Mailvox: better to do it Raidess style

Sarah writes:

Vox, when I say that she is ignoring you, it is mostly true. Where she is directly and publicly confronted with you, she will make an attempt at evading your points by brushing it off. As far as I'm concerned, that is functionally equivalent to ignoring you. After all, what does anyone care whether she acknowledges your existence? It is your points that matter in this particular context, not the source (unless it is to ensure that that source is trustworthy).

Of course, you can get all literal about 'ignoring' if you want to...

You know, you'd think it would be so easy for Malkin. If she doesn't want to be exposed as a liar and incompetent, then all that she would have to do is ensure that she knows what she is talking about and that she is careful to tell the truth. I really hope this bites her in the ass in the end.

Actually, I pretty much agree with you. Nor do I care that she is ignoring me on a personal level, as I firmly believe that she will treat anyone who brings up the question of military necessity in precisely the same way, even if their name were Bill O'Reilly or Rush Limbaugh. She has to, because even opening her mouth on the question will reveal her ignorance. I mean, look what level of total cluelessness she managed to reveal in only two blog posts on the subject!

I find it rather strange that she chose to lie in public rather than completely ignore me. That was just weird. Perhaps she needs to take lessons from Al Davis. Oakland is playing Tampa Bay tomorrow, and when a sportswriter asked a Raiders official why it was Derrick Thomas doing the weekly press conference for Tampa and not Tim Brown, the former Raider who was their number one draft pick and All-Pro wide receiver who caught 99 touchdowns for them before his acrimonious departure from Oakland this summer, the Raiders executive replied: "Tim who?"

Now, THAT'S ignoring!

Winner by default

While it would have been far more satisfying to debate Mrs. Malkin directly, I think I answered the questions to the satisfaction of Captain Ed, King, St. Paul and the Elder. If I sounded a little more awkward than normal, it felt rather like trying to pour water from a keg into a tiny little funnel. There were so many things I would have liked to get into, but couldn't in the interest of keeping things moving along. I did hit the primary points I wanted to address, though, so I'll have to be satisfied with that.

Putting things into perspective

MikeF wrote:

Honestly Vox, except for a minority of people, I'm not sure who you plan on converting anymore. The ardent defenders of Malkin are often those who think that Bush is the spittin image of Reagan. IMO you're in the end what you're doing amounts to trying to appeal to the dumb and willfully ignorant.

You can't win this because her supporters desparately want to support anything they feel will get back a quieter, simpler, more traditional America. Malkin offers some of that, you offer a deep challenge.

Space Bunny and I were talking about this a few days ago. She pointed out that regardless of what the facts are, most people will assume that Malkin knows what she's talking about because they have not heard of me nor do they know the historical facts. I laughed and pointed out that the vast majority of Americans have never heard of Malkin, indeed, most people have not heard of Bill O'Reilly and could not place Dick Cheney if you paid them.

It amuses me when people talk about cable news figures as if they are well-known. If we are going to abandon the truth and concern ourselves with popularity, then the only people whose opinion truly matters are the Britney Spears, Brad Pitts and Jenna Jamesons of the world. I daresay ten times more people would recognize Jenna Jameson's not-exactly-private parts than Michelle Malkin's face. The top cable news show is watched by barely one percent of the population, after all.

My primary motivation in all of this was to simply stand up for the truth here because apparently almost no one in the supposedly intellectual commentariat has any idea what it is. Ignorance is rampant; the History Channel - which is the only exposure that many people who consider themselves to be thinking men will have to the matter - recently did a Decisive Battles series on Pharsalus. At one point, the narrator mentioned that Julius Caesar had been married to Pompey's daughter, Julia. The program got it entirely backwards, however, as it was actually Pompey married to Caesar's daughter Julia, the episode serves to demonstrate how utterly hopeless the media can be when it comes to matters of iron-clad historical fact. In addition to the easily verified lineage, you'd think the name alone might have given the idiot a hint.

I suspect that not only will the reason for my contempt for Malkin's grasp on history be very clear to you all within a few hours, I expect most of you will likely share it.

Getting closer

To total Windows-free operation, not counting games. It's been a hassle to transfer my writing from the laptop to my Dana; while it's doable, it's enough of a pain that for the most part, I only use my Dana for reading. However, after I started using Blue Nomad's Wordsmith on the Dana, which serves as both an ebook reader and a word processor, I decided to check out the Linux utility they had available for download.

What's nice is that the combination of Blue Nomad's wsconv utility with a pair of scripts allows me to save a file as an RTF, right-click on it to convert it to a Palm-readable PDB format, then fire it over to the Dana. That last step still requires hopping into Windows for now since the Dana , but someone's already figured out how to get the Dana hotsyncing in Linux using infrared, so it's only a matter of time before there's a decent USB option as well.

Mailvox: fostering evolutionary dead ends

MS writes:

I've been meaning to ask this question for awhile, but have been hesitant to given the rather un-pc nature of the question. I'd also be interested in comments from your vox folk. This has been touched upon just a bit in the comments from your "Homologic" blog, but -

I assume that you believe that most if not all of the factors that cause a teen to think they are gay are a result of things that happen to them in their childhood as opposed being born with it. If this is the case, what suggestions do you have for parents raising kids to prevent this from
happening (them thinking they are gay) I have my own thoughts about this (Basically - Dads: Stay in the picture and don't be a jerk with your kids) but I wonder what your thoughts are.

This is really out of my league, and there are certainly those who will have more personal experience on which to base their opinions, but from a strictly material point of view, I tend to follow Paglia in her quasi-Freudian take on it. There seem to be numerous potential factors involved, but what appears to be a dependable nurturing environment to ensure that your line is not passed on is a dominant mother and an absent or rejecting father.

As for women, Paglia - more than a bit of a lesbian herself - quotes a friend in saying "too much tit or not enough."

Strangely, it would seem to come down to the wisdom of .38 Special, who recommended holding on loosely, but not letting go. To be honest, I don't think there is an answer, except that love, prayer, attention and affection are never wasted.

And if you happen to lose the genetic lottery or manage to screw it up and turn your boy into a flaming fairy whose heartfelt dream is to choreograph a drag show in Vegas, then continue to love them, pray for them and give them attention and affection anyhow.

Radio tomorrow

If you're interested in listening to the Northern Alliance Radio Show tomorrow, the live web stream is here. I'll be on with the Fraters Libertas and SCSU Scholars at 2 PM Central time, discussing WWII military history, internment and the implications for future actions by the federal government, among other things.

Saint Paul said we will take 2 or 3 callers, so if you'd like to call in you can do so at 651-289-4488. I think Rush has a good point with his time-saving "dittos", so, in honor of the infamous battle cry, you can simply say "azaleas" to indicate a strong level of agreement, sympathy or simply an appreciation for the general bonhomie on this blog.

Homologic

As El Zinko Pinko, (President, VPQF), Snowdog and Bane can all attest*, I am one of the more gay-friendly Bible-thumping intolerant Christian bigots of the right.

But here's one thing that puzzles me about what appears to be the Official Party Line of the Lavender Brigades. Feel free to correct me if I'm mischaracterizing something here, but it seems to me that the assertions are:

1. An individual is gay because he knows he is. The assertion is the proof.
2. There are no external causes, a gay individual simply knows he has always been that way.
3. If someone decides he is not, in fact, gay, he is incorrect and is only deceiving himself.

Now, if it is possible for someone to be mistaken about their sexual orientation, how is it possible that only those who are insisting that they are not gay that can be mistaken? If it is not possible for someone to be mistaken about their sexual orientation, how is it possible to deny the testimony of someone who was gay, but now is not, that it is possible for sexual orientation to change?

I don't have an actual point here, I was just wondering. Not that this will likely do any good, but in the comments, please do try to stick to the logical aspects and not digress into verses about sin, smiting and Sodom. We pretty much covered that yesterday following the Swaggart post.

Craig, that gushing over Sean Hannity's hair only earned you probationary VPQF status. Until we get a ruling from Zinky, you don't get a vote.

Or not

Iraq Guy doesn't buy the Novak float suggesting the likelihood of withdrawal.

“One reason we might not be taking it seriously is that we're planning to do the wise thing and withdraw.”

Not very likely. A Democrat might “un-ass the AO” if elected, but right now having a US footprint in the Middle East is priceless as far as senior DOD planners are concerned. Centrally located and able to project power to all the other trouble spots in the region – in fact, this is the hot zone now, not Europe. Word is that this is going to be the new Korea as far as 1 year short tours go.

Yes, the obvious usefulness of the new bases they've constructed in Iraq are too great to be ignored, but I thought perhaps they'd make do with those they've built in Afghanistan and Qatar. We did abandon the big one in Saudi Arabia after all. But it was just a suggestion, I have no hard or even mildly rigid information.

Bill O'Reilly comes out of the closet

On the environment, anyhow. I caught a few moments of him with Naomi Wolf, and while he did a masterful job of taking her apart with regards to her accusations of "Bush lied" on WMD, he also stated that he was very liberal on the environment, and in favor of big government solutions.

This, I think, goes well beyond what Ann Coulter has accused Brave Sir William in the past, of splitting the difference to land precisely in the middle. I recommend that Mr. O'Reilly visit eastern Europe, where he can see for himself what sort of solution really big government has in store for the environment.

Denouncing Christians

Eugene Volokh calls on Christians to denounce Jimmy Swaggart:

I'm not asking for anything much — I'm simply saying that Christians should be outraged at Swaggart's essentially slandering their religion, and should denounce his views, to make clear that his views (though purportedly Christian) are not mainstream Christian views. Swaggart calls himself a Christian; was once a very prominent minister; continues apparently to have some influence; and purports to interpret the Bible. His statements are representations of what Christianity is supposed to be about. I would think that Christians would want to denounce those representations, and the closer they are in denomination to him (e.g., Protestants, evangelical Protestants, etc.), the more they would want to do that.

I agree in concept. And what did Swaggart actually say?

I'm trying to find the correct name for it . . . this utter absolute, asinine, idiotic stupidity of men marrying men. . . . I've never seen a man in my life I wanted to marry. And I'm gonna be blunt and plain; if one ever looks at me like that, I'm gonna kill him and tell God he died.

Yes, I have no problem whatsoever denouncing Swaggart's statements. They are stupid, they are contrary to both Biblical principle and evangelical Christian teaching, and are particularly outrageous being voiced by someone who is apparently still in a position of church leadership, however minor. It is good that he has apologized for his comments; it would have been much better had he never made them in the first place.

I daresay that I am looked at that way far more often than the delectable Mr. Swaggart, and I have never killed anyone nor felt any need to. I am as vocal in my criticism of the gay agenda as anyone, I am opposed to homogamy,* I believe homosexuality to be a serious spiritual disease and a serious sign of societal decline, and I reserve my right to mock them as viciously as I mock everyone else just because I feel like it. (A community can't expect to inflict Erasure on the world, among other things, and expect to get away scot-free.) But a homosexual man has the very same rights to life, liberty and property that I do, and is possessed of the same worth in the eyes of God that I am.

God forgives all who repent, no matter what their sin. Repentance comes easily to no one, but it comes to all who ask for it. You cannot be a little bit sinful any more than you can be a little bit dead, and those who take joy in the knowledge that the world regards their sins as more acceptable than those of others would do well to keep that in mind.

*I'm opposed to state-granted heterosexual marriage too, come to think of it.

Socialism and bad little girls

This is why I'm convinced that socialism is hopeless. I mean, yes, there's all the historical evidence against it, and, of course, the economic theories that shred its logic all to pieces. But at the end of the day, the primary problem is that it assumes humans are somehow malleable.

The nature versus nurture debate will probably never end, but there are certain things that even the most casual observer can't help but notice. Four years ago, I first encountered a pretty little girl who lives near us. She was the sort of little girl you'd consider to have the promise of adult prettiness, though she wasn't a winner of the genetic lottery to the extent of the three blondies of The Couple You Want To Hate But Can't Because They're So Doggone Nice or the two china-perfect daughters of our friends Yes, I Used To Model and her husband I'm Very Handsome, If A Bit Cheesy, But You Have To Admit That It Works For Me.

I don't know how old this girl was, as I don't pay enough attention to children to be able to distinguish ages very well, but she was probably eight or nine. It was impossible to ignore her, though, as she prevented you from doing so by methodically staring at every male in the vicinity, of all ages, until they looked back at her. She also had an expression while doing this that I can only describe as feline. Now, it's possible that she was somehow taught this behavior, but I don't think so as it wasn't exhibited by any of the other young girls around, most of whom were a year or two older than her and were just going about their young girl business. I distinctly remember thinking: that one's going to be trouble.

Fast forward to last week. I was walking down the street when I noticed a girl literally sprawled forward on the hood of a motorcycle next to the sidewalk. I didn't recognize her at first, but it turned out to be the same young girl, apparently talking to the boy on the motorcycle. However, she was looking around almost everywhere except at him; when she glanced at me as I walked by, I had to look away before I burst out laughing. The look on her face was precisely the same semi-cunning, self-satisfied expression that it had been four years before.

We are what we are. It takes a divine force, a higher power, to even allow us to change that somewhat. Socialism, in setting itself against human nature, is a hopeless impossibility. No wonder the attempts to realize it fully inevitably lead to bloodshed.

I'm not obsessed, honestly

Among other things, I've just wrapped up work on the first comic book - er, that is to say, graphic novel - in the trilogy I mentioned some time ago. I have next to no experience with the genre, except for some creepy Weird Tales that Big Chilly used to have in his bedroom that scared me half to death when I was about eight, but it's been a lot of fun. I particularly enjoy working with the creator, who has been kind enough to give me co-author credit. We're going to be writing a novel based on the same series; even though we're not done with the second and third parts of the trilogy, a ridiculous number have already been pre-sold, which had the effect of creating interest in a related novel.

In other news, it looks as if the three books of the EW series will be soon published by a Christian publishing house, separately from the same three books published by Pocket Books and intended for mainstream bookstores. This will be nice, as my association with a secular publisher has had the unfortunate effect of causing the books to go almost completely unnoticed by its core market. I don't have a release date for "Wrath" yet, but if you want to check out the first issue of "Archangel: The Fall" you should be able to do so in about six weeks.

Evangelical Outpost on information flow

Joe Carter has an interesting and characteristically thoughtful post on why the coverage on Rathergate has been non-stop, while few have seen fit to pay attention to Michelle Malkin's similar attempts to pass off fraudulent history as the truth.

A comparison of these two cases provides an excellent example of how information is disseminated through the various information channels now that the concept of “media” has become more fluid. The rise of blogs has helped open access to media outlets that were previously unavailable and has enabled the coordination between various specialists. It has, as Patrick O’Hannigan writes in The American Spectator, “leveraged the increasing popularity of all things Web to make "asymmetrical warfare" by non-journalists against inaccuracies in Big Media easier than it had been before.”

The creation of new media forms, however, has also produced a new hierarchy that, while allowing a free-flowing mobility, remains sharply distinct. I believe it can be broadly outlined as follows:

Tier 1 – Network and cable news (i.e., CBS, CNN, FOX); newsweeklies (Time, Newsweek); major daily newspapers (The New York Times, Washington Post); prominent columnists (David Brooks, Maureen Dowd)

Tier 2 – Talk radio; Political journals (National Review, The New Republic); Web magazines (Salon, Slate, NRO);

Tier 3 – Cross-over bloggers (Andrew Sullivan, Glenn Reynolds, Kos Zuniga);

Tier 4 – High traffic/high linkage bloggers (Captain Ed, Roger Simon); Internet columnist (World Net Daily, Tech Central Station)

Tier 5 -- Bloggers

Tier 6 – Blog commenters, lurkers, posters to forums (Free Republic, Democratic Underground)

Most stories in the media start from T1 and move downward through the various tiers What was unique about the CBS memo story was that the discrepancy was picked up by a T6 source (Free Republic poster “Buckethead”), emailed to a T4 blog (Powerline), jumped to a T2 (Drudge), and was then picked up by the Tier 1 media. The dissemination of information downward from T1 is extremely flat, news can reach all the other tiers simultaneously. In contrast, information that moves upward from the lower tiers must be moved up by a higher tier.

Obviously, I'm a combination of T5 (here) and T4 (WND columnist). And while I think this is a solid partial explanation for the failure of the story to achieve any traction - it's manifestly true that I don't have the ability to see this, or any other, myth publicly exploded by myself - there's also other factors at work too. Prof. Ann Althouse sees it this way:

I don't think the two cases are comparable, because it isn't possible to engage with a history book without reading it and knowing the actual material well enough to pick it apart.... I have no idea whose facts are true there though. I'm happy to assume you're right about the scope of military operations in WWII and what is in Malkin's book, but I'm just not going to feel ashamed of not knowing such things. It's broadly assumed that the Japanese internment was wrong, and most people don't feel they need to reconsider it, so we're just not bothering to get up to speed on the info.

It's even harder in the case of alternate history novels, I'm learning. Not to go all O'Reilly on you, but I think both Joe's and Prof. Althouse's points are relevant here. The inadvertant novelist would never have gotten away with it to the extent that she has if anyone in the media knew anything about military history; as I've said before, journalists know nothing by virtue of their fact-free training, where reading Dan Rather's book passes for an education. The potential problem with the latter perspective, however, is that it's not necessarily true that most people still assume the internment was wrong. I'd like to think so too, but an awful lot of people seem to be delighted to be provided with the opportunity to reconsider it. No doubt they'll be the ones cheering on a sequel.

Notes from Iraq

Iraq Guy writes from the desert:

More important (and current) is the thing with Sadr/Syria and Iran. Literally, we've pounded Sadr down to the point of submission several times now. You can tell when he's out of bullets or people when he throws up the "negotiation" flag. So we pull back, the politicians pull up and he escapes and evades. Without getting up to look at something sensitive, I believe he's in Samara right now, that's where they secreted him off to. So of course, our reporting shows that Iran is
re-arming him and sending him non Arabic speaking troops.

We know Iran is doing this!

Even beyond that, the high Ayatola in Iran ordered Sadr to resume insurgent operations against the coalition. Sadr has also ordered a hit on Sistani....

So, yeah, I guess your assertion that we aren't taking it seriously is somewhat correct... mainly because I think Syria and Iran have demonstrably committed acts of war against us already, but nobody seems to want to do anything about it, and nobody has the stomach to take out Sadr, crush Falujah/Najaf, etc.

What really baffles me is Rumsfeld and the rest of them saying we don't need more troops. Obviously we do - if we want to close off the borders and cut off some of the arms and external terrorists ....and.... do a smack down on Syria and Iran...

One reason we might not be taking it seriously is that we're planning to do the wise thing and withdraw. Though neocons like Michael Ledeen are frothing at the mouth for expanding the war into Syria and Iran, that's pointless unless we're also going to occupy Saudi Arabia and stay there for the next 100 years. At which point, the curtain has come down and we might as well get it out in the open and elevate George Bush to the purple.

I don't see that being the plan, though. This information from the field makes more sense in light of a forthcoming withdrawal.

Floating proposals

Here's an interesting dichotomy on how the right's own biases can come into play. Because, let's face it, we have our own biases, just as the left does and it's foolish to make the same mistake they do by trying to deny it. When Robert Novak wrote about how the Bush administration is planning to withdraw from Iraq immediately after winning re-election earlier this week, it was dismissed by many right-wing commentators who are fans of the war as the mere floating of a proposal. In light of that, consider Eric Muller's recent point about John Leo's support of "In Defense of Internment":

John Leo read Michelle Malkin's book "In Defense of Internment" and concluded that it's time to open debate on internment "past and present."

Malkin has expressed frustration when I (and others) have read her book as endorsing the internment of Arabs and Muslims. How could we make such a mistake, she has wondered, when she says in her book (in one sentence) that she's "not advocating rounding up all Arabs of Muslims and tossing them into camps?"

So you'd think that when Leo uses her book to call for a debate on "present" internments, Malkin would say it's a misunderstanding of her views.

Nope. She calls it a favorable review.

Regardless of whether you agree with the notion of interning Muslims without regard for civil liberties or not, the conclusion you cannot escape is that Malkin's logic in defense of the historical internments REQUIRES support for modern internments, because America is at more verifiable danger from Koreans, Iraqis, Iranians, Saudis, Yemenis, Syrians, Afghanis and Chechens than we ever were from ethnic Japanese.

If it is deemed not only possible, but even likely, for Robert Novak to float policy proposals, is it so improbable that Michelle Malkin is being used to do the same? Perhaps Prof. Muller, the anti-internment left-winger liberal japonicus and I are the only ones who hear this ominous drumbeat beginning, but the extent to which Malkin, Leo and others are willing to lie and warp history in defense of this newly declared debate on "present" internments should seriously trouble any of you who claim to believe in the supremacy of the individual over the collective.

So not surprised

Zekedood sends an email informing us that, as expected, Michelle Malkin can't defend herself. Furthermore, I recommend having a look at her direct quote shown in bold below. Tell me if you think she's telling the truth.

Yesterday Michelle Malkin was a guest on the Ron Smith show on WBAL in Baltimore. Ron Smith is something of a small-l libertarian. He came out very early (in 2002) on the anti-Iraq war side, citing the non-threat Saddam Hussein posed to the US, WMD or not. So when he teased Mrs. Malkin's appearance by saying that he was going to ask about your challenge to debate her, I was certain that it was going to lead to something good.

However, he pretty much gave "me-so-Michelle" a free pass. He started the interview by referring to the opposition her book had received from various parties, particularly "Vox Day, the WorldNetDaily columnist", and asked if she was going to take you up on your challenge to debate the issue on radio. Her answer: "I won't be doing that. I have already addressed those
questions on my blog." "Me-so" was then given a free pass to restate the case laid out in her book (without challenge) before the interview changed direction to discuss the Rathergate fiasco.

I decided to double check "Me-so"'s contention that she had addressed your questions on her blog. Shock and awe! No mention of you or your questions. Not a peep. There was, in the August archive of the blog, a small section where she "took on" other bloggers who had questioned her premise. But there was no mention of you, your questions, or your contention that she whiffed badly on her research. More shock and awe!

I'm not sure with whom I'm more disgusted -- "Me-so" for dissembling, or Ron Smith for being such a patsy.

I'm not surprised in the least. She can't afford to have it known how little she knows about the military situation, so she's hoping everyone will quietly ignore this until it passes over. The blogosphere can give her a free pass if it wants, but they had better realize that in doing so, they are imitating the mainstream media over which they are currently affecting such superiority. But why they'd want to sacrifice their own integrity to cover for someone who's now proven herself to be a charlatan, a coward and a liar is beyond me.

In any event, I'll be precisely delineating the many differences between her alternate history fantasy and the history of our space-time continuum on the Northern Alliance show this Saturday.

More tales of the White Buffalo

In college, WB had some friends from home who went to other colleges and were in a band. They were musically talented, although unfortunately none of them could sing worth a darn. He would come back from break with tapes of their recordings, one of which, the immortal "Who's Gonna Buy the Beer" actually made it to vinyl on an independent label somehow.

The best thing about the Groundhogs, as they were called, was their magnificently offensive lyrics, which snuck up on you, disguised as they were by nice melodic guitar lines and sung in what would have been a pleasant manner if the singer's voice hadn't been complete crap. My personal favorite was the beginning to "Web of Love".

Oh, I was searching
For a certain
Kind of girl to f---"

Or the wandering, almost Sultans of Swing-like "Bass Ale" which chronicled a weary working man's night out at his local bar.

The other day, me and a couple buddies decided,
We'd go have a couple brews at the local bar.
We didn't realize,
That it was going to be homos, all around us.
Yeah, the homos were coming in, they were getting ready,
For a big dance party, on Saturday night.
Oh, Saturday night....

It always amused me to put the tape in the car when I'd be out on a date or something, and it would take a couple songs before whoever was with me would realize what they were singing. Nine times out of ten, male or female, they'd burst out laughing. It got to the point that we couldn't have a party without a mass demand for the Groundhogs tape, usually, of course, after everyone was adequately refreshed and in the mood for a riotous sing-along culminating in "Snorklehead", which was either a Blyesque assertion of masculine independence from female oppression or an ode to lethal interspecies affection. I know all the words and I'm still not sure.

Groundhogs....

Observations

Since there's no chance Malkin will show on Saturday, I've been passing some of the information I'd been retaining onto other blogs who are interested in continuing to strip the charlatan, along with the credulous sorts who are still taking her seriously. Was "most of the U.S. fleet destroyed at Pearl Harbor," John Leo?* I've saved some of the best bits for the Northern Alliance, of course, and I'll arrange to post a transcript here in the week following the show.

1. I find it strange that many people have been urging me, one not very widely read columnist, to "move on" while simultaneously reveling in the all-Rather, all the time coverage of the conservative columnists and the right-leaning blogosphere.

2. I also find it ironic that the Guard memos are portrayed as a bigger deal than the beginning drumbeat to build support for internment. Considering the many empty, but staffed FEMA "detention centers", I think it is improbable that this will remain an entirely academic debate for long. I don't claim to know for whom those centers are intended, but one has to presume that they exist for a reason.

3. The total lack of interest in conservative fraud expressed by people at places like NRO, compared to their rabid Pavlovian reaction to the smallest sign of inaccuracy in all things Democratic, is disheartening, though not all that surprising. I see little reason to believe that professional Republicans are any better or more intellectually honest than professional Democrats, the illusions of their honest, church-going fans notwithstanding. It's not so much that neither side has a monopoly on the truth as neither side has any interest in it, if it does not serve their immediate purposes.

4. I am very, very glad that I decided against pursuing a media career after I was signed by Universal Press Syndicate. I'd rather work for the Porn King. He has more integrity and the money is significantly better. And Heather Naeurt notwithstanding, the women are much hotter too. Not that Space Bunny is likely to go for either option, you understand.

5. It is intriguing to discover what some self-identified Christian conservatives believe will see you damned to eternal Hellfire. I was aware that some people believe it is necessary to vote for George Bush in order to pass into the Kingdom of Heaven, I did not know that accepting Michelle Malkin's revisionist fantasy of WWII military history was also a requirement. Presumably that's from the Book of Vulpes.

*And before someone starts arguing that it was the big important ships that were destroyed, please note that even if we count the beached Nevada as destroyed, that is still only 5 out of the 17 battleships that the US Navy possessed at the time. And, of course, 0 of 9 carriers, 0 of 18 heavy cruisers, 0 of 20 light cruisers, etc.

You mother get up...

come on get down with the sickness
Madness is the gift that has been given to me.

That's Disturbed, Bane, the best and most evil band of the last four years. I had a tough time choosing between songs for the chapter headings in The Wrath of Angels, since I always limit myself to a maximum of two chapters per band. Uh-wha-ah-ah-ah. Voices is the song I used in those little MP3 experiments from a few months ago.

I can hear the voice but I don't want to listen
Strap me down and tell me I'll be all right.
I can feel the subliminal need to be down with the voice
And make everything all right.

It's actually one of the better descriptions of demonic possession I've ever read. I think the lyricist is a preacher's son gone bad or something like that. Great music, though, it was the sort of thing I wanted to do with Psykosonik, but Paul and Dan fell in love with The Orb and we ended up going with stronger trance and rave influences instead.

Those Powerline bullies at it again

Hindrocket kicks sand in Jon Klein's face on CNBC:

Mr. JOHN HINDERAKER (Powerline.com Co-founder): Well, here's how it happened. I would say this is not really a big exception to the way that we and other blogs operate all the time. I think that this story illustrates the medium, the Internet, at its best, but the same kind of thing has happened many times.

It started on the morning of September 9th. We're a group blog; there are three of us who do Powerline. My partner, Scott Johnson, got up early in the morning, and one of the first things he did was to check all the e-mails that readers had sent to us overnight looking for something interesting to follow up on. And one of those e-mails quoted from and linked to a post which somebody called BuckHead had done on a message thread at the Free Republic site, which is basically a message board.

BORGER: It's a very conservative site, we should say.

Mr. HINDERAKER: It's a conservative site, yeah...

BORGER: Yes.

Mr. HINDERAKER: ...basically a message board. And Scott thought it was interesting because this guy had looked at these documents which had just become available online, and he made some very good points about the font and the appearance and so on of the documents, said, 'I think they're forgeries.' Scott was intrigued by that, so he put up a quote and a link to the original post on Free Republic, and he said, 'Hey, anybody else out there among our readers have any information about this?' Well, that opened the floodgates. Over the ensuing hours, we received hundreds...

BORGER: Right.

Mr. HINDERAKER: ...and hundreds and hundreds of e-mails from readers...

BORGER: Right.

Mr. HINDERAKER: ...not all of them valuable, but many of them from people who had a remarkable knowledge of military protocol of the early 1970s, type fonts and typewriters and so on...

BORGER: OK.

Mr. HINDERAKER: ...and other subject that were relevant.

BORGER: Well, and the rest is obviously history. Now, Jon Klein, let me ask you--it turns out that this blogger BuckHead is Harry McDougald, who is a very conservative lawyer from Atlanta. Who holds the bloggers responsible here in this battle to control the media?

Mr. JON KLEIN (Former CBS News Executive Vice President): Well, to hear them tell it, they hold themselves responsible. And, you know, that's fine as far as it goes; it's just not any kind of a third-party or any kind of a reliable check or balance against them. They are, you know, journals of opinion. And if they're taken that way, they can be useful. But we can't confuse the opinion of a guy shooting off an e-mail from BuckHead, Georgia, as fact.

Mr. HINDERAKER: I don't understand that, Jonathan. Are you saying that Republicans somehow don't have standing to point out forgeries?

One thing I couldn't help noting is how the host kept saying "very conservative". Have you ever heard any talking head utter the words "very liberal"? I can't think of one example. I wonder if Powerline is going to start painting silhouettes on their fuselage soon.