I can only speak for myself, but media bias as shown in FoxNews or the Washington Post doesn’t bother me one bit. I recognize the bias, and filter it out. Personally I like the Washington Post not because of its liberal bias, but its regional bias. living in te area, I have no problem with news coverage skewed to my region. Or my sports teams.

The only thing about FoxNews that bothers me is the attitude that SOME of it’s people have… the “Fair and Ballanced” shit, or the “No Spin Zone” stuff. It’s as biased as the NY Times or the National Review. Recognize the right wing bias and acknowlege it. If you’re a right winger, then of course you think that that point of view is correct. Just recognize that it’s a point of view that a lot of people don’t share.

The part of the Conservative media that pisses me off is mostly talk radio, and I’ll use Rush Limbaugh as an example. He’ll give opinions and “Tell it the way it is”. He makes accusations against those who disagree with him. He gets self righteous, and acts as if he is informing the masses of things that “the liberal Media” doesn’t want the masses to know. Then when he gets caught in factual slipups, “It’s just entertainment, it’s not news.” I actually heard him on an interview say something like “noone actually believes that I’m reporting facts.” Well, actually, I know a lot of people who do. And that’s the problem. A lack of accountability. He’ll say whatever he wants, and when he gets somethign wrong (and it seems to me he makes stuff up to make points) then it’s just entertainment and it’s OK.

To be “fair and balanced”, its the same problem I have with the leftist self righteous shit, Michael Moore.

And as for this “Liberal Media” crap, if you take the media as a whole, printed, radio, TV etc. There is a pretty wide spectrum of political viewpoints. Conservatives have Fox, NRO, the Wall Street Journal, The Washington Times, pretty much ALL talk radio, and a nice slice of op-ed writers, TV pundits etc. Yes, mainstream news on TV is slanted Left. Big deal. Stop whining about it.

Don’t tell me your still smarting over that “liberal source” jab FM? (hee hee)

Aw come on! You guys are just upset that the conservative side FINALLY has a media outlet with its own bias.

I don’t have to do a comparison of AIM vs FAIR because I know who their target audiences are. It should be a no brainer about what will be found there.

What I find hysterical is that Joe liberal thinks that FOX is biased, but their favorite flavor of News media isn’t!

I have had to accept that the Job of the media (whatever the bias) is to sell newspapers or advertising time. If fair and balanced news gets reported, then so be it but I have stopped getting upset when XYZ unbiased Media outlet ENDORSES a candidate for crying out loud! no mystery that its usually a Dem.

More bad Gun news for the left
I am glad the PM posted a link to the International Crime Victim Survey’s site. The only criticism you can come up with is that you can’t find evidence of the group pre-2000? When you follow the link you provided, you find out that this is NOT some freaky American pro-gun group but a International working group made up of folks from the UK, Denmark, Canada, and other EU countries (set up in 1987 and began field work in 1989).

Their financing
“Dutch Ministry of Justice, which has also sponsored survey activities in almost all the developing countries and countries in Central and East Europe. Further financial assistence has been provided by the Dutch Ministry of Foreign affairs, the UK Home Office, the Department of Justice Canada, the European Institute for Crime Prevention and Control”

Not really a who’s who of Pro Gunners eh?

IRAQ
Correct me if I am wrong, but the article in Stratfor says that it was RIGHT to invade Iraq, but wrong to fall prey to mission creep. Reinforce the western edge of the country to put pressure on Iraq’s neighbors and leave the population centers alone.

Does the PM agree with this or where you just posting the site as an alternative strategy?

Back to the Trenches.

I know I’m a biased reader, but everything on the Accuracy in Media site reads like an editorial straight out of the New York Post: the headlines are sensationalistic (”AIM Report: Dopers for Kerry the Toker” and “AIM Report: Kerry’s Marxist Bedfellows” are just two of the silliest examples) and the writing is both shoddy and defensive (the first ‘report’ mentioned above starts with a non sequitur about Kerry’s claim of foreign leader support — why? — and goes on to villify Kerry for the support of ‘drug-legalizer’ George Soros). I know that the articles at Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting support my viewpoint, but I think they’re at least trying to sound objective. And truthfully, I think the facts they present are retty damning without any spin.

Anybody else want to check in and review both sites? I’d appreciate a couple more opinions. I already know how the Foreign Minister is going to weigh in, and not because of any content issues: in a blatant attempt to coral the gun lobby, AIM uses a bullseye as their logo. ha.

Speaking of the media, here’s a cartoon from last year that is still funny in a sad way.

Incidentally, I don’t want the media discussion to distract the blog from the Strat For article and the ongoing discussion about Iraq. The Foreign Leader correctly notes that Strat For is now a paysite, but it posts sample analyses that change weekly, I think.

Since he first drew the Indian election to my attention, I would also like to know the Maximum Leader’s take on India appointing a principle economic reformist as Prime Minister. It doesn’t negate the influence the communists will have in the new government, but it shows that Ghandi’s party is at the very least concerned about the economy.

Believe.

Last year during the March to Badgad, I used to read FoxNews as my main news source. The reason behind this was that FoxNews really was faster than CNN, msnbc or any other news source that I read. Events were moving fast, and FoxNews really did a decent job of keeping on top of events… to a point.

The price was that you really couldn’t trust what they reported until it was verified. Frequently they jumped all over a news story only to have the links evaporate in an hour or two never to reappear. No retraction or correction, the story just evaporated into cyperspace. Granted, I know better than to accept a conservative news source to EVER admit a mistake. In any event, it was more funny than anything else to watch reports of battles, victories and defeats just vanish. The Mobile Weapons lab was a big one. So was the Bin-Laden/Hussein link that FoxNews reported.

So when I saw the reports of Sarin on Fox News, and the Washington Post I was concerned. Then nothing. Not much outside of conservative pundits and bloggers saying “I told you so.” Now, granted, lots of news papers, TV stations, and various media outlets carry reports that are later de-bunkes. What makes Fox News so cool is that reports that it deems particularly Fair and Ballanced get “BREAKING NEWS” front page treatment. It’s more entertaining than anything else.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader also really likes the ongoing dialouge between the Foreign Ministerand the Minister of Propaganda. But if the M of P is going to pull out the FAIR group; your Maximum Leader feels it is incumbent upon him to pull out Accuracy in Media.

Without going all post-modern on him, any interest group you can pull out to support your views can be countered with one your Maximum Leader can find to support his. Your Maximum Leader isn’t sure that these negate each other (so to speak). But they do certainly add more voices to the discussion.

As for Fox reporting about the Sarin-filled shells… Other news organizations have reported the same thing. For example: the LA Times, Reuters, and the Washington Post. While no one is claiming that a single sarin-infused artillery shell constitutes a WMD horde, it is another sign that WMD were possessed by the former regime after such time as they claimed they were destroyed.

Carry on.

I appreciate the on-going, balanced dialogue with the Foreign Minister — his links to Fox News are similiar to the links I post to op ed pieces in the LA Weekly. However, anyone who’s going to Fox News for actual ‘news’ (tee hee), should also visit the Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting website, just to be safe.

While you’re there, dig around a little and you’ll find all kinds of intriguing stuff about Bush, the campaign, O’Reilly, even NPR, etc., etc. Here’s a nice one on Bush vs Kerry media coverage (hey, hey, look at that — Bush isn’t as ’single-minded’ and ‘determined’ as his publicists want us to believe), and here’s one reaching back to Fox News coverage of the White House vandalism after Bush’s election (Fox News still sucks).

But I digress. Given their reporting history and obvious bias, I’m not really convinced by a poorly footnoted op ed piece about gun control as evidence that gun control is a bad thing. I tried to do my own admittedly haphazard Googling on the International Crime Victimization Survey, but I couldn’t find any evidence that the organization existed past June 2001. John Lott himself is a rabid gun advocate, much like our Foreign Minister (you can visit John Lott’s site directly and decide for yourself).

Concerning the chemical weapons (again reported by Fox), even if completely true, the use of chemcial agents in Iraq is hardly evidence of the massive WMD program that we invaded the country to prevent. And even the Pentagon thought the release of that story was premature — or perhaps they just don’t want to get burned by inaccurate reporting, like with the bogus ‘mobile weapons laboratories’ from last year.

Bush is still a big liar.

Believe.

For those of you inclined to glance…

I love this
“The 2000 International Crime Victimization Survey, the most recent survey done, shows that the violent crime rate in England and Australia was twice the rate in the US.”

Back to the trenches….

Thanks for the link PM. Isn’t stratfor a pay site now? I use to check them out regularly a long time ago when it was free.

I like what what was said and I thank you for the link. As you would probably guess, I would put myself in the “ideolgue” category, and I agree that the purpose of invading Iraq is to put pressure on other Middle Eastern governments and to foster some sort of change whithin.

I know you don’t feel like Bush is the QB for this game, but I feel as strongly about Kerry. Why can’t the Dems put up a viable candidate when they feel the Rebublicans have a crappy one?

But I would imagine that you feel that Bush loosing is a sure thing… you are probably right so don’t bother to go to the polls.
Back to the trenches

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader is peeved. He is downright angry. Maybe the RCOB is just now being drawn back from his eyes. Why has your Maximum Leader’s wa been disrupted? Why has he lost his famously even-temper?

This.

Now allow your Maximum Leader to explain…

Any of us who choose to blog do so for a number of reasons. Your Maximum Leader started this blog as a way of just typing out his comments and thoughts on anything that seemed to catch his attention. Eventually, he realized that he wanted to invite a few of his friends to join in the same medium. He liked talking to these friends about anything in particular; and figured that he would enjoy reading their thoughts just as much.

Additionally, there is a certain narcissism to blogging. There is a particular joy some people can get from writing something, posting it, and then knowing that someone somewhere will read it. Your Maximum Leader admits that he does get a certain degree of self-satisfaction when he looks over his site statistics and sees how the ebb and flow of readership goes.

For a time, early in his foray into blogging, your Maximum Leader wondered what he could do to make his site more popular, and to drive more people to it. Then he realized, at least for himself, blogging was an end to itself in many ways. His goal shouldn’t be to try and corral more and more readers. It should be to write about things he wanted to write about, and respond to items that his friends have written. That choice has certainly affected who comes to and who links to this site. ince you get a variety of opinion here we may not fit well into any category of blogger. And that likely has reduced site traffic. Liberal bloggers might not want to give your Maximum Leader a forum to speak to a liberal audience; and conservative bloggers might not want to give the Minister of Propaganda the chance to woo a conservative audience.

In the end, this blog, like any blog, is a forum for the authors. If you like it you are welcome. If you dislike it deliverance is a mouse click away. Your Maximum Leader has very little patience those who say “Oh I love it when you write about X. But do you have to write about Y too? I don’t like your writings about Y.”

To visit and read a blog is to accept it for what it is. You don’t have to agree with what you are reading. Often you are free, or encouraged, to disagree. But don’t go being all mealy-mouthed and say, “If only you wouldn’t write about Y. I’d like you a lot more then.”

That is why this post upset your Maximum Leader so much.

Your Maximum Leader was not upset with Dennis Mangan, but with Dr. Vallicella. You see Mr. Mangan’s delicate sensibilities appear to be unsettled when he reads some of the scatological writings of my good friend, Kevin. He states that Kevin’s blog is “not a blog I want to read.”

Fine. He looked over Kevin’s site and decided that it was not for him. Great! But what really sticks in your Maximum Leader’s craw was Dr. Vallicella’s response. Your Maximum Leader will summarize it thus: “Yeah, Kevin is a really bright guy who can comment intelligently on philosophical matters. But, all this potty humour is better relegated to somewhere where I wouldn’t have to sift through it to get the good stuff. And by the way, I only linked to him because he linked to me.”

What a sad response.

It is as if Dr. Vallicella was embarrassed for providing the link on his site. Dr. Vallicella was apologizing for upsetting Mr. Mangan’s sensibilities by providing a link to Kevin’s site. And at the same time he was trying not to offend Kevin, who is after all just being authentically Kevin.

Kevin’s site is Kevin’s site. You take it for what it is, or you don’t visit. One thing that is so appealing about it is the very fact that it is both highbrow and scatological. Your Maximum Leader cannot think of another site quite like it. And that is its charm. You read it (or choose not to read it) for what it is.

I (your Maximum Leader) have known Kevin for nearly 30 years. And I can say that I have in the past said that we needed to figure out a way to harness Kevin’s powers for good. I admit that I feel a little guilty now about those words. It is my hope that Kevin can harness some of his creative ability into a medium that a wider audience might enjoy. (Scatological humour isn’t for everyone I grant you.) But I certainly don’t want him to cease writing the potty humour either. It gives Kevin pleasure to write it. And I take pleasure from reading it.

This leads me to the one particular portion of Dr. Vallicella’s response most annoys me. The whole “The Big Ho is obviously intelligent and I would encourage him to put his talents to better use” part. Just how exactly can he put his talents to better use? His frequent intellectual and philosophical posts aren’t a good use? Or is good use exclusively contemplating the most esoteric aspects of human understanding to the exclusion of humour in any form? The mindset that Dr. Vallicella appears to be displaying is one of the most stifling. The mindset is “if you joke around and try to make people laugh you can’t be a serious scholar.” Why is it that academics and intellectuals have to be humourless? Is there really so much self-doubt in academe that you have to guard your reputations so closely against even a hint of self-deprecation or levity that you seek to stifle others?

(In my own field (History) this mindset manifests itself as intellectul elitism. I have met a number of “serious historians” who absolutely despise “historians” like David McCullough, David Halberstam, or Stephen Ambrose. Why? Because they are popular and accessible to the masses. And heaven forefend a serious historian be accessible…)

The suggestion that Kevin run two blogs I find somewhat insulting. Some people may choose to manage multiple blogs. They may choose to keep each blog to a particular theme so as to organize their own thoughts. Or they might choose to give you a single blog with all their thoughts present in a single place. That is their choice. Your choice as a reader is to frequent the sites you want without regard to the desires of others. If you don’t want to read Kevin’s humour posts - don’t. But don’t complain that you have to slog through the shit to find the serious stuff that you are really interested in. What Dr. Vallicella is really saying is that he wants Kevin to conform more to his idea of scholarship; or if he can’t do that at least hide the unseemly parts from view.

Is this what Dr. Vallicella is talking about when he discusses reaping the whirlwind? Now that the boomer generation has successfully destroyed the “bourgeois patriarchy” that came before them, they are filled with regret that hitherto fore unacceptable topics of discussion in polite society are routinely flaunted publicly? Perhaps some boomers should have given a little more forethought to what they were doing to the fabric of society at the time. Society is a fragile thing. It is like spun sugar. A beautiful elaborate structure that is a wonder to behold. But touch it without a gentle hand and it disintegrates in front of you. The boomers were all too happy to smash the structure of society when it suited them. Now they lament its passing? The irony is not lost on me.

And as for the yet unstated issue of linkage on a blog… The owner of a blog has the right to link to whatever he chooses. My own blogroll is slanted towards right-of-center blogs about politics. And it is that way because I want it to be. You are free to click through on any link. If you like what you read visit again. If you don’t like what you read, don’t click through and don’t complain to me. The very fact that a link exists on my page is a conscious choice I have made. You’re complaints that you don’t like a link of mine will get you nowhere with me. I may not (and in fact don’t) agree all (or even some of) the time with the authors of the various sites to which I link. (And if you haven’t noticed, I don’t agree with the various authors who write on my own page!) But I have selected those links because I think there is value to what they say. That value may be thoughtful, it may be humourous; but I find it valuable on some level. I don’t apologize for any link on my blogroll. If you don’t like the links, don’t click through.

I know that this whole issue has likely upset me more than Kevin. And I can’t tell you why it should upset me. But it does.

This tirade completed, your Maximum Leader’s wa is restored and his even-temper returned.

Carry on.

Do you miss me when I’m away? Work has been a bit of a distraction lately. Work, and oh yes, life, too. It still is, actually, but I want to weigh in on some recent commentary about Bush, Kerry and the war in Iraq.

As any frequent reader already knows, I’m solidly with the Air Marshal on the critique of Bush. He’s a crappy president, and spreading innuendoes about Kerry and smearing administration critics is his only hope for reelection. I’ll obviously have to be the one who starts pushing Kerry stock around here as an alternative, but that’ll have to wait until I have more time. For starters, however, I don’t think Kerry can do any worse than Bush.

Setting aside the credibility and competence of the current administration, we as a nation need more debate about the merits of the war in Iraq independent of this November’s election. It may be true, as the Foreign Minister once asserted, that Democrats will use every anecdotal failures in Iraq to attack Bush, but it’s also true that this administration has disdainfully used patriotism in an attempt to stifle dissenting opinion (one of many electoral hypocrises). The greatest foreign policy shift this nation has undergone in nearly half a century, and Bush still isn’t public about the decision.

The neocon vision for remaking the Middle East (which, incidentally is Bush’s only remaining justification for the war in Iraq) is flawed. I recently read an admittedly biased but thought-provoking op ed about this issue, but I’ll only summarize the quoted analysis of Steven Metz, director of research at the U.S. Army War College’s Strategic Studies Institute, here:

He [Metz] noted that the neocons’ campaign was predicated on three fundamental assumptions: that an outside force, such as the United States, can play a decisive role in removing obstacles to democracy in the Middle East; that a democratic Middle East is worth the costs and will be more amenable to U.S. interests and less supportive of fundamentalist terrorism; and that a democratic Iraq can be a catalyst for democracy in the region. None of these assumptions, he suggested, is grounded in fact. Outside nations played important but not decisive roles in the democratization of Latin America and Eastern Europe, Metz noted. New and fragile democratic governments in the Middle East might reinforce themselves by pandering to their citizens and adopting anti-American positins. And there’s no telling if a democratic Iraq — if one comes to be — can serve as a model for its neighbors. “I hope this is true,” Metz said. “But we have not debated the analysis — whether this is true . . . We’ve gone barreling into this based on assumptions.”

As a former member of the Armed Services, I fear where this chain of logic is going to take us. For an alternative, read this excellent analysis from Stratfor Weekly before they update the post (their next sample post might also be excellent, but I don’t know if it will pertain to New Strategies in Iraq). I think this article will be of particular interest to the Foreign Minister, as it shares his concerns for the region but follows them to a different conclusion. Basically, it suggests that we refocus on our true mission (defeating terrorism, not reformatting Iraq) and, while keeping forces in Iraq, consolidate our troops in the south and west and cut our losses elsewhere. Personally, I think it’s an insightful solution to our mess. But whatever your opinion, I think it’s exactly the kind of idea that needs to be on the table, exactly the kind of debate we should be having, and exactly the kind of debate that the Bush administration wants to avoid. They’d rather not consider the reality of our situation at all. Shame on them.

Responding to a recent post by the Foreign Minister, I fully agree tht 9/11 changed the nature of the game. However, that doesn’t mean that Bush is the best guy to QB it. And there is no way in hell that W. would have gotten reelected (”8 mediocre years of W. presidency” my ass) in the absence of a 9/11. He’s got nothing now to run on except his status as a war president, and that’s also why he’s going to lose.

Believe.

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader will answer the questions posed to him by his illustrious AirMarshal.

Your Maximum Leader believes that Scotch is perfect for all seasons. Although, for the sake of full disclosure, he probably drinks more Scotch in the Fall - Winter - Spring months than in summer. Bourbon is good for summer drinking; in that your Maximum Leader does sort of like a good Mint Julep.

And beer is always a good choice too. Your Maximum Leader prefers Sam Adams among most domestic brews. Although he also likes Yuengling’s as well. Your Maximum Leader also is very fond o Bass Ale and Guinness.

As far as wines go, your Maximum Leader is definately a red man. He likes his Egri Bikaver, his burgundies, his merlots. But he also likes his port (generally after dinner with a good cigar and a bad woman).

Your Maximum Leader doesn’t know if he goes through some sort of seasonal change with his booze. Booze is more a state of mind.

Carry on.

So enough politics and back to important things.

My favorite drink, were I to choose, would probably be an Islay Single Malt. Probably Lagavulin. These are heavy, smoky Scotches with a great deal of character. The kind of scotch you can imagine Captain McAllister from “The Simpsons” taking a drink of and saying “Ag!”

However, on a hot summers day, or night, this just doesn’t feel right. To me, Lagavulin is best enjoyed in the fall, Winter or early spring. Drinks to me are seasonal. Winter’s a time for Whiskey in general. Summer’s a time for something else. Ice cold beer, yes, but more than that.

So this brings me to my question, and I encourage all of you to answer.

To the denizens of this blog, what is your favorite Summer beer, and your favorite summer cocktail. It’s a hot and humid july night. You’ve been working on the farm, in the yard, hitting on starlets, playing softball, or doing whatever Germans do. You come in, and you want a drink. What do you have?

For me the beer is easy. In the summer, I love Corona with lime. Yeah, sometimes I want A Sam Adams, or something heavier. But more often than not, in June, July and August, my favorite is Corona. I cannot stomach Budweiser. I will go without rather than drink Bud. My football beer is Miller Lite, which is also a nice cookout beer. Still, in hot weather, I’ll reach for a Corona if it’s available. Caveat is that on July 4th I drink American Beer. Sam Adams preferably.

The cocktail is a little trickier. I might have to say my summer choice is probably a gin and tonic. I’m not too particular about gin. I buy Tanqueray largely because that was my Dad’s brand, and I like it. No reason to change. Bombay Saphire’s good, but not better enough than Tanqueray to justify the $5 more per bottle.

Tequila is a summer favorite. Good tequila, none of this Cuervo crap. I blogged earlier on Tequila’s and margaritas, so I won’t say more here. Search the Archives for my feelings on Tequila. Rum is also a summer drink to me. Rum and Coke, or a Mojito are both nice summer cocktais. And Bourbon on the rocks, or a Mint Julep, can be very nice in hot weather. As far as Bourbon goes, though, I’m enough of a snob to not buy cheap bourbon, and I’m enough of a purist to not want to dilute good bourbon over ice. So that’s a catch 22. Makers Mark or Wild Turkey Rare Breed on the rocks can be very pleasant, though. Actually, scratch that. Rare Breed is too good to pour over ice.

Maybe it has something to do with the climate of the geographic origin of the liquor. Tequila, Rum, and Bourbon are all from places with nasty and hot summers. Scotch is from a colder climate. Maybe that determines when it’s best to drink a spirit.

Still, something about a Gin and Tonic just works in hot weather. So that’s my choice. I was gonna google something about the history of this cocktail, but I’m too lazy. Go look it up yourself.

And please, no sissy frozen drinks. Might as well pour a shot of everclear in a slurpee.

La Chaim

I feel your pain. Really I do. I have spent 8 years myself wondering what the hell the guy in the oval office was doing and couldn’t believe the apologist on the left that were so blinded by their donkey shirt that they couldn’t see the truth even if they wanted to.

As to the current situation
I think that we are all going through a paradigm shift over the role of our president and the United States’ place on the world stage. I know that it is a cliche to say, but 9-11 caused it all. Had it not been for that, we would have had 8 mediocre years of W presidency where taxes went down and gun rights were left alone and that is about it.

But the reality is different. We are in un-chartered territory with this war on terrorism and hind sight and arm chair quarterbackin’ make some people feel like their geniuses and give them a chance to thump the chest but, like the guy who watches jeopardy at home and aces all the questions. When they get their chance on stage, they choke on even the easiest questions.

This is not a Hollywood script where in a half of an hour all the loose end are tied up and we have a few laughs along the way. We are in a war that threatens the very fabric of American society and our way of life.

Crazy shit is gonna happen no matter whose watch its on now and we have to be prepared to take the fight to the enemy.

George W had the US abstain from the UN resolution condemning Israel for their recent military offensive. Did ANY of the A-Rab countries go on record as to say “Wow, those Americans are really coming around… Thanks!” ???? If we had vetoed the resoulution, we would have been seeing more burning flags in the Middle East and we would be lectured by the Palestinians about how biased we are.

I personally believe that going to War in Iraq was the right thing to do. I did not need the WMD argument. (I find it strange that CNN’s website had NOTHING on the Sarin… You know the WMD, that was found in Iraq). The Middle East is, and has been, a festering cesspool of anti-Americanism (and Anti-Western) for a LONG time, not just under George W. The governments and royal families blame everything bad on the US and Israel to take the pressure off of their own corrupt regimes. So the average guy in the middle east is some poor bastard with a shitty standard of living that has been born and bred on anti-US sentiment while their countries wealth and resources are only benefiting the elite.

The war on terrorism is not going to be over until there is democracy and prosperity in the middle east. That is not going to happen until their regimes are toppled from within or from without. I hope that by starting Iraq on this road, that neighboring countries will see that the freedom and democracy and control over their own resources is a good thing and they will start to work harder for change in their own countries.

As Americans, we cannot wait for this process to happen “naturally” as their might not be any tall buildings to fly things into then.

Back to the trenches….

Great essay by Kurt Vonnegut here.

Couple of great quotes:

If you want to take my guns away from me, and you‚ÄövÑv¥re all for murdering fetuses, and love it when homosexuals marry each other, and want to give them kitchen appliances at their showers, and you‚ÄövÑv¥re for the poor, you‚ÄövÑv¥re a liberal.

If you are against those perversions and for the rich, you‚ÄövÑv¥re a conservative.

About Bush, and Alcohol, he has this to say.

My government‚ÄövÑv¥s got a war on drugs. But get this: The two most widely abused and addictive and destructive of all substances are both perfectly legal.

One, of course, is ethyl alcohol. And President George W. Bush, no less, and by his own admission, was smashed or tiddley-poo or four sheets to the wind a good deal of the time from when he was 16 until he was 41. When he was 41, he says, Jesus appeared to him and made him knock off the sauce, stop gargling nose paint.

Other drunks have seen pink elephants

.

Vonnegut also brings something to mind, something that I’d like BigHominid to comment on.

As I look at Dubya, I wonder to myself how anyone with his apparant set of values can claim that he is a Christian. First of all, I am not a Christian. Consider me an educated, and curious outsider. But somehow, I don’t think Jesus would approve of Bush’s version of Christianity, whatever that is.

I have known a few southern-type Born Agains in my day, and unfortunately Bush is typical of them. The belief at the core is that they have “seen the light”, opened themself to Jesus, and they are saved. It really doesn’t matter what they do, as long as they accept Jesus as their personal savior. Back in college, a friend trying to convert me to his version of Christianty tried to explain to me how, in theory, he could do just about anything but it would be OK becuase Jesus hase forgiven him through salvation. I however was damned regardless of what I did in life because I hadn’t accepted Jesus. It was my friends mission in life to bring others into this fold I guess.

Maybe that’s how Bush sees Christianity. Get to know Jesus, be forgiven and get your friends to help buy you a share of a baseball team, or get daddy to get you an executive position with an Oil Company. Then life is hunky dory. In a serious note, the notion that acceptance of Jesus is all that is required strikes me as incredibly similar to Islam. Submit to the will of Allah, follow the rules, and you gain righteousness.

This isn’t what I get out of the Sermon on the Mount. But then again, I’m just an outsider looking in trying to understand. I see mercy, love, compassion and sympathy for those less fortunate, with an liberal dose of dogma thrown in. Couple this with a disdain for opressors and hypocrites. That’s what I see. But that’s just me.

I’ll probably be AWOL for a couple of days on the blog. Your humble, normally calm Smallholder is currently seeing the world through a red haze.

Irresponsible dog owners must be shot.

I’m not sparing the dogs anymore. I have failed before to put down a dog that has threatened my livestock. I won’t make the mistake again. Even my softhearted wife wants blood.

[happy thoughts… happy thoughts… go to my happy place…]

During the hiatus I need to recoup my mental stabilty, here is a link for the Maximum Leader. I think that it makes a pro-gay marriage argument that might appeal to the Maximum Leader re: individual liberty. At the very least, I would like his response.