Dean's World

(appy-polly-logy to those with dialup)

I recognized that I was a conservative during high school, when in support of a paper I was writing on Solzhenitsyn in a senior-year comparative literature class my ethnic-Polish teacher gave me a stack of American Spectator magazines, one of which included an article on Solzhenitsyn by Malcolm Muggeridge.

The entire gestalt of it just spoke sense to me. Was it a reaction to the tepid, petrified left-wing Jewish labor socialism of my extended family? The anger of a first-generation American (on one side) at a society that seemed (remember, I grew up in the '60's) so inexcusably and utterly unwilling to defend itself against what anyone could see was subversion? "Common sense," as a Princeton friend, later dropout and current Washington operator would later describe it when recruiting me for some Reagan-era campus political / social suicide mission? Maybe it was just the natural inclination of one identified as depressingly adultoid from an absurdly young age and whose picture can be found at the Wikipedia entry for "stick in the mud." I don't really know, but I do remember that when I told my college roommate that I had, upon my return from an Israel program for Jewish searchers, become committed to religious observance, he said, "Well, now at least your religious ethic matches your political one" (or words to that effect).

Be that as it may, it is truth to me, even though politics, and most politicians, turn my stomach. I mean, there is some ethic in there, isn't there?

But at the end of the day, these Democrats are the ones who so undermined the world I remember growing up in, and they continue to do so today. They are not even in the league, for patriotism and love of country and decency, of the Democratic politicians of my early youth — Lyndon Johnson, Roberty Kennedy, Hubert Humphrey. With McGovern, that ended.

Jimmy Carter sealed the deal. He made being an American embarrassing, humiliating, depressing, hopeless. Wimpy. Apologetic. Cringing. Losing.

I don't believe any of today's Democratic leaders have improved on Jimmy Carter, except that he had the benefit of not having to kowtow, as today's Democrats do, so grossly to identity politics of every right- and- privilege- demanding ethnic and social subcultural group, no matter how subversive; to the hard-left on abortion rights; and he was allowed to be some kind of public Christian.

I wish there were Republicans today who had a quarter of the qualities of Ronald Reagan. Here was a great man, one who never claimed for himself the mantle of a perfect or even particularly virtuous personal life; but he loved his country, knew right from wrong, and — exercising a quality that I admire for the very scold it places on one such as myself — his ability, now proved doubly and triply, to make everyone around him think he was a dumbbell when in fact he was sly as a fox.

Frankly I think George W. Bush comes quite close to these qualities. But, sadly lacking the Gipper's ability to communicate and being the literal heir to a political tradition of some ideological infirmity to a conservative — think Jim Baker, the man who made me vote for Bill Clinton in 1992 — he is not Reagan.

Nor are the dizzy denizens of the Capitol statesmen, by and large. Were they ever? The past takes on an undeserved elegance in sepia. The crassness of living, live and unsilenceable color makes today's professional political class seemingly harder to swallow than its predecessors — red or blue.

But every time I step into the booth I ask myself, If this candidate could choose Ronald Reagan* or Jimmy Carter to make the keynote speech at his or her party's nominating convention, which one would he or she choose?

The choice is simple.

8 years ago today, President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act. Frank Warner reminds us what it said, and what was said about it.

(Via Instapundit.)

BOO!

[The Queen has pics of our boys.]

This is tasteless and sick. Do people actually take this fool seriously?

After 9/11 President Bush has led the charge to take the fight to the terrorists. While Iraq may have been a misstep (as seen by some) it has opened up a second front in the war. Rather than fighting terrorists on our East Coast we are engaging and killing them in the deserts of that country. The stock market is at all-time highs. National unemployment is at all-time lows. Home ownership is high. "No Child Left Behind" makes schools accountable for results. International phone tapping ensures (or, ensured) that enemies cannot coordinate plans with sympathizers on American soil. Working with international banks President Bush led the way to disrupt terrorists' money resources abroad. President Bush's tax cuts has kept money in the pocket of the American citizen which have allowed these economic tends to grow. The Republican Party, along with the President, has stood against embryonic stem cell research while encouraging adult and cord blood research. It's for these reasons and more I will be voting Republican in November.

David Greenberg on being a liberal, as opposed to being a conservative:

I think there's another reason for this budding re-embrace of liberal: the fight against Islamist jihadism. Whatever our views of Bush's policies, liberals and conservatives agree that what divides the West from the terrorists is our commitment to liberal values--liberal in the broad sense of the term that denotes the Enlightenment traditions of freedom, equality, and human rights. Search for the term liberal on sites like that of the Progressive Policy Institute and you'll rarely find it used in distinction to Bush-style conservatism--but often invoked in distinction to al-Qaeda-style fundamentalism. Even the Bushies use "liberal values," if only rhetorically, to describe their project of democratizing the Middle East.

In this context of international conflict, liberal suddenly drops its associations with Volvos and lattes and starts to evoke more noble images of education, voting, free speech, and freedom of religion. It's starting to sound like a label we don't have to run from at all.

count me as a proud Liberal, too. In fact I would go further and say that those who eschew "liberal" for the term "progressive" - those who might rule out Harold Ford or Jim Webb as being insufficiently pure - are just as much my political opponents as the (regrettably) mainstream of the modern Republican party. If the Progressives want the color blue, and the Republicans want the color red, they can have them. Liberals and Conservatives, however: go Purple!

(via Blake)

We said we would never forget 9/11. We took a solemn vow over the bodies of our murdered countrymen. It’s been 5 years. Osama bin Laden is still around, still alive, still making videos. I want bin Laden dead. The Republican Party hasn’t delivered. Perhaps the Democrats will...

They're angry in Pakistan again:

I'm sorry, but don't these guys look like they're smiling?

Who is the joke on, exactly?

All Related Posts (on one page) | Some Related Posts:

1. More rage (yawn) on the Muslim street
2. Al Qasemi College
3. CBS Ambush...
13. Violent Temper Tantrums
14. The Pope stands firm, sort of
15. Here we go again...

Welcome to the Carnival of the Liberated, a sampler of some of the best posts of the week from Iraqi and Afghan bloggers. This week we have videos, forced migration, a deconstruction of the insurgency, and much more.

24 Steps to Liberty posts his prescription for Iraq. It's sensible, fact-based, and a complete political non-starter both in U. S. and in Iraq.

Resuming posting after a three month hiatus, Abu Khaleel of A Glimpse of Iraq re-surfaces to post about the varied groups clumped together as “the insurgency”.

Iraqi Konfused Kid posts a video tribute to his four friends who were killed by a roadside bomb earlier this year.

Hammorabi posts on what he refers to as the “siege of Sadr City”.

I linked to it here earlier this week and I'm linking to it again: read Omar of Iraq the Model's analysis of what's at stake in the battle for Iraq.

neurotic iraqi wife posts on life in the Green Zone here and here.

Miriam of Pearls of Iraq posts a number of videos of Kurdistan.

Sooni posts about the situation in Iraq. Here's a snippet that tallies with my opinion:

Iraq is now on the edge of all-out civil war, the American troops act now like a safety valve and it is definite that Iraq will explode if those forces leave now.

Alaa of The Mesopotamian posts on “flirting with Sayed Ali”.

Fatima of Thoughts from Baghdad tells a story of forced migration, “the changing landscape of Baghdad”.

Dave Schuler posts regularly to his own weblog, The Glittering Eye. The Carnival was originally conceived by Ryan Boots.

Methuselah's Daughter, probably the single most unique story in print today is available through Amazon and Barnes & Noble. Following is a brief excerpt, just for fun...

------------------------------------

I returned to the hospital after lunch, but as I walked back into her room she was sitting sideways on her bed, facing a tall man with thinned-grey hair and glasses. He was seated, and holding her hand in both of his. I had startled them, and they both looked up at me with tears in their eyes. Embarrassed that I had barged in without knocking, I quickly excused myself and went out into the hallway, and tried my best to look busy.

Fortunately, after a few minutes he came out and approached me. He seemed a little awkward, but offered me his hand.

“Dennis Novak,” he said, by way of introduction. We exchanged a few pleasantries, and I noticed him carefully appraising me. I wondered if this is one of her relatives, one of those people she said didn’t exist. Had someone finally come to bring us back to reality?

“So,” he began. “Writing a book with her, are you?” His voice sounded wary, and concerned.

“Yes, it’s quite something. The stories she has to tell are… remarkable.”

“I imagine. But I hope you’re aware of what you’re doing here, young man.” He looked stern, and I began to worry. Was this the father of a deluded girl, here to tell me off?

“Miss Baker has quite a mind,” I said, a little defensively. “I’m not a…”

He interrupted me. “You realize that what you’re doing here is dangerous, don’t you? It’s very difficult for her. I’ve never seen her so uptight.”

“Look, the doctors say she’s a little unbalanced but not dangerous, and she is an adult,” I said, feeling more defensive by the minute. “We can stop this any time if it gets out of hand. Are you a relative of hers, or…?”

He frowned at me and said, impatiently, “No, I’m not a relative. I’m just her friend. Maybe the only one she’s got now, and that’s something I take very seriously young man.” He started to sound a little angry, and stepped toward me a bit.

I stepped back and raised my hand. “Wait, wait, okay, let’s calm down a little. Maybe we need to start over. “Listen,” I said, a little forcefully, “I’m serious. I do respect her. She’s really a very remarkable person. I am a writer, but I’m working for her, not the other way around. In fact I almost quit, thinking I might be exploiting her situation, and if you think I am, maybe I will. I wouldn’t take the job if I thought I was going to hurt her. I’m not that kind of person. Believe me, I’d quit first.” I looked him right in the eye. “I really would,” I said.

He looked at me for a moment, and then relaxed.

“Sorry son,” he said. “I had a loss recently, and it’s making me emotional. You’re right, she is an adult. God knows you’d have to call her that.” He chuckled wryly. “She probably knows what the hell she’s doing, and arguing her out of anything is like arguing with a brick wall, that’s for damned sure.”

He contemplated me for a moment, then said, “Look, I just want you to be aware of what you’re doing is all. This whole thing is a huge strain on her and, honest to God, I’ve never seen her so scared. And that is the most fearless woman alive.”

That surprised me. I really wasn’t sure what to say.

“Please,” he said, “I just want you to be careful and show some respect for what she’s going through, okay? She may seem invulnerable, but she’s not. She’s really, really not.”

“I know that,” I said.

“Good.” He said. “Just remember that she’s easier to hurt than you might think. Especially in here.” He pointed to his chest. “But also, God knows what the world could do to her. So, show her some respect, okay?”

I nodded, a little numb.

“I have to go say my goodbyes to her for now,” he said, “But here’s my card. I’m semi-retired, but still keep my hand in a little at the university, and you can leave me a message there.”

I looked at his card. Professor Emeritus, Department of History, Colorado State University. A phone number and office hours.

“If I can help you, or help her somehow, I want you to let me know.”

I agreed, and we walked together back into her room. He leaned over her bed, and they embraced. She held him fiercely, her eyes closed. She looked ready to break his back she was squeezing so hard. They stayed like that for a long time. Then they relaxed, and he straightened up.

“Thank you so much for the pictures, Dennis,” she said, her eyes brimming. “I’ll treasure them always.”

“Jackie would have wanted you to have them,” he said. “So would Dad. I’ll see you soon, okay?”

“Yes Dennis, soon. And please, please, think about my offer. You have no idea how much it would mean to me.”

“It’s very tempting, and I’ll give it a lot of thought. Okay?”

She nodded. He turned, looked at me, gripped my hand and said, “You call me any time, son.” Then he left.

She watched his back as he left, wiping her face. Talking mostly to herself she said, “He’ll be too old to take care of himself soon. I hope he’ll come.”

I frowned a bit. The guy wasn’t that old.

“Is this not a good time?” I asked.

“No, I’m fine,” she said. She took a deep breath, smiled, and continued, “Wasn’t that sweet of him to offer to talk to you? I didn’t know he’d do that. He’s a remarkable man. You should feel free to do that, and ask him anything you like about me. I confess that I wonder a bit what he’d have to say. Would you like to see the photo album he gave me?”

My head was spinning a bit as I sat down. “Sure,” I said. As she handed it to me, I asked, “So where do you know this guy from?”

She gave a happy, almost cheerful laugh. I opened the photo album. It was one of those little one-photo-per-page albums, each photo encased in plastic wrap.

“Well when I walked into his classroom back in 1967, I had no idea he would be teaching there. His name wasn’t even on the schedule, and I don’t know if I would have recognized it, Novak being such a common name. But that’s when our friendship really started. Before that, I’d known him for a couple of years as a boy, when I was dating his father. I’d met his father during the war, and then ran into him again a few years later, after the divorce.”

As she spoke, I looked through the pages, one at a time. On the first page was a label: “San Diego, 1943.” It was an amusement park photo, in faded black and white. In it, a huge, broad-shouldered sailor, stood there grinning like the cat that ate the canary. He was dressed in his bell-bottoms, neckerchief, and sailor’s cap. His right knee was bent out at a sharp angle, and on his other side he had his huge arm around his honey.

Faded as the picture was, she was still unmistakable. Her hair was shoulder-length and curled. She wore a polka-dot halter dress, a hat with an upturned brim, dark sensible pumps, and that smoky, enigmatic half-smile of hers. There was no doubt it was her.

She didn’t look a day over 25. My mouth went dry.

As I looked, she continued to speak, but I didn’t hear her. Instead I looked at the next photo. “San Francisco, 1955,” said the little label. There was the sailor, with the same smug grin on his face. Only this time, he was in a suit. He’d gained at least 30 pounds, and his hairline had noticeably receded. He was standing in front of what looked like a brand new Edsel. He had one arm around the shoulders of a young, somewhat unhappy-looking teenaged boy, 13 or 14 maybe, sporting a crew cut and black horn-rimmed glasses. Standing there beneath his other arm, it was her.

Her hair was pulled back in a bun. She was wearing a floral print dress with a flared skirt, a broad v-neck collar, a huge waist-enhancing belt, and that same smoky Mona Lisa smile. There was a streak of grey in her hair, but she otherwise didn’t look a day over 25.

On the next page was the same serious-looking boy, looking a bit older, with that same crew cut and those same horn-rimmed glasses. He was in an oversized suit, surrounded by other somber-looking people in a church. “Dad’s funeral. 1957. Thanks for coming,” it said. She wasn’t in the photo.

Then there was the boy again, a little older, still wearing the same crew cut and horn rims. He was wearing a cap and gown. “UCLA, 1964,” said the little penciled-in label.

On the next page, there he was in a faded color photo, standing in front of a VW Microbus. His hair was medium-length, with a side part. He sported a t-shirt and a pair of wire-framed glasses. On his right arm was a severe young woman with horn-rimmed glasses, a sweater, and a plaid skirt. On his left, a hippie girl. Her hair was curled again, but hung down nearly to her waist. She was wearing low-cut hip-hugger jeans with a huge belt buckle, a billowy peasant blouse, and hand-tied leather-and-bead jewelry on her wrists and neck. She had that same bemused smile on her face, although this time she was laughing a little. Her right hand gave a peace sign. “UC-Berkeley’s coolest adjunct professor and his groovy chicks, 1967,” said the little label.

She didn’t look a day over 25.

On the next page, there was another graduation photo, this time of the severe woman in a particularly fancy cap and gown: “Jackie a year ahead of me, as usual,” said the label.

Then a wedding ceremony: The severe woman was in a bridal gown, looking reserved but giddily happy. He was in a corny pastel-colored tuxedo. On the bride’s side, third among the bridesmaids, there she was again, in a burgundy dress and shoes. She was standing back a bit, and looking just a little wistful behind her smile. The little label said, “1971. Jackie always said you should have been the Maid of Honor!”

She looked small and withdrawn, and didn’t look a day over 25.

She wasn’t in the next several pages. The next was of him, in the same graduation getup: “Piled High and Deep! Finally finished it. 1972” it said. Then there were pictures of the two of them hugging a baby in a hospital, grinning like crazy. More photos, random pictures of kids and some unidentified people, with various dates. “Missed you here,” one said. “Here too!” another said.

Then there was a picture of a group of somber-looking people underneath a light blue banner. “Mondale/Ferraro ’84!” it proclaimed. Almost everyone in the photo looked wistful; one girl was obviously trying not to cry, while everyone else was looking either somber or halfheartedly cheerful and defiant. There he sat, on the floor in the lower left, his hair obviously thinned considerably. The severe-looking wife next to him was looking stormy. Next to the wife, clutching her hand, there she was: hair in a crisped, poofy mullet, wearing a white leather jacket with fringes, blue jeans, white cowboy boots, and that smoky half-smile. Her other hand was in her jacket pocket. “1984. You were the best part of a horrible year,” the little label said.

She didn’t look a day over 25.

More pictures of children graduating, birthday parties. “Missed you here,” one or two more were labeled. “I’m a grandpa! I’m so scared!” said another one, in which the thinning-haired, salt-and-pepper haired boy stood next to a grinning young man and a girl, hugging an infant. Then there were still more family photos, labeled with years and small random comments.

In the last photo, there stood the boy, in front of a beautiful house. His hair was solid gray, thinned into a bit of a horseshoe. His severe-looking grey-haired wife stood next to him. Both were smiling and waving. “2004. Jackie and I missed you a lot. We love you,” it said.

He was clearly the man I’d met just a few minutes ago, whose business card I’d just stuck in my pocket.

I looked up. She’d stopped talking some time ago. She was watching me, her face a little sad. There was a tiny glint of fear in her eye.

She didn’t look a day over 25.

I lurched to my feet. “I have to go,” I said.

She looked afraid, and said, “No, wait, please, that is, I mean, I need to talk to you about this.” I ignored her and walked out. I heard her call my name as I left, but I kept going.

I got in my car, drove back to the hotel, and walked straight into the bar. It seemed like the most reasonable thing to do.

-------------------

Buy it here.

Wow.

They have recently figured out how to grow a new human bladder. Now they're close to being able to grow a liver. There's also an artificial pancreas in the pipeline.

How much longer do you think it will be before they can grow you a new heart, lung, or kidney? Made from your own genetic material and thus bypassing all compatibility concerns?

The next 10 years are going to make the previous ten years look like child's play.

Challenge: in the last 100 years of American cinema, can you name me four minutes of sheer joy that exceeds this? I don't think you can.

(I hope YouTube won't take it down. You should own this DVD.)

Have you guys seen it?

The "creation" of the militant suicide bombers is so on point its obscene. It captures perfectly the way alienation is manipulation by the militant overlords and their Mephistophelian recruiters. If you haven't seen it, do. It's not at all a 'liberal leftist' film. I really expected that given that Clooney was in it, the film was going to apologize for the reprehensible actions of Muslims. It doesn't do that. As a Muslim activist I thought it was kind of a slap in the face. It said to me: what are you "activists" doing to counter these smiling recruiters? What are you "activists" doing to suggest that these tyrants should be shorn of their power? What are you "activists" worth if the most likely killer of your reformists are Muslims themselves (I just gave away the ending).

I hate the word "nostalgia," and I rarely use it. The reason I don't like nostalgia is that it seems to carry with it an unhealthy impulse to romanticize the past. People waxing nostalgic sit around talking about "the good old days" as if they were infinitely better somehow than today. Usually, that's nonsense. In the past some things were better, some things were worse, and some were about the same.

I know I startle some of my older readers sometimes, because they see me write about modern rock and pop music, and modern movies and television shows, and when I do I generally write appreciatively of those things. I also don't pan things very often because frankly, if I don't like them, I have no urge to write about them. But modern things I like, I write about with enthusiasm.

But then all of a sudden I'll write about Artie Shaw, or Benny Goodman, or Sarah Vaughan, or beer that required a can opener to drink. Well I have no urge to go back to cans that require a can opener, but I do love much that's found in old music, old movies, and old books. Furthermore, I like what I write about NOT because it's old, but because it's GOOD, and sometimes informative in surprising ways.

For example, I've listened to a good bit of what they nowadays call "old-time radio," which basically means radio shows from the days before television. Now as it happens, most old-time radio was crap. Sorry, but it was. I you're old enough to remember the heyday of radio and you try to tell me that most of what was on the radio in those days was fabulous I probably won't believe you. I generally subscribe to what is best known as Sturgeon's Revelation: "90% of everything is crud."

Sure most old-time radio and television and movies and books were crap. Which is exactly the truth about radio and television and movies and books today. Crud, 90% of it.

The advantage you get with the older stuff is, usually (not always but usually), the stuff that survives years, decades, generations later is much less likely to be crud. It's no guarantee of course, but if 50 years after a song first becomes popular it is still well known and widely recognizable, there's a very good chance it was not crud at the time and still is not crud. Sometimes it may seem a little dated or a product of its time, but you can say that about Shakespeare or Bach too.

See for example this 1941 Glenn Miller Orchestra video featuring the great Dorothy Dandridge:

I do not love this song or this video because it's old. I don't care that it's old. I don't care that it's in black & white. I love it because (A) that's a great song, and (B) those are some great performances.

Nor do I have any "nostalgia" for the period. I have no idea of wanting to get into a time machine and live in 1940s America. I just appreciate it for what it is: a great performance that is partly a creature of its time and place but also a just plain great performance.

I might also note that I think it is cool to learn that Glenn Miller was working with great black performers in the 1940s. Not because they were black either, but because "wow, great black performers were not as invisible as we have often been led to believe about that era... good to see!"

I thought similar things when I recently uncovered this little internet treasure: a free Jack Benny radio program from 1939. Now this thing was recorded on live radio in 1939. Nearly 30 years before I was born, I only just heard this for the first time yesterday. Jack Benny was already a fading star when I was born in 1966. He died before I was a teenager. But dude, this guy was funny.

I mean, funn-neee!!!

You don't even have to know much about the time and place it was recorded, although it helps if you know that the great Jack Benny developed a well-known stage personality: he was supposedly very self-centered, self-absorbed, and extremely stingy with his money. Plus he had a wife named Mary, a butler/personal assistant named Rochester, and a small cast of supporting players who he supposedly paid almost no salary. In real life everyone who worked with him said that was the opposite of his real personality, which was generous, kind, and not stingy at all. But those were the running gags of his stage persona: egotistical, selfish, and extremely stingy with money. He supposedly loved money more than people.

I listen to that old live radio show and I laugh out loud at most of it. Sure some of it's dated but most of it is timeless and much of it is just hysterical. And all of it performed live, decades before there was any "Saturday Night Live."

Give it a listen and tell me if you agree. The West Coast version is a little funnier than the East Coast version, in case you don't want to listen to both.

Oh, and I suppose it helps to know that Jell-O was Jack Benny's main sponsor at the time. Yes, the same Jell-O you can buy in supermarkets now. I notice that the Jell-O theme song has not changed since then, which is also cool.

I have no "nostalgia kick" for any of this. I just think it's great entertainment.

...for Iran and Venezuela, anyway.

The state of Nevada has a ballot initiative that will decriminalize marijuana in that state. Surprisingly, rock-ribbed conservative Mark Noonan plans to vote in favor of it.

I have an objection to some of his reasoning, however. First off, he claims flatly that pot is a "gateway drug" because he remembers it being one when he was a teenager. But this is too-fast-off-the-mark logic. Most studies on gateway drugs shows that hard core drug users start with tobacco and alcohol, not pot. More to the point, however, I recall clearly and distinctly being a teenager and trying pot, and thinking, "wow, they lied to me about how bad and dangerous this stuff is, so have they lied to me about heroin and cocaine and all that other stuff too?" To the extent that crossing the rubicon and trying an illegal substance is a "gateway," then I'd grant that pot's a gateway drug that way. Otherwise, no, sorry, I just don't see it.

Mark also theorizes that pot use might go down in Nevada. I'm not so sure it would, and I'm not sure why anyone would expect it would. What should be looked at as the result of such legislation is not whether use increases in some measurable fashion, but rather, whether the social sequalae worsen. Will there be an uptick in street crime, a downgrade in worker productivity, an increase in traffic accidents related to substance abuse, and so on?

In Nevada, prostitution is legal--but not so much as people think it is. Streetwalkers are not legal and are still regularly arrested. Rather, legal brothels exist, with heavy regulation and control by the state. In those legal brothels sexually transmitted diseases are very rare and "AIDS" is nonexistent. Furthermore, the women plying the trade are never beaten or abused, drug abuse is not tolerated by the brothel owners, and the activity of soliciting and plying the trade is very tightly curtailed. The result is not "less prostitution," it's "fewer of the tragic social consequences."

Prostitution and drug use and similarly negative things are a fact of life, and even if you're a religious person you should see that being rid of sin will only happen when God's kingdom arrives, and not in any system set up and run by flawed human beings. So the real question is how to deal with things rationally and in a way that minimizes damage.

If I were in Nevada I'd vote for the ballot initiative too, but not for the same reasons as Mark at all.

And by the way, no I don't use pot. Not because I'm ashamed to use it, and not because I fear the law, but rather because having tried it I decided years ago that I intensely disliked what it did to me. I can barely fathom people who use it regularly because it just makes me depressed, moody, and paranoid. On the other hand I do know a number of individuals who use it quite regularly, the vast majority of them having held down good-paying professional day jobs for many years.

All that said, I suspect this initiative will fail. Most such ballot initiatives fail. I consider that too bad, and I'll hope Nevadans prove me wrong.

Would you enjoy a little walk through my neighborhood and a glimpse at the Halloween decorations?

Too often I hear and read the the Democratic Party doesn't stand for anything. This is flatly wrong. We in fact are rather principled. Those principles have little to do with the size of the government, but rather with how that government is used. Specifically, the Democratic party is the one that wants each citizen to be treated equally before the law. The Democratic party views the Government as a collection of citizens, and is thus easily overseen and reviewed by ordinary humans...

There are many things that come out of this worldview; economic and environmental stances which you may or may not agree with. Which is fine; we don't always agree with ourselves on these issues. But if the Democratic Party were in charge, we'd be debating the best way of providing the most healthcare to all our citizens-- at the lowest price. We may not get the correct mix, but we'd at least give it a shot. Which is a hell of a lot more than you're gonna get out of anyone further to the Right...

In this election, the stakes are higher, of course. It isn't simply an issue of one congressperson talking (or even voting) against President Bush. It's that... hell! Read this Rolling Stone Article on the subject. It's bad. A vote for any Republican is a vote for the leadership which allowed Mark Foley to have free run of the Congressional Pages for 5 years without doing a damned thing...

Perhaps we want different things out of our government, though. What would you like to see Congress doing?

Rapid population growth.

Recently, in the course of a disagreement about issues with Robert Spencer, I made some harsh comments of a personal nature. I apologize to Robert for those comments.

If you’re familiar with Kingdom Hearts 2 and Resident Evil 4 I’m sure you’ll find this video hilarious. If you not but you play video games in general I’m sure you’ll find it very funny. If you don’t play video games, well, you can click on the link if you want. It’s a free country.

I’ve never played either game but I am a serious gamer and I totally get it. I’ve not laughed so hard in a long time.

BTW: Who’s getting a PS3 or Wii? I’m getting a Wii the 19th on November and I will be playing The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess all that day and the next. Yes, I’m taking the 20th off from work to play a video game. I'm going to hold off on the PS3 until a game comes out for it I want. That game will be Metal Gear Solid 4. You can read my review of Metal Gear Solid 3 here.

There’s entirely too little chat about video games and gaming in general here. I’m gonna change that…

Isis is already planning out her new blog's comment policies.

This is wise. I don't know how many good bloggers--sometimes even experienced ones--simply implode once they're suddenly faced with an avalanche of nasty, irrational, and stupid comments. They cringe at the very idea that they'll be called "censors" or "intolerant" for refusing to allow their comments section to degenerate into a cesspool.

It's wise to establish rules from the beginning, and to plan to stick to them. Even if no one ever sticks to their own rules perfectly (being human and all), having the plan is indispensible. Most especially if you plan on tackling subjects that are widely controversial.

Jules Crittendon of the Boston Herald says it's time for Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney to go.

From a long-term strategic position it may be that replacing Rumsfeld is a good idea. Although frankly I think the criticisms against him have long been misplaced (and some clearly inaccurate, such as bogus claims that he "ignored" anyone who disagreed with him) you can make a case for a change at the top making for a fresh start and improving the political climate.

But Cheney? Not gonna happen. The man's an elected official, not an appointed one. It would be wrong to suggest that Presidents are in a position to fire their Vice Presidents or even ask for their resignations.

I also, frankly, think that it would be politically untenable at this date for the Bush administration to suddenly announce major changes just a week or so before a midterm election. If it was done months in advance that would be one thing, but a week or so before a midterm election? Talk about sending a major signal to everyone that you were in full-blown panic mode. Such a move would do more than hurt the administration, it would signal that the administration itself is ready to throw in the towel.

Check out this cool US Army film.

This from Major John Tammes, who has war stories of his own to tell. He also expresses frustration: he wants to put this film on YouTube but it exceeds the 10 minute limit by two minutes. Anyone out there with a premium account want to help out and put this on YouTube?

Commercials fascinate me as an art form. Of course the vast majority of commercials are trash, but a well-made one is as much a work of art as any short film. Commercials are also a part of our culture and of intense interest to historians, for they often tell us things that old movies and movies and TV shows alone do not.

Cigarette advertisements are particularly fascinating to me; today, anyone under the age of 35 has simply never seen a TV commercial for cigarettes unless through some historical source. Indeed, cigarette ads used to be embedded in some TV shows, like I Love Lucy and The Flintstones, but were removed in syndication. So unless you seek a historical source you'll simply never see such commercials.

You may be tempted to fulminate "good!" but that's not the point: history needs to be understood for what it was, not what it should have been. Simply erasing these things from the collective memory doesn't make sense.

Sometimes old commercials are illuminating for other reasons. For example, see this long string of public domain commercials from the Prelinger Archive:

I notice a few things about that Budweiser commercial at the beginning, for example. First, the obvious fact that today Budweiser can labels look almost exactly the same. Such an old brand of beer has not found the need to redefine its label in generations. On the other hand, look closely: back then--and I'm guessing this ad to be about 50 years old--Bud was marketed as a somewhat sophisticated, semi up-scale brand. Cool jazz, a sophisticated look, and a breezy "Where there's life, there's Bud" slogan. Picnic with your girlfriend, listening to music on the beach with your cool transistor radio or maybe your convertible car's radio. This is quite different imagery from how Bud is marketed now, which is much more blue collar, working class, male bonding and sports-oriented.

On an anachronistic level, look closely: when is the last time you used a can opener to open a can of beer? I've read about such things, but I'm 40 years old and I've never seen a can of beer that requires you to find a can opener, and I kinda feel bad for the Joe who got home after a hard week on a Friday night and then lost his can opener and couldn't relax in front of the tube with his beer.

I'll bet Dean's World readers in their 60s and above remember cans of beer that required an opener, but I'll bet no one my age or younger has ever bought a beer like that.

All that out of one 30 second commercial. Well hey that's what a sharp eye and an interest in history can do for you when you watch old commercials.

I've also never seen an ad for Ballentine Ale. I've drank it once or twice but it's an obscure brand. But it used to be one of the top breweries in the United States.

Then, take that talk show host talking up Lipton soup near the end. I have no idea who that guy is but I can tell just watching it that he was a regular talk show host who had a segment where he was expected to talk about his sponsor. You almost never see this sort of thing on television anymore but it used to be common. Note how he even jokes that the sponsors like it if he eats the soup on the air, so he does. The segment ends there, but you can tell it was only one small part of a longer show that almost certainly had nothing to do with soup or selling products.

One of my pet theories is that in the coming years we are going to see a return to that sort of in-show advertising with a vengeance. Hollywood is slow to adapt to new technologies, but with the advent of file sharing and free video services, it only makes sense: why not create content that you allow to be distributed freely online, with the advertising embedded straight into the show? This sounds bizarre to modern eyes but 50 or more years ago this sort of thing was just normal. I'd even guess it was probably the most common form of television and radio advertising.

Anyway, all these old commercials, plus a lot more public domain materials of a similar nature, are available from the Prelinger archives, about which you can learn more right here.

The federal government is investigating the takeover last year of a leading American manufacturer of electronic voting systems by a small software company that has been linked to the leftist Venezuelan government of President Hugo Chávez.

Omar of Iraq the Model does his level best to explain what's at stake in the battle for Iraq and why the U. S. can't just declare victory and leave. That certainly looks to me like what we're preparing for.

Death and mayhem in Oaxaca, Mexico. Many, many details right here.

(Via Professor Reynolds.)

I am moderately against the death penalty, but only moderately so. Florida recently executed a man named Daniel Harold Rolling, and it's impossible for me to feel anything but relief for the families of his victims, many of whom were present at his execution and received a good bit of satisfaction at watching the monster die.

You can read his long and grisly tale--and how an innocent man was wrongly persecuted for his crimes--right here.

It's the persecution of the innocent guy, though, that reminds me why the press and the cops can't always be trusted either.

(Via Bill.)

Although I usually skip ads when I can, I've long thought that a really well-made commercial is a piece of art. For example, consider "The Snickers Song":

This thing is all over the online video services, obviously uploaded multiple times by multiple people. I've also seen it on multiple blogs. You even find multiple instances of people recording their own version of it and posting those.

The cynic may look at this and say people are being "suckered" into carrying "free advertising." Bullcrap, no they aren't. People are rewarding the company for entertaining them. It's a mutual transaction: "you entertain us and we'll spread this like a virus." I mean, people may not be entirely conscious of it but that's what they're doing--and not a thing wrong with it that I can see.

Then, on the other side, there are people who feel compelled to bellow how stupid and badly made the song is. Of course the song is stupid, stupid! That's what makes it so damned funny!

Every single time I see this commercial I laugh. In fact I laugh harder than I did the first time I saw it. "Happy peanuts soar over chocolate covered mountaintops?"

By the way, the black dude really makes the commercial for me. At first he looks like maybe he's gonna insult the white guy in the bad suit with the bad song, but then, suddenly, you realize he's actually enjoying it. "The world!" Cracks me up every time. It's a frickin' candy bar and they're so, soooo serious about it.

It made me want to go buy a Snickers, and I don't even eat much candy.

As with much art, some of it's in the eye of the beholder but this is very obviously an effective commercial in one sense: lots of people take clear delight in its whacky humor.

Update: And as Heather points out in the comments, people who remember it also remember the product itself. That's hard to beat.

I just noticed that Firefox 2.0 is now available. Looks like it's got some pretty handy new features, including a spell-checker bloggers will find handy...

Two pretty effective commercials here, one supporting the Democrat in Maryland's Senate race, and a response:

As with Harold Ford, I'm hoping to see Michael Steele win this year. We need more black people participating in the Senate. We also, frankly need to see black people less tied to one or the other of the major parties. Such one-party dominance of any racial group simply isn't healthy for anybody.

Jeff Greenfield has a pretty good overview of how conservatives feel upset with the Republican Party these days.

It's good analysis although I often wonder if I'm the only one left on the planet who remembers that George W. Bush basically campaigned as a centrist in 2000 and was disliked by many conservatives for that very reason. He had a small handful of key issues he was conservative on, and otherwise never even pretended to be a conservative. He wanted to expand education funding, he lambasted his own party for inappropriately (in his view) impeaching President Clinton, and pledged to do more to help poor families, especially single moms, with an increase in the child tax credit.

Furthermore, ever since 2000 he's also never pretended to be conservative on more than a small handful of issues. And he's never governed as a conservative on more than that small handful of issues.

When this Presidency is looked at through the rear view of history, I think historians are going to remark upon how Bush was viewed as an extremist ideologue but actually never governed like one.

It should be interesting to see who Republicans nominate in 2008, to see if it's a positive or negative reflection of that.

Damn I hate this pointless bi-annual daylight saving time nonsense. But oh well, it's here again. Reset your clocks if you haven't already...

This is absolutely shameful.

Not the fact of the campaign, but the outright deception and willful cooperationg in that deception by the press.

I'm going to have to try to remember to re-post this on Monday so more people will see it.

Go.

Hmm, run around telling people the system is rigged and their votes won't count, and then get surprised when people don't show up to vote?

Cynicism isn't healthy.

The Watcher's Council has announced its picks for the most outstanding posts of the preceding week. The winning Council post was Right Wing Nut House's post, “A Liberal Manifesto and Other Halloween Frights”. Second place honors went to American Future's “Japan, North Korea and Nuclear Weapons”.

The winning non-Council post was Elder of Ziyon's post, “Archaeological Temple Artifacts Drive PalArabs Crazy”. The second place non-Council post was Mudville Gazette's “Fighting Back” (which I nominated).

For a complete list of the results see here.

If you know of a post that you believe is worthy of consideration by the Council, bring it to my attention here or otherwise get in touch with me. If you have a blog of your own and would like one of your posts to be considered, the instructions for doing that are here.

The Chicago White Sox are one of the oldest teams in Major League Baseball. They became a Major League team some 105 years ago. They're also my favorite baseball team as it happens.

Last year they were World Series champs. Which thrilled me. But I noticed something odd about their uniforms at the time, and it still amuses me that I seem to be the only guy in the blogosphere who notices it. Here's a picture from last year:

There's something odd there, isn't there?

You're not allowed to answer this if you've corresponded with me on this topic. But otherwise, there's something ironic about that picture. Am I the only one who's noticed?

Congratulations St. Louis fans for an exceptionally well-played World Series!

I made no secret of the fact that I was rooting for Detroit, and thought the Tigers had the advantage going into the series. I also must say that much of this Series has been about terrible errors committed by the Tigers defense.

But you know what? A lesser team would not have been able to capitalize on Detroit's mistakes so well. Some say the Tigers bullpen was inexperienced, but the Cardinals bullpen wasn't that much more experienced.

Frikkin' phenomenal play by the Cardinals underdogs. Even though it only went 5 games it was a great series.

I will say one thing though:

If the Tigers management had been smart, they'd have capitalized on that rained-out game and gone ahead and made Kenny Rogers the starter tonight. What the heck. This was a must-win game and they failed to make a dramatic choice like that.

St. Louis wins, and hats-off to 'em! 4 games to 1, and they won it at home! St. Louis fans are rightly proud!

You know what else I like about it? Two of the oldest and most distinguished teams in Major League Baseball faced off against each other:

Saint Louis Cardinals: Became a Major League team in 1892
Detroit Tigers: Became a Major League team in 1901

I love the history of the whole thing. If you know anyone who was born the year either team became major league franchises then you are a very lucky person.

Cardinals beat the Tigers in the World Series: that could as easily have been the headline in October 1906 as in October 2006. Ain't it grand?

Well-played, St. Louis. Well-played.

So what do you think is gonna happen tonight?

My prediction is the whole episode will be about finding traitors, but some people (like Gaeta) will be identified as traitors who don't deserve it.

(Note: Spoilers are allowed AFTER THE EPISODE IS AIRED, NOT BEFORE.)

So, whaddya think?

Do the Cards finish off the pathetically error-prone Detroit pitching staff tonight and clinch the World Series?

Or do the Tigers finally get their act together and at least force a game 6 back home?

At this point I'm agnostic. Detroit's obviously a good team but inconsistency appears to be their achilles heel.

Isis is singing my song.

Much is being made about the New Jersey Supreme Court's Lewis v Harris decision that may be a win for gay marriage proponents. As a GM proponent myself I am pleased to see progress on the front.

Here is Justice Albin writing for the majority:

Plaintiffs are seven same-sex couples who have been in permanent committed relationships for more than ten years. Each seeks to marry his or her partner and to enjoy the legal, financial, and social benefits that marriage affords. After being denied marriage licenses in their respective municipalities, plaintiffs sued challenging the constitutionality of the State's marriage statutes. ...

HELD: Denying committed same-sex couples the financial and social benefits and privileges given to their married heterosexual counterparts bears no substantial relationship to a legitimate governmental purpose. The Court holds that under the equal protection guarantee of Article I, Paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution, committed samesex couples must be afforded on equal terms the same rights and benefits enjoyed by opposite-sex couples under the civil marriage statutes.

I looked up New Jersey's Constitution online (man, there's a first for me) and checked Article I, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution, written in 1947 and last updated through amendment in November 2005:

1. All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain natural and unalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and of pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.

I am not a lawyer (and Ron, would you please chime in on this one since you are?) but I started to get one of those flutters in my gut - the kind that happen after I get what I wanted and realize that I hadn't thought my desire through very carefully. It's simlar to the look Wiley E. Coyote gets when he's standing just off the cliff and realizes that once again he's been outwitted by the Roadrunner.

These questions came to mind, and I could use some help answering them:

1. Where is the "the equal protection guarantee of Article I, Paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution?" I don't see it listed explicitly.

Is it inferred?

Judging by the dissenting opinion - a single paragraph written by Chief Justice Poritz - "equal protection" seems to be contained in the "concept of liberty".

Again, I am no legal scholar but as a layman, that sounds like a really, really long stretch.

2. Is the very concept of marriage - which grants participants "the legal, financial, and social benefits of marriage" - by that logic unfair to single people?

Married people pay lower taxes (usually). They are also granted other rights - such as property and final consent rights that those who are not married are not granted. Couldn't the same arguments used by gays supporting their rights to marriage be used by singles as well?

What am I missing here?

Neo has a very disturbing look.

Chief Warrant Officer Lori Hill, recipient of the Distinguished Flying Cross.

A recent poll finds that the overwhelming majority of Americans do not believe our civil rights are under threat by the Bush administration.

This may have something to do with the fact that whenever you ask the screaming mimis who make these hysterical claims what exact civil liberties are being curtailed, the first thing they usually mention is that someone in the government might want to look at your library records.

Do you know that during World War II, and all the way up to the 1960s, the U.S. government routinely listened in on phone calls and read people's mail, rarely seeking a warrant? You know why? Because there was absolutely no Constitutional impediment to it, that's why. And there still isn't one.

Quoted:

This man died protecting my nation, my family and myself. He sacrificed himself to preserve our lives, liberties, and freedoms (including religious ones). He and the 9000 American servicemen of Muslim faith deserve our respect and regard when discussing their faith, families, and participation in American institutions. The extreme, toxic response to the Muslim world by certain members of the Rightosphere is disturbing. Deeply disturbing. And this vitriol against Muslims is corroding sound discussion. Embracing irrational fear of the entire Islamic population and making regular calls for bombing Mecca is not only insane but detrimental to my security. Stop it. Stop it now.

Obviously these ladies--both of them conservatives, by the way--are just blacklisters and practitioners of identity politics. Or suffering under some sort of grave delusion. We all know there is no actual problem of Islamophobia and, even if it did exist, certainly there's no one anywhere on the right of significance who encourages and enables it. Right?

Still, despite these ladies' strange fantasies and unguessable but obviously warped and evil motives, you might want to read the rest of it. Just to, you know, reassure yourself that Islamophobia is no kind of problem whatsoever and that anyone saying otherwise should simply be dismissed.

What is Islamophobia?

According to this disputed Wiki page, Islamophobia is:

defined as the phenomenon[1] of a prejudice against or demonization of Muslims which manifests itself in general negative attitudes, violence, harassment, discrimination, and stereotyping (and particularly being vilified in the media).

The concept of Islamophobia (and the related issue of Islamophobia watching) hasn't made as much progress here as it has in in Britain and Europe. This is probably due to the protection offered by our constitution. It may also be due to our somewhat uniquely pragmatic, American attitudes. (bullsh*t is a word that is difficult to translate into many European languages). Most of us instinctively shy away from participating in efforts to blacklist Americans for Un-Muslim activities.

However, recent right-wing efforts to rewrite the history of McCarthyism, to prove that Tailgunner Joe "got a bad rap" may have opened the door to the emergence of right-wing PC.

According to Ann Coulter, McCarthy succeeded because he "made it a disgrace to be a Communist. Domestic Communism could never recover." She echoes the primary goals of political correctness - don't fight your enemies using reason - instead, disgrace them, blacklist them, shout them down.

PC for right wingers conveniently ignores political correctness's Leninst roots, an ideological struggle from Lenin to Mao to McCarthy to Coulter and CAIR.

Johann Hari, a British writer who has suffered from various forms of political correctness and McCarthyism wrote a scathing condemnation of recent right-wing efforts to polish McCarthy's image:

The corpse of Joe McCarthy is being paraded before us. The more extreme wing of the US right believe he offers us a model for how to fight a war against Islamic fundamentalism. They're right - and it's a model that leads straight to liquidated democracy and defeat.

Do you believe a religious leader who fights to save Section 28 and says gay people spread disease is a fulminating bigot? Do you believe a "leading cleric" who advocates stoning gay people to death should be denounced? Do you believe sharia law – which requires gay people to be lashed or stoned – is always and forever unacceptable? Then, according to an energetic and aggressive group of white straight boys who surreally consider themselves to be on the left, you are an "Islamophobe" and "objectively pro-Nazi"

The real racism comes from Islamophobia Watch itself, and the people who parrot their claims. Where Tatchell [the accused gay Islamophobe] treats Muslims as the equal citizens of a democracy, people with open minds and a free intelligence, they treat Muslims as feeble children who cannot cope with the scorn we routinely (and rightly) pour on Catholics and Protestants. They argue that Muslims are so sensitive and uncurious that their ideas must be ring-fenced from criticism, with the police arresting anybody who vehemently criticises their beliefs.

Still, the Islamophobia Watchers have their crusade...umm...jihad or..hmm..which word is more or less of a thoughtcrime?

One of these sites, the Islamic Human Rights Commission, has nominated the bloggers at Harry's Place (a former home for Johann Hari's posts), along with King Mohammed VI of Morocco, Bruce Willis, George Bush, blogger Robert Spencer and the Organisers of Toronto Supports Denmark Rally for their Islamophobe of the Year award.

The Islamic Human Rights Commission defines Islamophobia as "intolerance". Here are photos of a protest they sponsored, including a table full of the usual Hezbollah tchotchkes.

The site that posted these pictures is linked to from "Islamophobic" Harry's Place. Which may be one reason why they're nominated for this 'award'.

The biggest problem with Islamophobia and the related blacklisting (other than the attempts to ignore the constitution and stifle free speech) is what escapes our attention while we're so busy watching each other; if we're fighting a war against terrorism, who is paying attention to the terrorists?

Who is the 'enemy', Republicans, Democrats or the "Community of the Impoverished"? Islamophobia Watch or the "International Quranic Open University Inc". Robert Spencer or Jamaat ul-Fuqra. Any guesses?

Well, it was a trick question. The Community of the Impoverished, Jamaat ul-Fuqra and "International Quranic Open University Inc" are all part of the the same group, a Pakistan-based armed and violent militia that is recognized as a terrorist organization by the US government and that may have bases near your town.

In the USA.

I wouldn't have known about this group if I hadn't been reading a site that is often maligned as being "Islamophobic", Gates of Vienna.

How many readers out there knew about this group? How many people know where Al Furqra's home base is located? How many people know about the Muslim Brotherhood's activities in Minnesota? How many know about al Qaeda's efforts to find recruits in Queens, NY?

Okay, I'm not seeing many hands. Now, how many of us have gone nutpicking in LGFs comment section? How many think that Democrats/Republicans/Islamophobes/appeasers are doing al Qaeda's work for them? How many think that Democrats/Republicans/Islamophobes/appeasers are the 'enemy'? How many people avoid reading or linking to sites that have been blacklisted as Islamophobic, despite the fact that these sites contain hard-to-find information about real, often local terrorist groups?

Maybe we have been looking for hate in all the wrong places.

The following article in Barron's is interesting, if only for its counterintuitive nature: they predict only mild gains for Democrats in November, by ignoring polling data entirely and concentrating instead on how well a candidate raises funds in his or her local state. Those with superior fundraising they consider the likely winner.

Note that they aren't saying that the candidate who spends the most or has the biggest warchest wins. No, it's pretty specific: they suggest that the candidate with the most cash raised from individual donors in their state or district tend to win. Because such donations are pseudomarkers for how efficient the candidate's grass roots support and organization is. Which I find entirely believable. This would also explain why Presidential candidates with the most money so often lose.

Anyway it should be interesting to look back after the elections and see which of the prognosticators were right and which wrong, eh?

Are you a font abuser?

Jesus Christ, this is just getting sad now.

Final score 5-4, St. Louis leads the series 3 games to 1.

The Tigers pitching staff has comitted at least one major error every game so far in the series. Ridiculous. Of course if St. Louis wasn't so good they wouldn't be able to capitalize on it so well, but yeesh.

Reports Booman

Of course, it would be funny if on the strength of these polls Dems stayed home and the Repubs showed up and won.

I'm not convinced that Dems can get the vote out like the GOP. I hope they can, because I'm voting Democrat, and I'd like to be on the winning team for a change.

I am proud of people who call themselves conservatives, or even, right-siders. I may lean center left, and I didn't vote Bush, but I've never been stupid enough to think that the conservatives were all reprehensible degenerate momos (to quote Joe Pesci). I think there are people of conscience on every 'side', and we are all better off recognizing that.

Having said that, I want to introduce you guys to two female members of the Ann Coulter Chat Forum who have started up a new blog which kind of echoes Dean's idea that the excessively antagonistic discourse about Muslims has corroded the rightosphere. Check out Smart & Final Isis. They introduce themselves as follows:

Over the course of the past six months, we both noticed deterioration in the quality and civility in chat room dialog related to several important issues of national importance – immigration and interaction with the Islamic community (on both national and international levels). The level of discourse has also slowly corroded in the Rightosphere blog sites that are the mainstay of debate in our electronic domain. Neither of us could disagree with fellow chat room members on weighty, controversial matters without being pounded with posts filled with derogatory language, trite remarks, and closed-minded perspectives. Certain chat room members no longer wanted to engage in respectful debate nor consider new information sources or links to websites that offered alternative viewpoints. Some of these vitriolic members strive to silence those who disagree.

However, the Rightosphere is a very complex community (despite reports of the contrary). Many, many other of our chat room friends also share our viewpoints. They, too, wish to have a rational review of national policy and international matters. They desire that important policy decisions not be based on fear and enforced ignorance. These friends have provided us with the support and incentive to carve out a new place in the blogosphere, where differing ideas and fresh perceptions are offered. This blogsite is that place.

Apparently aside from Muslims