gone out...Foley was still in the running at the time they went out...everybody has to have the same ballot. So you can swap the candidates, but you can't change the list. In sum, the law compels the list of names, to lie. On this, there is little disagreement. The disagreement concerns what to do... The Washington Post is reporting as of yesterday, that supports of Foley's replacement, Joe Negron, may post signs indicating that a vote for Foley is really a vote for Negron.

An e-mail from the State Division of Elections to election supervisors in counties that are part of Foley's district said that "preferably, the notice would be placed in every voting booth" and in absentee ballot mailings. The suggestion angered some Democrats who said it gives Negron unfair help.

See the thing about "unfair help"? That has been a huge controversy up until now. There's a school of thought that says you shouldn't post any signs about a specific candidate, no matter what the tone, anywhere near the polling place. Several other states have that law. I wasn't able to find where Florida has such a law, and apparently nobody else can find that out either...so a school-o-thought, is all it is. Certainly I can understand it. But if "fairness" is what it's all about, the dictum becomes self-contradictory. In a great big hurry, it does. How fair is it to run for the House, and have some pervert's name printed next to the hole voters are to punch to vote for you? So those who object to the signs, are standing up for fairness but not universal fairness. They want the lying-ballot to be left unchallenged. No inserts handed out with the ballots, no signs in the voting booth, or within one hundred, two hundred, five hundred feet of the polling place. It's all about fairness...fairness only for certain people. Democrats. Hey, give them some credit, they're usually not lying. It's pretty tough to find any of them claiming to stand up for fairness for everyone. It's pretty tough to find any of them claiming they'd argue the same way, if the situation was reversed...or anyone pointedly asking them such a thing. No, overall, the people who argue that the lying ballots should be left unchallenged, are arguing that for the sake of "fairness" and they don't say a whole lot else about what motivates them. So we have a situation here, where "fairness" as interpreted by some, is the opposite of truth. I suspect the point I'm making here, is something everybody already understands intuitively: This situation comes up a lot more often than we know. And that's why real flesh-and-blood people, who don't live in movies, are hardly inclined to stop worrying when a helicopter dumps powder on their heads and a loudspeaker intones that the powder is harmless. Real people aren't going to stop worrying in that situation...they're going to start worrying. Because real people understand, one man is inclined to tell another man the truth, if and when the two men are true peers, and have interests that are identical. That set of circumstances simply doesn't come up very often in real life. Everybody who's ever made their mother something shitty in Arts and Crafts, and taken it home to her and asked her if she liked it, has been lied to...by their own mother. And we all know it. The simple fact of the matter is, people have to be forced to tell the truth; to be held to account. That used to be what having a free press is all about. Here we are, in 2006, having a fairly vicious debate about whether it's okay, or even compulsory, to lie in a voting ballot. Mark Foley is not "on the ballot." That's simply a fact. So look what we have going on here. Democrats perceive fairness -- to them -- to be antithetical to telling the truth. They want the ballot to be left in place, they want voters to believe the choice is between a Democrat and a pervert...which is a lie. And with the lie in place, they want a Democrat elected to that seat, so that Democrats can take over Congress, and next year the Democratic Congress will tell us terrorism isn't a problem anymore. And since it will be a popularly-elected Congress, we'll just have to believe them. Don't worry about the terrorists...just like, don't worry about the powder. We'll be coerced to believe that, so soon after being deceived about who the candidates are. I dunno, guys. I'll be the first to confess our relationship with government should be based on cynicism, rather than "trust." I believe that, and it's plain the Founding Fathers believed that too. We revere the opinions of the Founding Fathers, today, because they understood "fairness" was a subjective concept, decided by individuals -- and "fairness" to one coterie, often stands in opposition to truth. That is the philosophy upon which our system of government is really based. But at the same time, it seems to me, it's going a bit far to lobby the government into telling the electorate factually untrue things, and then lie by omission to support the untrue things.

Foleygate Wrap-Up

2006-10-06T05:46:00.000-07:00

Foleygate Wrap-Up It's pretty early to be wrapping things up, but I think we know everything we need to know at this point. It seems pretty clear Foley is scum, and the Republican majority in the House really has handled this badly. Another thing is abundantly clear: Democrats have no ideas for how to lead this country. None. They criticize, and when people ask them what they'd do differently, they respond with a blank stare, "Go To Candidate XXX's Website To Find Out," righteous indignation, or a sudden change of subject. They might very well win this midterm. They might win both houses of Congress. If they do, they will have won because of Mark Foley and not because of their ideas. Howard Dean's been e-mailing me as a "Fellow Democrat," busily indoctrinating me about how Republicans have a "culture of corruption" and have been making a bunch of messes that a Democratic majority would promptly clean up. How his team would clean it up, he doesn't want to tell me. I understand I'm supposed to think Democrats would be much cleaner; why I'm supposed to think that, he doesn't want to tell me that either. Mark Foley, so far as people can figure out, seems to have been engaged in his shenanigans for a very, very long time. Do we have a clean party-divide between the folks who knew about this and the folks that didn't...with all in-the-know belonging to the GOP, and all the ignorant klutzes being Democrats? If not, then the Republican guilt, and the Democrat innocence -- the two big reasons to vote for a donk this fall -- both lose a whole lot of punch. On the other hand, if that is indeed the case, who the hell wants them running, or cleaning up, anything? Well, via Strata-Sphere, we see the first of those two scenarios is much more likely.

Foleygate May Turn Into CREWgate The FBI, which keeps meticulous records and has no reason to spin this mess, is now claiming that CREW had the emails as early as April and that they were so heavily redacted the FBI could not do much with them - so says the Washington Post:
Law enforcement officials said then that the e-mails did not provide enough evidence of a possible crime to warrant a full investigation. In the e-mails, Foley praises the physical attributes of one page and asks another teenager for his picture. In subsequent days, unidentified Justice and FBI officials told reporters that the e-mails provided by CREW were heavily redacted and that the group refused to provide unedited versions to the FBI. One law enforcement official...also told The Washington Post the FBI believed that CREW may have received the e-mails as early as April and that the group refused to tell the FBI how they were obtained.

Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler points us to Newsbusters where we get a little bit of much-needed perspective on this.

ABC�s World News Tonight story on [Congressman Mel] Reynolds being convicted on August 23, 1995, didn�t have any fury about how Democrats could allow this sexual predator in their caucus. For their part, ABC seemed more suffused with sadness than outrage:
Diane Sawyer, substitute anchor: "In Chicago, Congressman Mel Reynolds remains free on his own recognizance after his conviction last night of having sex with a minor. His lawyers say they'll appeal. In the meantime, the Illinois Democrat will continue to pick up a paycheck, as ABC's Ron Claiborne reports." Ron Claiborne: "In the end, it was Mel Reynolds' own words that led to his conviction on charges of having sex with a 16-year-old girl. Jurors said the most powerful evidence against him was police tape recordings of his intimate phone conversations with Beverly Heard, now 19." Jeslyn Cipriani, Juror: "It was the tapes, the transcripts that we heard, Mel and Beverly talking." Claiborne: "At one point on the tapes, which were made with Heard's cooperation, she and Reynolds discussed what underwear he prefers. He also uses explicit language as he talks about having sex with her and with himself. On the stand, Reynolds denied ever having sex with Heard. He insisted their conversations were only phone sex fantasies. But the jury convicted him of all 12 felony counts, including sexual abuse and sexual assault. He was also found guilty of soliciting child pornography for asking Heard for a nude photo of a 15-year-old girl; and of obstruction of justice, for trying to get Heard to recant her accusations. "The convictions likely end Reynolds' promising political career. He had risen from a childhood of poverty in rural Mississippi to Harvard, Oxford Rhodes scholar and to Congress."

Can't you just hear that Democrat Wizard of Oz, telling you to pay no attention to the man behind the curtain? Well, whaddya gonna do. Thus ends the 2006 midterm elections, and we're left not so much with answers, but with a nagging question: Do liberal ideas really work? They've been tried lots of times, with a pretty dismal record of success. Their big selling point is supposed to be that whether they work or not, people believe them. Well, do people, really? It doesn't seem Democrats can even win, unless there's a Republican scandal. They themselves appear convinced that this is the only way they've got a shot at peddling their fecal moon pies at the high school bake sale. Watergate...some charismatic saxophone-playin' ladeez-man in a couple three-way presidential races...and, yet another Republican scandal. This time, with the fingerprints of manipulation all over it. Those are the only ways you get Democrats elected on the national stage. Across a third of a century! Whether they win or lose this round, that pattern will remain solid this year. We just don't want them. We've outgrown 'em. Even if they end up in charge of everything next year, they're still done. Update: Denny tells 'em to stick it.

10,000 Year Old Liberal

2006-10-06T05:42:00.000-07:00

10,000 Year Old Liberal Via Boortz: Archeologists have discovered the fossilized remains of a liberal who lived 10,000 years ago. Take a look.

Snap Out Of It

2006-10-04T19:07:00.000-07:00

Snap Out Of It Karol at Alarming News tells Republicans that if they're too stupefied by the Foley scandal to drag their asses to a voting booth on election day, they need to just snap the hell out of it. She speaks for me. Get over it already, Republicans...assuming you're as demoralized as everybody keeps telling me you are. Which, of course, I somewhat doubt.

This Is Good XXIV

2006-10-04T18:57:00.000-07:00

This Is Good XXIV This was a great sense of enjoyment to me last week, and I forgot to bookmark the site, which makes a practice of eviscerating several other quality cinematic productions besides this one, The Movie That Killed Batman. I just love this "review." Not only is it gratuitously harsh on the talented contributions of Mr. Schumacher, but it's well-written too. Includes such gems as...

Bruce Wayne: Millionaire playboy who fights crime by night. Pushing forty, yet still unmarried and living all alone with a guy in his twenties. I'm not implying anything here, I'm just saying. Alfred: Batman and Robin's English butler. In this film, he's dying of a Movie Illness that seriously impairs his ability to pick secure passwords. Pamela Isley: A Greenpeace reject who gets infused with plant toxins that compel her to constantly toss out smutty one-liners. (Imagine Mae West reincarnated as a carrot.)

As an afterthought, it should be noted Schumacher's other contribution to the Batman franchise had one (1) redeeming quality, and only one. Batman III, a.k.a. Batman Forever, had a cool car. A very cool car. There's a website dedicated to the Batman III car. Don't want to lose track of it.

Harmless?

2006-10-04T07:11:00.000-07:00

Harmless? Conspiracy theories. They're the Burma Shave signs of our times. That they're popping up around us like zits on a teenager's face, is a bad thing, but the reason they're doing so is rooted in something healthy. People understand that whatever your feelings about the war, like it or not we have a War President right now. Which means very little, really -- except, where you normally have to get out of bed every morning being suspicious of your government when it's at peace, in times like these you're better off harboring renewed suspicions every hour on the hour. And this calls for crisp, cool, thinking. Knowing what you know, and knowing what you don't. Ideally, relying on logic that is so solid, that someone who passionately disagrees with you on the conclusion would say "I don't like to admit it but that makes a lot of sense." That's what you have to do in order to make sure our government has all the tools it needs for the unprecedented threat, and at the same time, our constitutional protections remain firm. As a whole we are woefully unprepared for this task. McDonald's-And-Hookers type Presidents, Cabbage Patch Dolls, Tamagotchi Toys and Oprah Winfrey have left us with an intellectual toolset which, for the task that awaits us, is roughly equivalent to clear-cutting a redwood forest with a hundred spatulas. We don't know what we're doing. I think we know that we don't know what we're doing. Poll a hundred people about their primary source for what's going on in the world. I'm sure you'll get back CNN and the New York Times...and say what you will about those sources, at least they try to lend an appearance to reporting news. But adminster truth serum before the questioning, and ask which news source consumes more time out of your participants' daily lives as they collect information from that source -- well, who wants to be in the kitchen grabbing a beer, or in the bathroom, when the commercial is over and John Stewart's smiling face comes back on? He's so funny, so glib, so witty. Nobody wants to miss a single minute of that. So most people get news from there. They don't admit it; they think it doesn't show; but when they start arguing about politics, it shows. Certain people, everything that comes out of their mouths, is a cliche. Some cliches are rhetorical questions. They are not met with answers, or with logical arguments about why the questions set up false choices, or why the questions are off-topic -- they are met with a change-of-subject. Nobody ever digs in. Rarely does anybody actually exchange ideas with someone else. But a conspiracy theory makes you feel like you're doing something. Nevermind the patent absurdity of believing your government is out to kill you -- and then hopping in your car Monday through Friday, going through your stupid little commute to your stupid little job. Aren't you supposed to go underground, drive yourself paranoid and have Patrick Stewart chase you all over hell-n-gone? So really, nobody wants to do anything about the problem we have with the government lying to us -- most people just want to look like they've identified the problem, or at least, become wise to the problem before most other folks. Is it harmless? I used to think so. Then I read this...

Former US Attorney General Says Prosecutors Botched McVeigh Case Tuesday October 03, 2006 8:01am Washington, DC (AP) - Former U-S Attorney General John Ashcroft says federal prosecutors "botched" the case of Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh. Ashcroft's claim is in a new book called "Never Again: Securing America and Restoring Justice" which goes on sale today. Ashcroft criticizes prosecutors for agreeing to provide material not normally given to criminal defendants. : Prosecutors in the case are dismissing Ashcroft's claims. Former prosecutor Larry Mackey says the prosecution team provided unprecedented information to the defense because they wanted the public to know the government wasn't hiding anything. [emphasis mine]

It's not harmless. There is a difference between a government that is transparent, and a government that is toothless and ineffectual. And like it or not, we seem to have a pattern going where whenever we ask for the first of those two, we end up getting the second. And, like it or not, part of the legitimate business of our government is to do things to incredibly evil men...things that, like Jack Nicholson said, "you don't talk about at parties." Our leaders start showing off how fuzzy and harmless their agencies are, and the next thing that happens, people die. That is not to say I intend to plug my ears and go "LA LA LA LA" if & when someone provides real evidence that the Flight 77 crash was staged and there never was a plane, or that Flight 93 was hit by a missile. But I wish people wouldn't promulgate such things just to make themselves feel important. Or to make a buck. It's not harmless. It's just not.

Not Articulated Outright III

2006-10-03T06:21:00.000-07:00

Not Articulated Outright III Smart people have problems with the way they think about things, sometimes, that dumb people don't have. Believe me, I'm in a position to know. One of the problems smart people have, is that their brains, like high-performance sports cars, fail to function at their peak when they're just tootling along. They want to go faster. And so they become vulnerable to being "out-thought" by clever charlatans who can give them a good "nudge" off in the direction the charlatan wants them to go. If the charlatan doesn't speak the idea he wants to sell, word-for-word, the responsibility for going off on that bunny trail is all on the smart person and not on the charlatan. Say the word "test" ten times as fast as you can. Now, what do you put in a toaster? No, the answer isn't "toast," it's BREAD. That's an example of what I'm talking about. I give you a good push in the direction of thinking what I want you to think, but I don't actually say it word-for-word; I leave that up to you. That you would put toast in a toaster, is an idea that makes no sense, and for me to risk my reputation by putting something into words, I need my statements to make some sense. But I can imply things all day long; silly, nonsensical things. If and when someone wants to pick up on what I'm implying, the responsibility rests on them. So we have all these silly things, only implied, not articulated outright. And the thing implied here, not articulated outright, is this. President Bush is stupid, and with a friendly, Republican-controlled Congress doing his bidding, our government is doing stupid things. He's acting on false intelligence and invading countries that aren't a threat to us. That's one reason we need to give Congress to the Democrats, so they can provide a check on these dumb things the President is doing. Furthermore, Republicans are a bunch of family-values hypocrites. Their ranks are loaded with perverts like Mark Foley, who sent inappropriate messages to a sixteen-year-old male page. Republicans knew all about what was going on. Democrats didn't. Republicans, therefore, are known to cover for a sexual predator in order to hang on to a congressional seat. If the Democrats knew about what Foley was doing, surely they would have blown this story wide open and brought him to justice. But they couldn't do that because Republicans control Congress. We need the Democrats to control Congress. We need their superior powers of observation, their solid connections to science, and their critical thinking skills to run a check on this Bubble Boy presidency. It would seem this thing with Foley has been going on for at least five years.... Uh, ahem. We got a little bit of a contradiction here. Democrats are so smart they know what's going on...except they don't...even when it's been going on for years. I think I'm starting to see why this argument isn't being articulated outright anywhere. Instead, the voters are being led down a path, to reach the desired conclusions on their own. The question remains, did the Democrats know about this or not? Two answers are possible, and only two; either one will compromise the message that a Democrat-controlled Congress will fix much of anything; and so, I'm not holding my breath waiting for the answer. But boy, I'd sure like to know what it is.

Memo For File XXVI

2006-10-03T04:40:00.000-07:00

Memo For File XXVI David Luban is a professor at Georgetown University. Last summer he wrote a treatise assaulting the practice of torture which, for hundreds of thousands of liberals, has showcased all the arguments about why we shouldn't be doing it. For me, his essay showcased...uh, the pun is quite unintentional...tortured logic. Prof. Luban set out to attack the "Ticking Time-Bomb Scenario" and to show how little it benefits us to discuss this hypothetical in evaluating torture against real-world situations. Somewhere in the literary adventure, is professorly mindset got a little sidetracked, because he made a point of drawing on real-life events that proved without a doubt the validity of the scenario. Specifically, he chose -- for reasons I still don't understand -- the events surrounding Operation Bojinka, the plot to attack airliners in 1995. This was a complicated plan involving an attack on the CIA headquarters, assassinating Pope John Paul II, and detonating passenger airliners over the South China Sea and the Pacific Ocean. Philippine police tortured Abdul Hakim Murad, the suicide pilot who was supposed to crash the plane into the CIA, for 67 days. This wasn't waterboarding, it was lit cigarettes on the testes, and beatings. As Luban himself said, "Grisly, to be sure �- but if they hadn�t done it, thousands of innocent travelers might have died horrible deaths." Mmmmkay. If you want me to stop believing in the Ticking Time Bomb scenario, and you want to present a real-life episode wherein Ticking Time Bomb was real and worked just fine-and-dandy...twist my arm, professor. But sometime after that, Luban wrote another article which appeared in the Washington Post, also seeking to disqualify the Ticking Time Bomb scenario. This time, someone must have reminded the Professor that when you're trying to convince people it's a sunny day outside, pointing out the water on the sidewalk and the gray clouds and the umbrellas everywhere -- it's probably not the right way to go. So, gone was any mention of Abdul Hakim Murad and Operation Bojinka. Prof. Luban carefully stuck to philosophy on this one, and stayed away from reality.

There are two torture debates going on in America today: One is about fantasy, and the other is about reality. For viewers of TV shows such as "Commander in Chief" and "24," the question is about ticking bombs. To find the ticking bomb, should a conscientious public servant toss the rulebook out the window and torture the terrorist who knows where the lethal device is? Many people think the answer is yes: Supreme emergencies demand exceptions to even the best rules. Others answer no: A law is a law, and a moral absolute is a moral absolute. Period. Still others try to split the difference: We won't change the rule, but we will cross our fingers and hope that Jack Bauer, the daring counterterrorism agent on "24," will break it. Then we will figure out whether to punish Bauer, give him a medal, or both. Finally, some insist that since torture doesn't work -- that it doesn't actually unearth vital information -- the whole hypothetical rests on a false premise. Respectable arguments can be made on all sides of this debate. Real intelligence gathering is not a made-for-TV melodrama. It consists of acquiring countless bits of information and piecing together a mosaic. So the most urgent question has nothing to do with torture and ticking bombs. It has to do with brutal tactics that fall short -- but not far short -- of torture employed on a fishing expedition for morsels of information that might prove useful but usually don't, according to people who have worked in military intelligence. After Time magazine revealed the harsh methods used at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility to interrogate Mohamed Qatani, the so-called "20th hijacker," the Pentagon replied with a memo describing the "valuable intelligence information" he had revealed. Most of it had to do with Qatani's own past and his role in the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Other parts concerned al Qaeda's modus operandi. But, conspicuously, the Pentagon has never claimed that anything Qatani revealed helped it prevent terrorist attacks, imminent or otherwise. The real torture debate, therefore, isn't about whether to throw out the rulebook in the exceptional emergencies. Rather, it's about what the rulebook says about the ordinary interrogation -- about whether you can shoot up Qatani with saline solution to make him urinate on himself, or threaten him with dogs in order to find out whether he ever met Osama bin Laden. And the trouble is that this second debate is so wrapped up in legalisms, jargon and half-truths that it is truly hard to unravel.

So unravel it Professor Luban does...always in a way supportive of his argument. From out of nowhere, emerges the dictum that we shouldn't be doing this, and that if & when we do, it doesn't work. And this November piece effectively "Google-bombed" his name. His earlier piece, which clumsily grasped at evidence damaging to his own conclusion, was virtually buried. I haven't been able to find it. Until now. "LIBERALISM, TORTURE, AND THE TICKING BOMB" is a book that was excerpted in the Virginia Law Review -- Vol. 91, p. 1425. Professor Luban begins to make his argument about Murad on Law Review page 1442.

But look at the example one more time. The Philippine agents were surprised he survived �- in other words, they came close to torturing him to death before he talked. And they tortured him for weeks, during which time they didn�t know about any specific al Qaeda plot. What if he too didn�t know? Or what if there had been no al Qaeda plot? Then they would have tortured him for weeks, possibly tortured him to death, for nothing. For all they knew at the time, that is exactly what they were doing. You cannot use the argument that preventing the al Qaeda attack justified the decision to torture, because at the moment the decision was made no one knew about the al Qaeda attack. The ticking-bomb scenario cheats its way around these difficulties by stipulating that the bomb is there, ticking away, and that officials know it and know they have the man who planted it. Those conditions will seldom be met. Let us try some more realistic hypotheticals and the questions they raise: 1. The authorities know there may be a bomb plot in the offing, and they have captured a man who may know something about it, but may not. Torture him? How much? For weeks? For months? The chances are considerable that you are torturing a man with nothing to tell you. If he doesn�t talk, does that mean it�s time to stop, or time to ramp up the level of torture? How likely does it have to be that he knows something important? Fifty-fifty? Thirty-seventy? Will one out of a hundred suffice to land him on the waterboard? 2. Do you really want to make the torture decision by running the numbers? A one-percent chance of saving a thousand lives yields ten statistical lives. Does that mean that you can torture up to nine people on a one-percent chance of finding crucial information? 3. The authorities think that one out of a group of fifty captives in Guantanamo might know where Osama bin Laden is hiding, but they do not know which captive. Torture them all? That is: Do you torture forty-nine captives with nothing to tell you on the uncertain chance of capturing bin Laden? 4. For that matter, would capturing Osama bin Laden demon-strably save a single human life? The Bush administration has downplayed the importance of capturing bin Laden because American strategy has succeeded in marginalizing him. Maybe capturing him would save lives, but how certain do you have to be? Or does it not matter whether torture is intended to save human lives from a specific threat, as long as it furthers some goal in the War on Terror? This last question is especially important once we realize that the interrogation of al Qaeda suspects will almost never be employed to find out where the ticking bomb is hidden. Instead, interrogation is a more general fishing expedition for any intelligence that might be used to help "unwind" the terrorist organization. Now one might reply that al Qaeda is itself the ticking time bomb, so that unwinding the organization meets the formal conditions of the ticking-bomb hypothetical. This is equivalent to asserting that any intelligence that promotes victory in the War on Terror justifies torture, precisely because we understand that the enemy in the War on Terror aims to kill American civilians. Presumably, on this argument, Japan would have been justified in torturing American captives in World War II on the chance of finding intelligence that would help them shoot down the Enola Gay; I assume that a ticking-bomb hard-liner will not flinch from this conclusion. But at this point, we verge on declaring all military threats and adversaries that menace American civilians to be ticking bombs whose defeat justifies torture. The limitation of torture to emergency exceptions, implicit in the ticking-bomb story, now threatens to unravel, mak-ing torture a legitimate instrument of military policy. And then the question becomes inevitable: Why not torture in pursuit of any worthwhile goal? 5. Indeed, if you are willing to torture forty-nine innocent people to get information from the one who has it, why stop there? If suspects will not break under torture, why not torture their loved ones in front of them? They are no more innocent than the forty-nine you have already shown you are prepared to torture. In fact, if only the numbers matter, torturing loved ones is almost a no-brainer if you think it will work. Of course, you won�t know until you try whether torturing his child will break the suspect. But that just changes the odds; it does not alter the argument.

Luban, here, has over-thought things and he's done it pretty badly. My beef with his argument is two-fold: First of all, he's clinging to the twentieth-century liberal mindset that knowledge equals endorsement. Remember, the United States didn't perform the torture on Murad, the Philippines did. Luban's twentieth century liberal dictum says if you know something, you may continue knowing it in which case you're endorsing any and all means invoked to learn it; or, you may un-learn what you know and proceed on the premise that the thing you know to be true, is everlastingly false and cannot be re-learned under any circumstances. There is no in-between. Our liberals won't let us debate this. They assert, correctly in my view, that whether or not this "game of pretend" is a worthwhile exercise, is a matter not to be left to the ballot box. To them, however, this lifts the whole matter out of the sphere of debate. That we have a moral obligation to forget things we know to be true, is a premise fit only for a monolog and never for a dialog. Excuse me, there's a difference between declaring a subject out of the proper realm of voting, and removing it from the arena of ideas. Seems to me, if we really become a more refined and civilized culture by playing games of pretend, this doctrine should be sufficiently durable to withstand scrutiny. I just think we should talk it over. Cop knocks on the wrong apartment door responding to a domestic call, catches you growing marijuana plants -- does the law really have an obligation to pretend you're not growing pot, when the law knows damn well that you are? Really? What if the cop walked in on you carving up your wife's body in the bathtub? So Luban proceeds from the premise that by using the information, the United States "lowers" itself, so to speak, to the level of the Philippine authorities who extracted the information. He doesn't say it outright, but makes several assertions that rest on this premise. The other problem I have, is with his drift. He asks five questions about where we should go from here. Question 1 sets up a false choice, Question 2 sets up the dubious concept of "statistical lives," Question 3 appeals to our sensibilities to be horrified at the practice of group-torture, Question 4 calls the value of the theoretical reward into doubt, for no logical reason whatsoever. By the time he gets to Question 5 we're beating bin Laden's pregnant sister with a metal chair. There's a problem with logic drift: If it's legitimate to take it in one direction, it's quite alright to take it in another. Can I take this another way, in order to attack Luban's doctrine of un-learning things? That's how the ticking time bomb came about...the bomb is ticking away, we have a suspect, lives are at stake. Luban says, you really shouldn't torture him because at the time, you don't know for sure he's the guy who planted it. Okay, what if we do know this to be the case? Luban and millions of others don't want us to waterboard. Alrighty, so we got this guy we know planted the bomb, we can't waterboard him...and by simple extension that means we can't make him stand for prolonged periods of time, or deny him food. Are we then "above" the practice of, let us say, giving him lower quality food until he tells us where the bomb is? I guess we must be, so that's out. This is all about safeguarding our principles, our way of life, our high-minded ideals. So if all the other terrorists get to watch Amazing Race, it would be inhumane to make this guy, who knows where the bomb is, that is ticking away...sit in front of Friends reruns in solitary confinement. That would be too primitive, right? Okay now I'm being silly. But that's the point. Luban is engaged in multiple games of pretend here. Pretend we don't know what Murad confessed, in a pointless virtual-protest against his treatment in another country. Again, he doesn't say that outright but his argument rests on the dictum that that is what we should do. Pretend we can control what people think about our country, that people will stop hating us if we stop torturing, which we know damn well is not the case. Pretend that how "good" of a people we are, is some kind of moral absolute and is not subject to individual interpretations, or the day-to-day whims of people simply changing their minds, favorably or otherwise. But most offensive of all to logic and common sense, is to simply pretend that Operation Bojinka never happened...and, somehow, cannot happen. So no, Prof. Luban, it would seem this is emphatically not about two different torture debates, one in fantasy and one in reality. That doesn't quite capture it. There is, instead, a "clean" debate in which our left-wing anti-war types would like to engage...a world where nobody ever tortures anybody, unless the other side does it first. And then it's done in retaliation, never to extract information, because that never, ever works. And then there's the debate that recognizes if torture never works, it simply wouldn't be done...not unless one seeks to assert that all torture is cathartic blood-lust, a personal exercise in arousal for the person doing the torturing. The latter of those two enjoys the luxury of learning from Operation Bojinka, and recognizing what took place: TORTURE WORKED. The former argument can't afford to rely on this anecdote. It damages itself in doing this, because the anecdote proves that torture can be used to extract information, and human lives can and do depend on it.

Foley Is A (Blank)

2006-10-02T19:25:00.000-07:00

Foley Is A (Blank) Well, well, well. Congressman Mark Foley has had to resign, right before the midterm elections, because it has come to light that he has been asking 16-year-old boys what it feels like to jerk off into a towel. This is the guy responsible for enacting some of the sexual predator laws that, ironically, will probably be used to hang him. That makes Republicans look pretty bad. But wait, it looks like the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives has known about this for quite some time...and done very little about it. Why, that makes them look a whole lot worse. I am led to believe, by those with a vested interest in me concluding such a thing, that those in power have something for which to attone. Well, I'm gonna go ahead and agree with that. This is sick and disgusting, and Speaker Dennis Hastert & Co. have some splainin' to do. Three problems with the Mark Foley situation: 1. As Patterico has nailed down, there is a significant discrepancy between what the facts tell us about what Hastert knew and when Speaker Hastert knew it...and what the High Priests Of Truthiness^TM tell us we are supposed to conclude, about what Speaker Hastert knew and when Speaker Hastert knew it. 2. The High Priests further indignantly intone to us certain beliefs we are supposed to have about Congressman Foley's memberships in certain groups. Specifically, they demand we are to have the opinion that the "R" after Foley's name, is all-important. His reprehensible conduct is endemic to being a Republican, and it is a reflection upon all Republicans. His homosexuality, political correctness demands we are to believe, is off topic. Try this. Go to a left-wing blog and find some comments about Foley; it's not hard to do. Read what they have, and substitute "Republican" with "homosexual" (since Foley is both). After that pattern replacement exercise, does the result look like something liberals, or anybody else, would have the balls to say anywhere? No, I really don't think it does. Now, common sense tells us that to believe that one of his attributes is 100% relevant, and another of his attributes is utterly irrelevant -- that just isn't gonna fly. Common sense says that. I wonder how many among us will listen. 3. Perhaps some will think I'm unfair by simply asking the question: What did the Democrats know about this and when did they know it? I'll confess to being biased, since as I've said before, I don't trust Democrats on anything. That's a bias. All biases are not necessarily unfair, since I have reasons to think the things I think about them. And let's face up to something here: If no Democrats, anywhere, knew anything about the Foley shenanigans prior to 9/24/06, that sets up one scenario; but if a single Democrat under the dome, anywhere...Minority Leader Pelosi, the freshest, greenest Democrat, or anyone in between those two extremes...if even a single one of them knew a single thing about this, why, that sets up a completely different scenario. Most reasonable people, whatever their prejudices, will 'fess up to agreeing with that. This has the appearance of being an October Surprise, in its most naked, brazen form. Why is the question not being asked anywhere? Interesting side note: This showed up in the mail from Netflix, the very night the scandal exploded. That freakin' night. I am shocked, I tell you. Shocked! Update: Just getting in at the end of a long, long line of other bloggers who consider it worthwhile to point you here. Macsmind wants to ask pretty much the same questions that I do...except in my case, the questions are all I have, whereas what's presented over there is pound after pound after pound of raw, fresh, lean meat. Every single ounce of which, raises the pertinence of the questions. Responsible Americans will demand answers before figuring out who's naughty & who's nice...and they'll certainly insist on them before changing leadership of our Congress.

On Making More Terrorists

2006-09-29T06:03:00.000-07:00

On Making More Terrorists Regarding last night's post I really don't mean to pick on the Hog. His site is one of my favorites, and the points he has made are long overdue. The thing about being tired of the finger-pointing, popular as that sentiment is, I'm just wondering who could possibly be saying this and meaning it. I would have to guess the presumption is, that nothing fruitful is coming from it and nothing can. Hog's pattern of thinking is clear to me. Everybody else's, not so much. I just find it curious that so many people are so fatigued all of a sudden. Conspiracy theorists say the Jews made 9/11 happen, or President Bush did, or space aliens did...we hear the most whacked-out things about this, and nobody says "I'm so tired of this." Clinton starts acting like some of it may be his fault, through the Shakespeare "doth protest too much" thingy. Details come out, woops, looks like some of it might actually have been his fault...suddenly people are tired of the blame game five or six days later. Hey look what we got here! "Everybody" thinks the same thing! Nobody can articulate exactly why...the fad is sweeping the nation...and it just so happens to work to the benefit of Bubba. Golly, I've NEVER seen that before! You know what? Here's something I personally find rather exhausting, and it's just shifting in to high gear right about...now. We've been talking about it all week long. The global war on terrorism is stoking people into becoming terrorists, therefore we are creating a new generation of terrorists. Perhaps my tolerance of this tired old cliche would be reinvigorated, if it was put to some intellectual challenge to show there's something to it. Oh, I know there's some evidence to back it up...I'm talking about a challenge, which is a little different. The meme actually does get some intellectual treatment in a Weekly Standard article I've come to learn about via blogger friend James Bostwick at Newsblog Central. It gets some challenge there... ...and in very, very few other places. That's a problem. The problem I'm really having with it, is that if you are a jihadist, you are a nut. Well, I grew up in Bellingham, Washington; I know nuts don't have to be "stoked." If you're a nut, by definition, your gears are already stripped. I say that because of the plain insanity of what you are planning to do. That you would follow through on it, says far more about you than it does about whatever motivated you. And I frankly don't care how many people fall into that class. Targeting civilians to make a point, is nuts. A guy on the radio put it the best way I've heard so far: You are never in more danger of being stung by hornets, than when you knock the hornet's nest down. That doesn't mean you shouldn't do it. We tried leaving the hornet's nest up. We tried it. We know where it gets us. Hornets get pretty pissed when their nest is knocked down. That shouldn't provide us with an argument for leaving the nest up. What it should do, is make us more and more grateful to the men and women who are closest to the nest -- and the leaders who made the decision to knock it down. That would qualify us for the definition I have in mind for the word "civilization." Thing I Know #130. The noble savage gives us life. Then we outlaw his very existence. We call this process "civilization." I don't know why. Update 10-2-06: Two elaborate compliments from the blogosphere in rapid succession...for an analogy that I shamelessly ripped off from somewhere else. Hey, I'll take 'em. But credit must be redirected toward where it is due. HORNET ANALOGY: It goes to the Armstrong and Getty Show on KSTE, 650KHz. I think...and I'm about 75% sure of this, it's no guarantee...it was Joe Getty who said this. There. Now, if the Hornet analogy just takes off like a rocket and sets the "blogosphere" on fire, my conscience will be clean. And you know, if nobody ever comes by to read The Blog That Nobody Reads, that'll be just fine with me, as long as the analogy finds an audience. Hornets. It's perfect. Fits like a hand in a glove. Keep the hornet's nest up, so no one gets stung? Right over the seesaw or slide on which your kids play? That's what the Democrats want us to do. That is exactly what the Democrats want us to do. Pretend the hornets aren't there...and criticize anyone who makes the slightest noise about taking the nest down.

When They Stop Licking It

2006-09-28T21:10:00.011-07:00

When They Stop Licking It I do not agree with this at all, at least, I don't agree with the main focus of it. It seeks to add mass and momentum to the growing avalanche of opinion that says "I'm so sick and tired of Bush's people and Clinton's people pointing fingers at each otherrrrrrrrr!!!!!" as if it's been going on and on and on for weeks, months, years, no end in sight. Erm...I don't get that. I really don't. The finger-pointing is a product of Clinton's little hissy fit which took place five days ago. And..."The Path to 9/11" which began stirring up a lot of huffing and puffing less than a month ago. People people people -- for how long did we have to endure the nonsense that was the Plame scandal? And what the hell was that about anyway. Democrats seeking to investigate how a "covert op" got her name leaked to "blackmail" her husband. Really striking a blow for the sanctity of national-security related secrets, those Democrats were. Did anyone, anywhere, believe that? And yet, what is the finger-pointing about? It's about looking back on the neglect shown by our leaders -- Democrat and Republican alike -- as those leaders worked so hard to piously reflect the laziness and ignorance the rest of us had. We're supposed to "never again" allow 9/11 to happen, and "never forget" that it did. Okay, then. That means every clear-thinking citizen has a 9/11 commission hearing between his left ear and his right. And we look back. Embarrass Bush, embarrass Clinton, emberrass ourselves, emberrass everybody. We all got it comin'. We're supposed to never again allow it to happen...well, that's the first step. So "Hog" and I disagree. I think it's useful, and I'm not tired of it. Personally, I've gone a lot longer than five days, reading about stuff that was far, far less relevant to anything that remotely mattered, to anyone. So I'm not done. I agree with everything else, though. And this is just plum good writing. Acidic, without working too hard trying to be; likably rustic, without working too hard trying to be; frank and un-subtle, without working too hard trying to be. Perfect. Really a thing of beauty. Funniest thing I've read in quite some time, and not unintentionally so.

...you can't stand on your chair and fling poo every time a journalist asks you a reasonable and important question. Clinton thinks Wallace attacked him. My response? When the press licks your behind clean every day for 14 years, and one day they stop, it probably DOES feel like an attack. But it's not. Clinton feels like he got manhandled. He didn't, but even if he had been, conservatives are lied about and berated on the air every day. If they can take it, so should he. The big sissy. It still amazes me that people think Clinton is a super genius. He got into Yale Law School because he drove a senator's car, and because he came from Arkansas, an area where Ivy League Schools have to search pretty hard to find qualified applicants. He attended Yale on a pass/fail basis because at that time, liberal nuts had done away with grading. He doesn't have a grade point average. All we know is that he passed. And graduating from law school is no sign of great intelligence. : Now he has gone on the air and thrown a tantrum, and he made ridiculous statements easily proven false, and after that he was stupid enough to ream out his own staff in the presence of a TV journalist, threatening to fire them, as though it was THEIR fault he had no self-control. Brilliant? Where is the evidence?

That's just a tiny sampling. Go read the whole thing.

I Hate Bush!

2006-09-28T07:11:00.000-07:00

I Hate Bush! Good morning! There are now 845 days before hating President George W. Bush is just as stylish and just as relevant to current events as hating James K. Polk, or Louis XIII of France. And yet this piece, now three years old, has lost no currency, none whatsoever. That observation is a rather tragic and, one would hope, poor summation of the most advanced civilization in the world, wouldn't you have to say?

In My World: Bush Haters of the World Unite! Posted by Frank J. at 07:19 AM "The meeting of Bush Haters is called to order," Michael Moore announced, "Jonathan Chait, please read the minutes from the last meeting." "By unanimous vote, we declared that we hate Bush," Chait said as he read from the minutes that were made from hastily writing with a crayon, "Also, by unanimous vote, we declared that we are much smarter than the general populace. By majority vote, it was decided that people were much happier under Saddam than the occupying force led by Bush. We also determined that we will spend more time trying to resolve how Bush can be both extremely dumb and evil and scheming and constantly outsmarting us at the same time. Still open to debate is whether Bush is worse than Hitler." "I like Hitler! He kill joos!" "Oh, I would like to welcome some new members to the Bush Haters club," Moore said, "but I need to remind our Islamic extremist friends that we refer to Jews here as 'neo-conservatives'. I think it's time to open the floor to general fomenting. I'll start." Moore took a deep breath and fixed his hat. "I hate Bush!" he screamed, shaking the floor as he jumped up and down, "I'm too busy hating Bush to shave or bathe. And he drives me to eat excessively!" "You could use some of your eating time to instead bathe," suggested someone in the audience. "You shut up!" Moore responded.

After five years of stewardship by an administration the Bush-haters say wasn't even elected, the upcoming election is about finally -- FINALLY -- translating their frustration over this "stolen" election into public policy. I guess when they lose elections, they get mad, and when they get mad they compaign and that leads to possibly winning the next election. Fair enough...otherwise disinterested people are persuaded to change their votes out of proxy anger, that's their right. It's their vote. And yet, if this process is more representative of the popular will than President Bush himself, how is it that it takes almost six years in a country with two-year election cycles? And why is it so difficult to collect coherent reasons for hating a President? Yeah yeah, war is not good for children and other living things, and all that. But where is the unifying effect of such a clean and simple hatred? The war has been executed with its share of mistakes, strategic, tactical, and public-relations. How is it that all this other stuff enters into it?

1. In exchange for large U.S. oil companies gaining access to occupied territories, Bush reportedly gave $43 million of your tax dollars to the Taliban in May of 2001 - only 4 months before their September 11th attacks on the United States! 2. Bush had no concern about terrorist attacks on the U.S. before 9/11/01 (see #12 for more info). 3. Bush wholeheartedly supported the infamous "Patriot Act," which infringes on most of your constitutional rights. In addition, he is an outspoken supporter of the "Patriot Act II." 4. The Bush Regime failed to protect the people of Baghdad from looting, riots, bombings, and other undue circumstances, following the fall of the city - so that the oil ministry would be heavily guarded by U.S. troops. 5. Bush pulled the United States out of the Kyoto Treaty, a global warming agreement between major world powers, signed in 1997. 6. Bush banned federal aid to any international group offering abortions or abortion counseling, even if their funding from those projects came from other sources. THE HYPOCRISY HAS SPOKEN� although the Bush Regime has been attacking abortion rights in the U.S. too... 7. Bush used his presidential powers to repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax for corporations. All taxes paid under the AMT since its 1987 inception were refunded to the corporations. Does anyone else smell Bush's campaign finance scheme? 8. CRIMINAL ALERT!!! Bush appointed Elliott Abrams to the National Security Council. Abrams was convicted during the Reagan administration for Iran-Contra ties. Do you really feel safe with a convicted criminal helping to oversee national security? 9. Bush proposed to nominate the attorney responsible for the court case that weakened the Americans with Disabilities Act, Jeffrey Sutton, to judgeship in a federal appeals court. 10. Bush turned the 9/11/01 terrorist attacks on the U.S. into a scheme to justify severely limiting civil rights and attacking the Constitution (see #3), and to avert public attention from the extreme economic threats the Bush Regime has invoked upon the millions of middle-class, working-class, and poor Americans, while giving break after break to large corporations and rich individuals. 11. Of Bush's proposed $2 trillion tax cut 43% goes to the wealthiest 1% of Americans. 12. After Bush's "election" was officially announced, President Clinton requested numerous meetings with Bush - specifically to discuss terrorists threats and making them a priority of Bush's Regime. Bush refused to meet with Pres. Clinton, but allowed one of his staff "underlings" to talk to Clinton instead. Not surprisingly, Bush never bothered to find out what Clinton had to say. 13. Bush cut $35 million in funding for doctors to receive advanced pediatric training. Is this him saying, "No child left behind, unless they're ill"?? 14. Bush has already packed the federal courts with radical conservative judges - Charles Pickering, Pricilla Owens, and Miguel Estrada - to name a few...

The case against President Bush, as I've written before, is plagued with the problem of "Mass Murder and Overtime Parking." If you believe Bush is guilty of Reason-To-Hate-#1 how can you possibly give a rat's ass about #11? Reason-To-Hate-#5, has to do with the continuing survival of the entire planet, home to six billion souls. If you believe the President's actions with regard to the Kyoto Treaty have some relevance, which has extinction-level implications for us, how are #6 and #14 even on the radar? Well, anyway. I got me a whacky idea. Because it seems to me, the pressing issue of our time is not that President Bush has too much power, or not enough of it; the issue of greatest importance, is that all the other issues are being left unaddressed. Our government is spending way too much money, dirty little men who want to live in the seventh century are trying to kill us, we're being invaded by illegal aliens, and up to about age thirty the average American is bone-chillingly stupid about American principles -- and the English language. Those are our issues. President Bush has something to do with one of them through the Bush Doctrine, which we can continue to debate after he's gone -- he's absolutely on the wrong side on another two of those, and he's completely irrelevant to the remaining one. We shouldn't be arguing about whether we like him or not. Like him? Isn't that a personal decision/problem anyway? What on earth could it have to do with an election in the first place? So here's my idea. Let the Bush-haters win this one. Their swelling hatred makes them something like an inflating balloon...an inflating balloon in a theater, with something life-impactingly important on the screen, and the balloon right in front of your face. It's so hard to see what's going on with them running around -- hating. Let them win a midterm, and maybe the balloon will pop. And then we can examine the issues much more worthy of our attention. A nationwide discussion of just one of them, conducted with some honesty on both sides, would be a vast improvement what we have now. Of course, we should consider the consequences of letting the Bush-haters win. If they win the Senate, Bush will have a much harder time confirming judicial officers like John Roberts and Samuel Alito. The likely victor in such a confirmation process, will more closely resemble such distinguished luminaries as Ruth Bader Ginsburg and John Paul Stevens. Hmmm. Well, there's a problem. I'm not so sure mainstream America supports Ginsburg and Stevens over Roberts and Alito. Sure the fringe left does, but...once these liberal assholes are sworn in and seated, they tend to -- how do I put this nicely. They destroy the law. Utterly, completely. The law can say "don't destroy property" and the liberal judge will want to debate what "destroy" means, what "property" means, and most assuredly, whether the property-destroyer was motivated by social pressures and personal angst that gave him a special entitlement to set cars on fire. Simply put, where they interpret it, there is no law. So I guess that idea ultimately favors a government governing without law. That doesn't seem like one of my better ones. Oh well, we could let the Bush-haters have the House instead. The House doesn't confirm federal officers or sign treaties, instead, it just -- controls the purse strings. And what President ever needed a check on his ability to spend money, besides President Bush? Yes, that's the ticket. Pop the Bush-hating balloon, and seat a Democratic House that will exercise the financial restraint for which the Democrats have come to be famous... ...oy. Well, at least we'll have some more prudent, cool-headed, reasoned people in charge of those all-important House leadership positions. ...yeesh. *sigh* Well, you know...sometimes I guess these wild ideas I get aren't very good. Back to the drawing board.

This Is Good XXIII

2006-09-27T06:18:00.002-07:00

This Is Good XXIII Debra Saunders on Bill Clinton's interview with Chris Wallace on Fox News this weekend, in which the former President demonstrated his performance anxieties all too clearly.

I don't get it. If Bill Clinton is so smart, why has he made his failure to get Osama bin Laden the big story of the week twice in the last month? Start with the ABC miniseries "The Path to 9/11." I never saw it, so all I know about it is that Clinton thought it showed him to be too soft on bin Laden. Oddly, when Democrats were billing themselves as tough on terrorism, Clinton turned the spotlight on his failure to vanquish bin Laden. : Read Richard Clarke's book, the former president repeatedly admonished Wallace. Hmm. If Clinton wants to remind voters that his own National Security Adviser Sandy Berger pleaded guilty to sneaking out and shredding three copies of a Clarke memo about the growing terrorist threat in America, well, OK. Twist my arm.

That's kind of been my problem all along, too. The lefty mindset instructs me to believe that former President Clinton "put Wallace in his place" during the interview, which, I guess, means I'm supposed to observe Clinton's behavior and then make decisions about his administration's actions regarding bin Laden. Okay. So I observe Clinton's behavior, and ask, is this the behavior of someone proud of the actions he took and the decisions he made? Well Christ on a cracker, are these people watching the same video that I'm watching? He's saying "the entire military was against" going in and getting bin Laden...so under his leadership, we didn't do it...sounds to me like a scathing indictment against groupthink. The President relied on consensus, and people died. I'm just going with Clinton's side of the story to get that. Those are his words. And that's his behavior. It seems Bill Clinton has learned his lesson -- it's a real sore sticking-point with him -- I just hope we've all learned ours. Come to think of it, it seems to be beyond the point of disagreement, which is really saying something considering how divisive this whole thing has turned out to be -- Clinton really did have opportunities to "get" bin Laden in one form or another, that the current President has not had. Well, it's a matter of fact that under the leadership of Clinton's successor, we've killed a lot of terrorists. How many dead terrorists under Bill Clinton's watch? Are we ready to achieve agreement and unity on the notion that there's a link between our safety and our liberty...and lots of dead terrorists? If so, wouldn't it be nice for our image-conscious former President if he had some dead terrorists he could talk about?

Very Credible Testimony

2006-09-27T05:39:00.000-07:00

Very Credible Testimony Larry Sabato, the most quoted college professor in the land, had said earlier on Hardball with Chris Matthews "the fact is, [Sen. George Allen] did use the n-word [in college], whether he's denying it now or not. He did use it." Via Talking Points Memo: Prof. Sabato is presenting himself now, as a second-hand source for this.

One of Virginia's best-known political analysts says that he had never personally heard Senator George Allen use racial epithets. But Larry Sabato insists that that claims by former Allen football teammates and acquaintances are valid. Sabato is the director of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics. He said in an e-mail to The Associated Press that he didn't personally hear Allen say the n-word. Sabato went on to say that his conclusion is based on -- quote -- "very credible testimony." Sabato was a classmate of Allen's at the University of Virginia in the early 1970s. Yesterday, he said on M-S-N-B-C's "Hardball with Chris Matthews" that he knew Allen had used racial slurs, but declined to say whether he had witnessed them. Allen is a Republican running for a second U-S Senate term and has been mentioned as a presidential contender. His campaign said yesterday that Sabato's claim was inaccurate. Allen campaign manager Dick Wadhams says the campaign is obviously glad that Sabato clarified his comments.

The allegations against Sen. Allen have been compared to "Swift Boating," a reference to the 527 group of Vietnam veterans who had mobilized two years ago to fight John Kerry's bid for the Presidency. There are some similarities; the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth advanced the notion that Sen. Kerry did not truly earn his three purple hearts during his brief tour in that war. Those who criticize Senator Allen, therefore, are saying certain things happened three decades ago, just as the Swift Boat Vets were saying certain things happened 36 years ago in 'Nam. Another similarity: Those who wish to follow the Allen controversy, are called upon to exert a little bit of mental effort just to figure out what's first-hand testimony and what's second-hand, for things are not always what they seem to be. It seems many among the Swift Boat Vets shared the river with the Massachusetts Senator during one of the conflicts in question but not the boat. The Kerry campaign, you may recall, had sought to advance the argument that this made for some kind of a problem, although I recall much of what the Swift Boaters had to say concerned the nature of the conflict, not so much with Sen. Kerry's actions during that conflict. Well, people seem to be forgetting the comparison itself has some problems. What the Swift Boat Vets wanted to tell us, had to do with a war...George Allen's critics seek to tell us unseemly things about the Senator's character and beliefs, based on things he was supposed to have said and done a few years ago. The thing of it is, if Sen. Allen was a racist then, he's probably a racist now -- otherwise, what would be the concern? And if that's the case, can someone find some anecdotal evidence with a little bit of freshness to it? Maybe some wisecrack he made last year, or the year before? Anyone who takes that rhetorical question and turns it around, attempting to apply it to Sen. Kerry's conundrum with the Swift Boat Vets, would necessarily leverage their position with the argument used to spring a child rapist or a chainsaw-murderer from the pokey based on his "good behavior" in jail. Good behavior is fine and good...there are no children in jail. At least, I hope, not in a jail to which a child rapist would be sent. There are no chainsaws in jail. What is good behavior, if it's just an absence of the kind of behavior that cannot be exercised anyway? Sen. Kerry hasn't ended any tours in Viet Nam lately by manipulating the system for a quick deluge of purple hearts. He hasn't been called on to go on such a tour lately. Sen. Allen is accused of throwing around the N-word. You know, you can do that anytime you want. Sabato has just proven that there are some people involving themselves in this issue, persuading others that they heard something first-hand, that they really didn't. He's proven that because he's shown himself to be one of those people. How many others are there?

Makes Me Sad

2006-09-26T06:37:00.000-07:00

Makes Me Sad You know what really makes me sad about this?

Nora Ephron: Socks Mon Sep 25, 4:08 PM ET What surprised me most about the Clinton meltdown yesterday was that no one told him to pull up his socks. This is a man who never goes anywhere without staff, lots of staff. Was there no one there to see that his pants were hiked up too high and his socks were pulled down too low and the flesh on his legs was showing? Can no one say things like this to the former POTUS? So Bill Clinton was sandbagged by Chris Wallace...How does it happen? How does one of the smartest men ever elected president end up sandbagged by Chris Wallace? Is this what one docudrama does to the guy? I don't think so. I'm afraid this is classic Clinton, Clinton the monologist, Clinton the guy who used to keep his White House houseguests up until 4 a.m. while he went on and on about what the press was doing to him. What a waste... Clinton should simply have answered Wallace's question. He should have said that he went after Bin Laden and that if Al Gore had been elected (which he was) we probably would have killed him and 9/11 would never have happened...Come on, guy. Pull up your socks.

It's not that Nora Ephron has hit the nail on the head, that former President Clinton is a man obsessed with image; that his capacity for dealing with substance has been seriously questioned, and his way of dealing with the questions is just more maneuvering to safeguard his image. It isn't that Ephron has captured this conundrum, and then gone on to speculate that with Al Gore in the White House, bin Laden would be dead already. Great forensic prowess there, Nora. Great crystal ball ya got there. Based on what, may I ask? President Gore would have sternly lectured bin Laden to not ever do that again, formed a commission to study the greenhouse gas emissions from Ground Zero, and then called a press release to announce that Al Gore invented skyscrapers in the first place. No, the source of my sorrow is this: The socks cannot be categorized as a marginal detail, or as something irrelevant. It's not as if nobody cares. Clinton would care. Based on what I have seen of Bill Clinton over the last fourteen years, Bill Clinton would have valued this advice above and beyond anything that might have had to do with saving lives. Ex-President Clinton says he came closer to rubbing out Osama than anybody before or since. Now I gotta ask: To what kind of mindset is this worthy of comment? Is it even possible to remain sincerely committed to killing bin Laden, or even stopping him -- and then paying the slightest bit of attention, whatsoever, to how close you got to hitting him? How many hot summer days have you sat around watching TV trying to kill that one stubborn housefly, swatter in hand. Whack, whack, whack, whack. The fly's just a little too quick, a little too smart. Ever start arguing about who got closest to killing the fly? Ever? Has that subject ever come up? Your flyswatter was two inches away, my flyswatter was half an inch away, I got closer than you did. Can such an argument take place among people who really want that fly dead? That's what makes me sad. In the Clinton era, the guy who calls on the President to say, "I know what you can do with your footwear to enhance your public image" is granted an immediate audience. That guy will probably end up going jogging with the President...or at least jogging-in-place while the Commander in Chief runs inside McDonald's, or Gennifer Flowers' apartment. Once President-42 re-emerges, they'll go back to jogging and talking about footwear and trouser length. And the guy who says "I know what we can do to get bin Laden" is left in the waiting room while someone goes to check to see if President Clinton is available. ALL DAY. Even Clinton's fans, will not seek to assert it will happen any other way. I don't blame Clinton. People who care more about image than substance, have always been around, and they'll always be around. I blame the people who support him. The people who argue on his behalf, injecting all their hatred toward the current President into every chat room they can find -- further propagating the meme about "Clinton kept us safe" and "Bush lied, people died." The people who know, without a doubt, that this is all about image. That Clinton gave a great interview, because of how it made them "feel." How he "stood up" for himself and for Democrats everywhere. The people who always have to get in the last word. And yet they know, intuitively, down to the marrow of their bones... ...it was NEVER about stopping any terrorists. That was all, and it remains, just a big game of pretend. They know this. Craven, cowardly liars, every damn one of them.

Not Articulated Outright II

2006-09-25T07:43:00.000-07:00

Not Articulated Outright II Just amazing. Two little pieces of news arising naturally from developing events: Rumors of Osama bin Laden being dead, and a string of polls indicating President Bush's approval rating is headed upward. Seems like a given that the former will have a further effect on the latter...but the readings we have on the current President's popularity, are already pretty positive, presumably without that effect even setting in just yet. And from those, we get three pieces of news arising artificially as media-driven things, from acts deliberately undertaken by people. Clinton throws his hissy-fit on Fox, someone leaks a report from the spooks at 16 agencies to the New York Times...and John Kerry writes an editorial As is usually the case when things come up to make President Bush look somewhat good, the sense of urgency the Democrats have in getting their word out, is nothing short of explosive. It borders on the hysterical. It borders on the prissy.

Losing Afghanistan We're not adequately fighting the war we should be fighting. BY JOHN KERRY Monday, September 25, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT As we marked the fifth anniversary of the worst attack on American soil, there was enormous discussion of the lessons of 9/11. But after the bagpipes stopped, and news coverage turned to other issues, perhaps the first lesson of that day seemed quickly forgotten: We cannot allow Afghanistan to become a terrorist stronghold and a staging ground for attacks on America. If Washington seems to have forgotten Afghanistan, it is clear the Taliban and al Qaeda have not. Less than five years after American troops masterfully toppled the Taliban, the disastrous diversion in Iraq has allowed these radicals the chance to rise again. Time is running out to reverse an unfolding disaster in the war we were right to fight after 9/11.

Senator Kerry's conclusions rest on a central premise, the entertainment of which is necessary for curious mind wishing to follow his argument -- but which he will not articulate outright. The premise doesn't make enough sense for him, or anyone else with a reputation worth protecting, to do so. The premise has to do with this "staging ground" thing. I'm ready to call shenanigans on the whole thing. For it to make sense, the following must happen: Men want to commit terrorist acts and kill Americans. They have no regard for innocent civilian life, and are sufficiently determined and resourceful to make it happen -- but not without a staging ground. Okee dokee. They find the staging ground, we're in danger, and if they don't we're not. This is what you have to believe to sustain Senator Kerry's argument. The gears these evil men have in their heads that have been long ago stripped, by...whatever. Their homicidal tendencies. Their nuttiness. Their willingness to follow others without thinking for themselves. Those things do not make a deadly terrorist act likely -- or at least not much. Toss in a training ground or staging area, and whoa! Now we're in some real trouble. It's the same kind of thinking you have with the gun control thing. Bad guy wants to kill you for your wallet -- this doesn't put you in danger. But he's got a gun, and now, uh oh, you're in trouble. With his psychopathic tendencies, his rap sheet, his freedom...without the damn gun, that would all be okay. It's not the disrespect for human life that puts innocent people in danger. It's the equipment. Terrorists have a staging ground already, or other terrorists are looking for one. This makes some kind of enormous difference. Does anyone anywhere believe that? For reals? Like they'd bet testes on it? A lot of people are willing to say so...or, not say so...just kind of suggest it in a weasely sort of way. This monotonous drumbeat has been going on for years. Time to call bullshit on it and see if there's something to it or not. How I'm going to go about doing that, I don't know, but if someone were to simply step forward and assert this is the case it would be a dandy first step. Well...I'm waiting. So is America.

Couldn't Have Said It Better Myself... XIX

2006-09-25T07:13:00.000-07:00

Couldn't Have Said It Better Myself... XIX I have nothing further to add to this piece...except I'm a little sorry there's a necessity for pointing it out. People everywhere, smart, dumb, patriotic, otherwise, everything in between -- should have already realized this without reading it somewhere. Let posterity forget they were my countrymen. I'll say nothing further.

The "Bravery" of Keith Olbermann, et al. Posted by: Dale Franks on Tuesday, September 19, 2006 You know, I don't mind it when people say outrageous things. I don't really mind when people engage in a little overstatement for polemic effect. But it strikes me as a little stupid when people make outrageous statements in which they clearly don't believe. McQ's Olbermann post got me to thinking about this a little bit. For instance, there are people on the left who declaim that George W. Bush is setting up a theocratic fascist state. Then, in the next breath, they discuss whether they want Hillary Clinton or whoever to become president in 2008. You cannot simultaneously believe that Chimpy McBushitlerburton will impose a fascist theocracy, and that there will even be an election in 2008. One of these two things cannot be true. And frankly, no one who is even remotely serious believes that George W. Bush will do anything other than go back to Texas in January 2009. Similarly, Mr. Olbermann knows that he is, in fact, permitted to disagree with the Bush Administration. He has no fear whatever about spouting off with his views on (theoretically) nationwide television. Moreover, he knows, beyond any doubt, that the Secret police won't be knocking on his door at 2:00 am to drag him off into the nacht und nebel, never to be heard from again. He knows that he can say anything he wants, without fear of reprisal. So let's not get all giddy over Mr. Olbermann's "bravery" at "speaking truth to power". Bravery requires risk, and, as Mr. Olbermann knows to a certainty, he risks nothing.

Read the whole thing...

Bill Clinton's Excuses

2006-09-25T06:55:00.000-07:00

Bill Clinton's Excuses Byron York, writing for the National Review Online today, does something awfully mean to former President Clinton's position propped up by that temper tantrum last night (recorded Friday, as I understand). He...just checks out the facts. Not pretty.

Bill Clinton�s Excuses No matter what he says, the record shows he failed to act against terrorism. By Byron York �I worked hard to try and kill him,� former president Bill Clinton told Fox News Sunday. �I tried. I tried and failed.� �Him� is Osama bin Laden. And in his interview with Fox News� Chris Wallace, the former president based nearly his entire defense on one source: Against All Enemies: Inside America�s War on Terror, the book by former White House counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke. �All I�m asking is if anybody wants to say I didn�t do enough, you read Richard Clarke�s book,� Clinton said at one point in the interview. �All you have to do is read Richard Clarke�s book to look at what we did in a comprehensive systematic way to try to protect the country against terror,� he said at another. �All you have to do is read Richard Clarke�s findings and you know it�s not true,� he said at yet another point. In all, Clinton mentioned Clarke�s name 11 times during the Fox interview. But Clarke�s book does not, in fact, support Clinton�s claim. Judging by Clarke�s sympathetic account � as well as by the sympathetic accounts of other former Clinton aides like Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon � it�s not quite accurate to say that Clinton tried to kill bin Laden. Rather, he tried to convince � as opposed to, say, order � U.S. military and intelligence agencies to kill bin Laden. And when, on a number of occasions, those agencies refused to act, Clinton, the commander-in-chief, gave up.

More...

We're All Such Independent Thinkers II

2006-09-24T09:11:00.000-07:00

We're All Such Independent Thinkers II On the anniversary of Hurricane Katrina striking the gulf coast, I wrote about what the occasion meant to me, which had to do with independent thinking.

You have to learn from experience to be an independent thinker. You have to admit when you've been duped. And the sad fact is, most people don't do this. Most people haven't even spent time in an environment where they can be duped...and, subsequently, be placed in a situation where they'll be forced to admit that's what happened. Most people are cloistered within happy lifestyles in which they can be duped, blissfully, six different ways before breakfast, and never become aware of it. I can prove this easily. A society chock full of critical thinkers...we wouldn't have, or tolerate, anniversaries of terrible events like Hurricane Katrina. What in the BLUEFUGG is the point of an anniversary? It is nothing more than a commandment from a layer of elites way-on-high, down to the dirty-unwashed commoners, to spend lots of time thinking about a certain thing, masquerading beneath a costume of "news."...The hurricane isn't happening. This is not news; it simply isn't.

Of course, I would have to add that the critique about being cloistered, applies to all of us. Except for those who of us make decisions about things, unilaterally; things that come back to haunt us. Things we can blame on nobody else. It seems as the generations trickle on past, this is a situation from which more and more of us are being spared. And that's not a good thing. The people who are supposed to bring us facts -- and, instead, are becoming energized and skilled in bringing us their opinions, which are not facts -- have raised questions about their worthiness of our trust. They are placed under no supervision which could address these questions; the First Amendment, as we understand it, forbids such supervision. Is that a good thing? Maybe. But the questions still remain unaddressed. And they're getting bigger. Late Friday or early Saturday, reports began to trickle in that Osama bin Laden may be dead, and I commented that...

If this is true, our current President can claim just as much credit for getting bin Laden, after all, as the previous U.S. President can claim for the balmy economic climate of the 1990's. Happened on his watch and all that.

Well, now. Nobody ever reads this blog, of course. But maybe this one time, somebody did. Here it is Sunday morning, and lookee, lookee what we have here...from our oh-so-unbiased and objective media, cleansed and purified of the tiniest scintilla of any personal agenda in the election of our leaders whatsoever.

America's spy agencies have concluded that the invasion of Iraq has created a flood of new Islamic terrorists and increased the danger to US interests to a higher level than at any time since the 9/11 attacks. This grim assessment is provided in a classified intelligence document called the National Intelligence Estimate, large parts of which have been leaked to the New York Times. The report is the largest US intelligence survey of the global terror threat carried out since the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. [emphasis mine]

Now, look at what you have going on here. Assume for the sake of argument, God pops out of the sky and says, "that bullshit the media have been telling you about how they are oh-so-unbiased and objective...that's true. I have been deploying my Angels of Unbiasedness, as each journalist has been hired on to each newspaper, from the New York Times down to the tiniest little Mayberry Gazette wannabe, and purified from their conciousnesses any and all political leanings to the left or the right. They speak truth. They are objective in all political events, and it is My doing." Suppose we had some iron-clad evidence like that, that there is no such thing as a reporter or editor who wants an election to come out a certain way. Never happened. Suppose, further, that the "spymasters" as the article goes on to call them (and Democrats) are correct and that Iraq is a breeding ground for terrorism. This isn't an issue with terrorists already converted to terrorism, looking around the world for a place to train and a way to strike the U.S., and in 2003 going "Aha! We can do it over here, let's go!" No, let's suppose these are peaceful goat farmers and fennel farmers and what-not, living out their lives, and since the invasion of Iraq they decided to get into the terrorism biz. That George Bush and his idiotic policies are making more terrorists. Okay... Iraq's been a breeding ground for quite awhile, then, right? The "spymasters" have known this for a couple years, at least, right? Six weeks from Tuesday, we got a midterm election. Friday night's news might, just might, have created hundreds of thousands of voters who might have changed their outlook on what the Bush administration has achieved over the last three years. "Where's Osama?" has been a favorite mantra among the Democrats and other assorted Bush-bashers, Move-on-dot-org-sters, Michael Moore America-haters and anarchists, etc. If Osama is really room temperature, this would be the crumbling of a keystone in the delicate liberal power structure. Can't have that. Can't have that, says who? The unbiased reporters and editors? No! God said they're perfectly objective and just want to give us facts! And yet...somebody has a bias. Article says the report has been leaked. IT SAYS SO. Look at what they're leaking. It could have been leaked any time. Why now?

The White House and senior Republicans often say their tough line has made America safer over the past five years. This report indicates that America's spymasters disagree with that opinion, and its findings could embarrass President George Bush in the run-up to November's crucial midterm elections.

Uh, YEAH. Ya think? Okay, then...let's summarize what we're supposed to believe here. Our journalists are paragons of objectivity, and the spooks cannot be that. Not when it comes to figuring out when to leak stuff, and what to leak...not unless you want to advance the notion that the timing is a coincidence. But as far as the stuff the spooks are leaking, how they came to put the report together, and the data that went into it, the spooks are honest and clear-headed thinkers, who only seek truth. They start to form an agenda about how our elections should turn out, ONLY, when they figure out what to do with the report when it's put together. And, of course, when. They sit on the classified info like they have sworn to do, and when something comes along that might offer just the slightest chance of making the President look good, they pick something to leak, and out it goes. At this point, though, if I choose to believe "news" is "objective," I must necessarily maintain that objectivity is decided by the intent of the editor who put it together, and the reporter who got it...both of them objective and unbiased. The guy who gave it to the reporter is either biased as hell -- or has a knack for timing. But I can still believe what I read. Anybody want to go for that one? What the hell good does it do us if the reporters are objective? How does that even matter? We're being led down a path. I can't wait to see someone try to address this, and provide a sound argument to the effect that we're not.

Imitation is the Sincerest Form XVI

2006-09-23T06:29:00.000-07:00

Imitation is the Sincerest Form XVI At the beginning of last month I had advanced the notion, abjuring any credit for coming up with it on my own, that there was an important but little-discussed cause for MMGW (this blog's acronym for "man made global warming"). Supposing for the moment that MMGW is a reality, the thing we're doing to cause it has nothing to do with driving cars or using deoderant, but rather, yelling at each other. Specifically, I blamed the liberals for being a bunch of hotheads during precisely the same timeframe they wanted to bitch and bellyache and kibitz and piss and moan about President Bush causing hurricanes.

We have discovered the real cause of global warming. And it is the anger and nastiness of liberals. It's rising up into the atmosphere, and acting like a greenhouse gas. Makes perfect sense. What is the timeframe of global warming, after all? Ostensibly, it is a phenomenon gradually setting in since the industrial revolution, but it has really started to peak in the last handful of years. The hottest year on record, I'm told, was 1998 -- that was the hear move-on-dot-org got started. In 2001, liberals were driven out of all the branches of government because we were sick and tired of them. The liberals got angry, and accused the elections officials of shenanigans. The accusations were checked out, and smacked-down; the liberals got angrier.

Now, I don't know if Peggy Noonan reads my blog. I would suspect hardly anybody does. But how, then, do you explain this gem which appeared on Opinion Journal yesterday morning.

This is what I was thinking as I walked this week along the siren-filled streets of New York: The temperature of the world is very high. We have a global warming problem, and maybe it's due to an increase in the output of heated words. And they too can, in the end, melt icecaps. "The Pope must die." "The Holocaust is a lie." "I can still smell the sulfur." The last of course from the democratically elected president of the republic of Venezuela, population 26 million, which helps keep America going economically by selling it, at significant profit, oil.

Noonan's point is that as crazy as the Venezuelan asshole's words are, in deciding to ignore those words the administration is making a mistake. Crazy or not, she says, the words were heard and therefore they demand a response. On this, I disagree with Ms. Noonan. Mister Asshole has demonstrated not that there is validity in the words he has uttered, but rather, that there was an urgency involved in him getting them said. To believe the former, barring some outside evidence you would have to believe that all spoken things must necessarily be true; whereas to believe the latter, you simply have to recognize someone took the time and trouble to speak them. Which, as a matter of fact, is...a matter of fact. If the White House does plan to take Peggy Noonan's advice, I recommend the response be limited to the five words of wisdom brandished by Atticus Finch: "Do you really think so?" The wisdom of anyone, be they powerful or otherwise, answering in the affirmative must be opened to new or renewed inspection. If not their wisdom, then surely their sanity. George Bush is The Devil? Really? Old Nick is doing a rather piss poor job of things, isn't he? Isn't the Prince of Darkness supposed to be soothing us with an intoxicating elixir, so that his every whim is carried instantly, effortlessly, to the farthest corners of creation, so that all of humanity save for the most dedicated worshippers of God are lulled into everlasting submission to mankind's greatest enemy? President Bush chokes on a pretzel, and we have a nationwide scandal. Pres. Chavez' ideas simply don't stand up to scrutiny. To simply take them seriously, is to do them irreparable damage in the arena of ideas. So to leave them unaddressed, impresses me as an effective strategy. But I agree with the thing about heated words causing the global warming. I said it first, and someone else said it before I did. Maybe Peggy read something from whoever else it was. Maybe she came up with it on her own. Not very likely that she read it here...but it's fun to think so. I'll go with that one. I've been robbed, but I'm not calling the police. I'm quite flattered.

Rangel

2006-09-23T05:47:00.000-07:00

Rangel It's so sad we've had to wait five years, give or take, to see some of this. But I'm glad it's finally here.

"I want President Chavez to please understand that even though many people in the United States are critical of our president that we resent the fact that he would come to the United States and criticize President Bush," said Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y.

If we go to the Congressman's website, we see he is, in the words of Jack Woltz, "even more frank."

I want to express my extreme displeasure with statements by the President of Venezuela attacking U.S. President George Bush in such a personal and disparaging way during his remarks at the United Nations General Assembly. It should be clear to all heads of government that criticism of Bush Administration policies, either domestic or foreign, does not entitle them to attack the President personally. George Bush is the President of the United States and represents the entire country. Any demeaning public attack against him is viewed by Republicans and Democrats, and all Americans, as an attack on all of us. I feel that I must speak out now since the Venezuelan government has been instrumental in providing oil at discounted prices to people in low income communities who have suffered increases in rent as heating oil prices have risen sharply. By offering this benefit to people in need, Venezuela has won many friends in poor communities of New York and other states. I am surprised that American oil companies have not stepped up to provide that kind of assistance to the poor. Venezuela's generosity to the poor, however, should not be interpreted as license to attack President Bush. Those who take issue with Bush Administration policies have no right to attack him personally. It was not helpful when President Bush referred to certain nations as an "axis of evil." Neither is it helpful for a head of state to use the sacred halls of the United Nations to insult President Bush.

That's a class act right there, Congressman. You can argue with me about President Bush and call me a big ol' stupid-head for re-electing him, all you want. So long as our disagreement stops at the water's edge, you're all right in my book. Y'know...to a point, anyway. Kudos to you.

Bin Laden Dead?

2006-09-23T03:46:00.000-07:00

Bin Laden Dead? A French newspaper is saying Osama bin Laden might have died last month from typhoid in Pakistan.

A French regional newspaper quoted a French secret service report on Saturday as saying that Saudi Arabia is convinced that al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden died of typhoid in Pakistan last month. L'Est Republicain printed what it said was a copy of the report dated September 21 and said it was shown to President Jacques Chirac, Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin and France's interior and defense ministers on the same day. "According to a usually reliable source, the Saudi services are now convinced that Osama bin Laden is dead," the document said. "The information gathered by the Saudis indicates that the head of al Qaeda was a victim while he was in Pakistan on August 23, 2006, of a very serious case of typhoid which led to a partial paralysis of his internal organs."

If this is true, our current President can claim just as much credit for getting bin Laden, after all, as the previous U.S. President can claim for the balmy economic climate of the 1990's. Happened on his watch and all that. Update: Just a tad bit more information in this story from MSNBC.

Well, That Was Lame III

2006-09-22T06:03:00.000-07:00

Well, That Was Lame III Via Boortz: For the good of the GOP, the White House and the treacherous traitors in the Senate have kissed and made-up. Perhaps the last shot has been fired in this little fracas. In the article that describes the compromise, one statement jumps out and makes me want to vomit one more time.

The agreement contains concessions by both sides, though the White House yielded ground on two of the most contentious issues: It agreed to drop a provision that would have narrowly interpreted international standards of prisoner treatment and another allowing defendants to be convicted on evidence they never see. The accord, however, explicitly states that the president has the authority to enforce Geneva Convention standards and enumerates acts that constitute a war crime, including torture, rape, biological experiments, and cruel and inhuman treatment. The agreement would grant Congress' permission for Bush to convene military tribunals to prosecute terrorism suspects, a process the Supreme Court had blocked in June because it had not been authorized by lawmakers. During those trials, coerced testimony would be admissible if a judge allows and if it was obtained before cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment was forbidden by a 2005 law. Bush wanted to allow all such testimony, while three maverick Republican senators John McCain of Arizona, John Warner of Virginia and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina had wanted to exclude it. [emphasis mine]

Maybe not in my lifetime, but perhaps in the lifetime of my son and my grandchildren: Historians will look over the rusty wreck of what once was America, and wonder when the whole thing jumped the shark. They'll decide the turning point was the Chief Justiceship of Earl Warren, 1954-1969. The decade-and-a-half in which the law stopped thinking about what happened, and began to worry excessively about what could be proven to have happened, according to...rules? They started out that way. Rules. Nowadays, there isn't much logic involved in them. The important thing doesn't seem to be what the rules actually are, but that they're simply there. That there's resistance, as much as possible. They're more like obstacles on a miniature golf course. Barricades. Resistance for resistance's sake. Up until then, justice had something to do with truth. Chief Justice Warren unmoored the boat of justice from the dock of truth. Since then, year by year, traitors to truth like McCain Warner and Graham, push the boat farther away as the "Fuck The Establishment" crowd cheers them on; whoever tries to bring the boat in, and put Truth and Justice in the same sentence, is pilloried and excoriated. We've seen that. And now, after generations of politicians re-defining justice to bolster their approval ratings, between truth and justice, there's no overlap; none at all. There is the question of the defendant's guilt or lack thereof, and there is the question of what will happen to him. Nobody even expects one to have an affect on the other anymore. Guilty guys in jail? Innocent men being set free? Maybe it'll happen, maybe not. Why would you expect it. This isn't Dodge City, and Marshall Matt Dillon is dead as dead can be. If a bad guy is a bad guy and we know he's a bad guy, the paramount question is no longer whether he's a bad guy or not, but whether his badness was established according to vague, ethereal rules. Sensible rules, or not...who knows...but unwritten, and predictable as a bouncing football. McCain/Warner/Graham and their sympathizers, instruct me to believe that the rules define "what America is all about." But nobody really knows what they are, and nobody's really supposed to. They define what the country is all about, the way the tax code defines what the country is all about. A hundred accountants will give you a hundred answers, and nobody thinks otherwise. It's supposed to be about upholding rights. But you can tell that isn't it. Such an exercise would be a balancing act. But the black-hearted, cockfaced RINO triumvirate of McCain/Warner/Graham don't behave as people do when they're engaged in a balancing act. They don't walk the way a man does when he's on a tightrope; the knee-wobbling, the hip-jiggling, the surgical precision, these things are absent just as they were in Earl Warren's time. Their struggle is unidirectional. Because of course, those rules are never more glorious than when they are interpreted broadly. This kind of brain surgery isn't done with a scalpel, instead the instrument at hand is an exploding grenade. It's all about making a legacy. I say to myself, if an exclusionary rule didn't apply when I got this cool job, and now it does, gee whiz I just accomplished something. And if there was such an exclusionary rule, and under my watch it has been expanded, gee whiz then I, too, accomplished something. These legislative and judicial officers are supposed to be advancing both interests -- bringing bad guys to justice and ensuring our civil liberties stay intact. But nobody ever achieves "hero" status through this balancing act in which they're supposed to be engaged. No, the guy who expands the exclusionary rule is cheered with a virtual ticker-tape parade -- inevitably, unwaveringly, assuredly -- even as the bad guys are let out into the street for lack of evidence to hold them under the new rules. And his counterpart, who swings the pendulum the other direction by narrowing the exclusionary rules...he is booed and hissed. Again, without exception. He "curtailed our civil liberties," after all. So, balancing act my ass. That's what these politicians are supposed to be doing, but they're not balancing a damn thing. They're whittling something away, generation after generation like water on a rock, until there won't be any more of it. And so, we have to release more and more bad guys, and find new, creative, innovative ways to release bad guys, to thunderous applause. Keep in mind, it only counts if logic is molested. To release a good guy who was really falsely accused, wouldn't count, because America has always been a place where the accused enjoy the benefit of the doubt. There's no novelty in saying "Here's your exculpatory evidence, now you must release him" -- rather a cliched, Hollywood fairy-tale by now. No, to get the adoration of the cheering masses, you have to release scum. You have to flood the streets with people that common sense says, really committed the crimes of which they are accused. Because a "new" law that fails to buck common sense, wouldn't pack the punch. It wouldn't have that special zing. It wouldn't stick it to Da Man. Go back and read that bolded fragment one more time. McCain/Warner/Graham wanted to exclude evidence...so you have evidence that says Ahmed wanted to blow something up, the RINOs say you can't present it, and if that means Ahmed walks then he walks. Because, I guess, that's the "American" way of doing things. For how long, I wonder?

2002 Floral Flag

2006-09-22T05:15:00.000-07:00

2002 Floral Flag Picture was taken out near Vandenberg AFB. Made up of Larkspur plants, and yes...there are fifty stars, each with five points. Simply amazing. Update: Don't drive there...not just yet. According to satellite photos on Google Maps, the flag isn't there. One of the guys in the office thought he dug something up that said the flag reappears year-to-year since WWII, and what you see above was planted only over the 2002 season. Photo to the left indicates where you would have found it, assuming I've lined up the landmarks correctly. Which seems like a safe bet. The flag would have measured 740 feet on the longest side, covering six and a half acres. That would have to be a crapload of water, and I'm sure the time and effort invested in maintaining it day-to-day would quickly surpass the aleady mind-boggling task of designing the flag and somehow figuring out where all the seeds are supposed to go. It's "flown" by the Bodger Seed Co. in Lompoc, CA, and you can read more about it here. Even today, nobody says anything nasty about flying Old Glory if the flying involves a little bit of inspiration, creativity and hard work. The carping and sniping is reserved for the "flying" that is relatively effortless. Like, for example, the wearing of the lapel pin by people like me. And really, nobody's had a word to say against me about that, although we know when someone more prestigious and visible does the same thing there's going to be some kibitzing as a result. Someone like Sean Hannity or Brit Hume. So this says something interesting about the bellyaching about flags by our "real patriots." Flags displayed with relative ease, like from front porches or from the collar of your golf shirt or from the bumper of your car, are supposed to be "oppressive" and stand as symbols of "hegemony" and "jingoism." Was the Bodger Seed Co. being "jingoistic"? I'd be amazed if you can find even one person who thinks so. And this is where my curiosity is aroused -- it's supposed to be all about the symbol, but on closer inspection, though, we see that it probably isn't about that. The resentment seems to be mathematical in nature: the ratio between the number of people likely to observe your decision to display the flag, divided by the minimal amount of conscious thought you put into displaying it. Against antisocial misfits like me who wear the flag, but are likely to be seen by very few people -- or dedicated patriots like Bodger Seed Co. putting some real elbow grease into it (assuming they decided to plant the flag nowadays, after it has become more controversial) -- the "real patriots" who rankle at the flag-flying, have no beef. And so the issue, I think, is one of indoctrination. For a message to be communicated far-and-wide, with little thought, and little effort, is a privilege reserved only for the most provocative left-wing tropes. Some America-hating college professor spews a bunch of mindless bile in his classroom and threatens to flunk any student who dares disagree, we have no problem. Fox News displays the American flag, and suddenly we have a problem. I just find it interesting. It isn't the patriotism, or the lack of effort, or the number of people the message will reach. It is the confluence of those three that sets off the "real patriots" and gets them upset. If they were honest in their objections it would be the message communicated, alone, that would trip the circuit.