October 3, 2008

It's up to 882.

Come on! We can hit 1000!

Thanks to all the many commenters who hung out with me for the VP debate live-blog, some of whom are still hanging out there, trying to drive the comments into the 4 figures for the first time. There's some great stuff inside -- I front-paged some of it -- on-topic and off-... off-topic and off-color. There's the funny, and there's the search for a better, more Cuban, recipe for creole shrimp... and I'm sure we'll all find what we're looking for.

IN THE COMMENTS: Ruth Anne Adams said...
Why don't you sweeten the pot? Why don't you promise to vlog an egg salad sandwich or burned pasta or creole shrimp or something when we hit 1000?

I know! A pork-and-crap sandwich!

I'll do a vlog when it hits 1000, so give me some more ideas here. I don't really see why it should involve abasing myself however!

UPDATE: Whoa! We hit 1000!

108 comments:

ElcubanitoKC said...

I posted a Cuban recipe.

Ruth Anne Adams said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ruth Anne Adams said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
mcg said...

Well, my high school chef called salisbury steak "shit on shingle", so put that between a couple of pieces of bread and I suppose you've got yerself a crap sandwich.

Beth said...

ropa vieja? Thanks for that, elcubanitokc. I'll try it out soon.

Beth said...

Ruth Anne, if it comes out well, I'll post some pictures of my Cuban shrimp creole on sauteed plantain (hence the name, balseros, in honor of the rafters coming across the waters to freedom.)

bjm said...

mcg; SOS is usually creamed chipped beef on toast, the pre-MRE military breakfast of champions.

Beth: Please!

Ann Althouse said...

My parents met in the army, and we often had creamed chipped beef on toast for breakfast or dinner. I loved it! Haven't had it in a long time, but I loved it when I was a kid. We also had gravy on pancakes with sausages. It was good!

mcg said...

Well there you go then, even easier to construct a crap sandwich. Believe me though, our high school chef's description of his salisbury steak was still on the mark. Sometimes it's a blessing my memory has a finite lifetime.

Mortimer Brezny said...

I'll do a vlog when it hits 1000, so give me some more ideas here. I don't really see why it should involve abasing myself however!

What? I do. I want to see abasement.

blake said...

The People demand abasement!

(Why, I'm not sure. They just do.)

ElcubanitoKC said...

Professor Althouse, thanks for the tag!

former law student said...

elcub: how about a recipe for moros y cristianos? (If I've spelled that right.)

Also, when I've had leftover pork roast, I have made Cuban sandwiches on my George Foreman grill.

XWL said...

A vlog on who is to blame (in your opinion) for the mortgage meltdown, personally I blame foreign interlopers (though they did so inadvertantly).

Alternately, your plans on how to celebrate the rest of BLOGTOBER 2008 would be in order.

integrity said...

I will take a tiny bit of credit for reviving that puppy this morning. I'd like to help more, but I don't know if I'm up for any further back and forth with the crazy pre-op tranny I'm currently effing around with over there, he/she is too literal. And I've already blown my Palin wad. I'm going to see if my mother has any Italian recipes I can post.

XWL said...

Also, you a former art student, might have thoughts, expressable in vlog form, regarding this year's exhibition of the Turner nominees at the Tate.

(a puff piece in the Times of London, here)

(my reaction to it, here)

Roger J. said...

To all: Ropa vieja is a wonderful cuban recipe--try it--simple. Served with arroz blanco y frijoles negros.

Ernesto: give us your family recipe for vaca frita as well.

For all: Senora Albanes' recipe for black beans:

Soak beans over night, do not throw out soak water. Into the pot put a bay leaf, two crushed cloves of garlic, half a green pepper sliced into strips, and half an onion sliced thin. Cook on low heat in the soak water until the beans swell and split. Keep the water level high enough so beans don't dry out.

Prepare sofrito: take the remaining green pepper and onion, dice finely, and place in a pan of heated olive oil. When they become translucent, add a clove of finely diced garlic. Cook until it smells good but don't over cook the garlic. Add a tablespoon or so of powdered cumin. Stir that in, take some beans, crush them with liquid, add them to the frying pan and heat. Dump (a term of haute cuisine) back into the bean pot, and simmer for a while longer. When the mixture thickens, add a tablespoon of vinegar or so. Stir and serve over rice. You can put salt in, but I prefer it to do it afterward based on your tolerance to salt.

Every cuban family has its own recipe for beans, but they are essential to cuban cooking. This recipe comes from Senora Albanes, whose husband was imprisoned in Cuba after the bay of pigs fiasco, and lived next door to me when I was growing up.

Roger J. said...

And rather than reading this on a blog, if you are interested in Cuban cooking, Memories of a Cuban Kitchen is essential, and it has great photos of pre Castro Cuba. Viva Cuba Libre

Sy said...

Ann,

Sorry but I don't believe in Affirmative Action blogging. The comments are earned, not dished out of pity or a sense of entitlement.

Mixalhs said...

Ann,

When are you going to come out an officially endorse McCain?

Just do it. Stop the charade.

Everyone knows what happened to you, and it's quite sad. You thought of yourself as liberal. But the liberals turned on you unfairly. So you got mad. You started to attack the liberals.

And this attracted the conservatives. Now they love you. But you feel torn. You know the conservatives are full of poopie. Deep down, you know. But you'd never admit it now. You're in too deep.

I'm sure you'd want to vote Obama, but "Obama-types" don't like you anymore, so you have to vote McCain (or say you did) to keep your cred with your loyal conservative base.

In that way, I guess you and McCain have a lot in common.

(Rant of the Day)

LutherM said...

1 1/2 oz Bacardi light rum (4.5 cl, 3/8 gills)
Fill with ice,CocaCola
Squeeze of lime
Serve in a tall glass (10.0 oz)
CALL IT CUBA LIBRE

And remember the poet/patriot
Jose Marti, who said (apparently before Emiliano Zapata)"It is better to die on your feet than live on your knees".

Freeman Hunt said...

You're trained in art. How about a vlog where you sketch a caricature of a public figure, politician, blogger, or commenter? Sure, drawing caricatures is a specific skill, but then maybe part of the fun will be seeing a non-caricature artist attempting a caricature.

integrity said...

Mixalhs said...
Ann,

When are you going to come out an officially endorse McCain?

Just do it. Stop the charade.

Everyone knows what happened to you, and it's quite sad. You thought of yourself as liberal. But the liberals turned on you unfairly. So you got mad. You started to attack the liberals.

And this attracted the conservatives. Now they love you. But you feel torn. You know the conservatives are full of poopie. Deep down, you know. But you'd never admit it now. You're in too deep.

I'm sure you'd want to vote Obama, but "Obama-types" don't like you anymore, so you have to vote McCain (or say you did) to keep your cred with your loyal conservative base.

In that way, I guess you and McCain have a lot in common.

(Rant of the Day)



I have theories too, but I like this one. The mystery of Althouse continues....

"in too deep" LMAO. Ann Corleone.

Simon said...

Mixalhs said...
"And this attracted the conservatives. Now they love you."

You know the difference between -- not even between the liberals and the conservatives, but between the regulars and the trolls? We'll still love her even if she votes for the other guy.

ElcubanitoKC said...

Roger, I will see if my mother has one written down. I will have to call her, we live in different states.

Did you guys know that there is a huge probability that the Cuba Libre (Rum and Coke) was invented by an anonymous American soldier during the 1898-1902 occupation?

ElcubanitoKC said...

beth, you are very welcome!

blake said...

I, for one, would like to applaud Althouse on her ability to maintain the charade that she's not in the tank for McCain while simultaneously maintaining the charade that she's not in the tank for Obama.

She's quite clearly in the tank for both!

O! Cruel neutrality!

garage mahal said...

Arroz con Polla. Yuuuum.

Looking upthread I just had an urge for some Memphis style baby back ribs. For some reason.

Roger J. said...

OK garage--looks like you are going to get them--curses

garage mahal said...

Oh. Hey Roger!

Roger J. said...

Garage: smart ass :)

Roger J. said...

Garage: and because you supported Hillary I might even share my recipe for arroz con polla--but only if you dont gloat.

ElcubanitoKC said...

garage mahal said...
Arroz con Polla. Yuuuum.

[...]

5:08 PM


Thank g-d I am not from Spain, and thank g-d I know what you wanted to say because otherwise...

You should have said "pollo" which is chicken.

Polla is a bird of another feather...or not feathers at all...

Roger J. said...

ernesto--me too--its those damn masculine and feminine endings

Roger J. said...

and dont even get me started on the cuban usage of papaya

Mixalhs said...

Garage:

"Arroz con Polla. Yuuuum."

"Polla" means "penis." I think you mean "pollo."

Unless you are trying to tell us something?

garage mahal said...

Roger
You're one of the body -- when it comes to Arroz con Pollo?

And I would never gloat.

Roger J. said...

There is a lottery in Argentina that is called "la polla." When a spanish couple of my acquaintence went to Buenas Aries, they got off the plane and and saw a bill board that said, "Sace la polla y gane" The husband said "my ship has come in."

Roger J. said...

OK Garage--when I send you the ribs, will also give you my family recipe for arroz con pollo--its quick and easy. But you do need one critical ingredient: goya season con azafran. Comes in packages and you add it to the chicken as it cooks. It isnt the same without it.

ElcubanitoKC said...

Hahahah, Roger, yes, papaya is a good one. Funniest part is that people don't realize that Cuba has basically three distinctive accents that are almost dialects on their own right. Not to mention micro-regional variations. So while the Eastern ("orientales") call the fruit papaya, most of the rest of the island calls it "fruta bomba" (as Vicky explained the other day).

I remember when I was a child and a neighbor started yelling that there was "papaya en la bodega" (a rare occurrence in Cuba's permanently rationed food supply system) . He was from the Eastern provinces. My mother almost died laughing, while covering my ears.

PatCA said...

Why don't we all eat the egg salad sandwich in unison? You know, it could be a Guinness World Record or something.

Invite celebs to Eggs with Althouse! My new favorite pundit is Harriet Christensen, so email her first.

Prize for the best recipe.

Mixalhs said...

integrity:

She all but admits it in a blogging heads discussion. She says something like: I don't know why you liberals are always against me especially when I agree with you most of the time and have been actually trying to be part of your group!

bleeper said...

You are welcome.

Ann Althouse said...

Liberals demand full obeisance. It's so... un-liberal. But true. All the serious readers of this blog realize that I'm probably going to vote for Obama.

garage mahal said...

Rger
I never tried making it until I seen this dude on the food Network. I can get the Adobo and recao leaves from the local Super Tienda. Not sure how this recipe is different from yours.

Ruth Anne Adams said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ruth Anne Adams said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Michael_H said...

How about a yummy bacon cinnamon roll? Perfect for breakfast!

http://www.aldenteblog.com/2008/09/weekend-recip-2.html

Simon said...

Ann Althouse said...
"All the serious readers of this blog realize that I'm probably going to vote for Obama."

Yeah. But I wish you wouldn't.

Michael_H said...

Freeman said: You're trained in art. How about a vlog where you sketch a caricature of a public figure, politician, blogger, or commenter?

Great idea! Sketching a snappy picture of Muhammed is an interesting way to make that site meter move faster.

Ruth Anne Adams said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ann Althouse said...

I love scrapple. It wouldn't be any more troublesome for me to eat scrapple than it is for the average person to eat sausage. My fathers ancestors were all Pennsylvania Dutch.

Palladian said...

"Liberals demand full obeisance. It's so... un-liberal. But true. All the serious readers of this blog realize that I'm probably going to vote for Obama."

We'll all still hate you.

Palladian said...

I've decided to start calling myself a "progressive". I mean, the word is completely meaningless by now, isn't it? I think the most common accepted meaning of "progressive" is "someone who doesn't shave", which means I'm definitely a "progressive". It can't actually mean "someone who supports political progress" since "progressives" seem to be stuck on failed late 19th and early 20th century economic and social models, which doesn't seem very "progressive" to me.

Anyway, now that I'm a progressive, I definitely have to start hating all of you. Since I already hate half of you, it shouldn't be too difficult.

john said...

Ruth Anne - Your's is a very good argument for Ann to mull over the next month. That, and what about a divided government: is that only something a conservative would value as healthy? I would think Ann (ahem, consititutional scholar) Althouse would view that as desirable too.

Hector Owen said...

Who doesn't like scrapple? A great place for SOS is The General's Kitchen in Ocean City, MD, it's their specialty. My treat if if we are in town at the same time. Suggestion for a vlog: the obeisance. What would a "full" obeisance require? Would a simple bow be enough, or would you need to bump your forehead on the floor, or do the both hands in a circle salute?

Ruth Anne Adams said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Simon said...

john said...
"I would think Ann (ahem, consititutional scholar) Althouse would view that as desirable too."

While I agree that a Democratic congress is a very strong freestanding argument for a GOP President, I don't see why it would follow that a constitutional scholar must reach that conclusion as your comment seems to imply.

garage mahal said...

Palldian
You're political persuasion can be precisely summed up as just hating liberals. I don't think you care one whit what they stand for or what policies they want to enact.

john said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
bleeper said...

Grudge Mahal - run that one through spell check, okay? Okay...

john said...

I didn't say that right. I'll try again: Whether the framers thought that 3 coequal branches of government provided the checks and balances needed, or whether they also forsaw the danger in one political party holding both executive and legislative branches, I don't know. But we have seen the problem over and over when one party holds both these branches. By we, I mean conservativess. There, don't mock me Ann.

dr kill said...

I once helped my Phillipino blacksmith roomies make dog scrapple. The chicken-flavored peanuts were better. Does anyone want these recipes?

Step One- Scald and scrape the fur from one good-sized wild dog.

Yes, this regular reader believes AA will vote Democrat in 2008. But this will still be the greatest country on the planet.
It might even be worth an Obama presidency to have The Left STFU. Whatever they do won't bother us 50 yr olds too much, anyway.
Hahahaha, but I do hope to live long enough to see Obama become the Carter of the 2040's.
I have also noted that Progressives and Liberals are anything but progressive and liberal. Not a new idea, but still true.

dr kill said...

I forgot to mention that Step One is easier if the wild dog is dead. My bad.

integrity said...

Ann Althouse said...
Liberals demand full obeisance. It's so... un-liberal. But true. All the serious readers of this blog realize that I'm probably going to vote for Obama.




I can't believe you just ruined it. I'm gonna pretend I didn't hear that.

We aren't at Kos and the rest because the game of cruel neutrality is stimulating, while having your point of view mirrored is rarely stimulating to a true liberal. Challenging is good.

Peter V. Bella said...

Palladian.
You must also adopt the progressive hypocrisy; hate is not a family value- unless you only hate all those who do not agree with them.

BTW, last week I saw a faded bumper sticker- "Who would Jesus bomb?" I started making a list.

Trooper York said...

Lee Lee's Valise on TLC What Not to Wear at 9pm eastern time this very minute.

I will not simublog though.

Watch the rerun tomorrow afternoon. Cheyenne the CPA from Chicago.

Trooper York said...

By the way the chick wouldn't buy a dress for love or money. She was a tough fit.

MadisonMan said...

I don't like Scrapple. And I'm from PA. Heck, the closest restaurant to my parents' house when I was growing up was called the Dutch Pantry!

L. E. Lee said...

It has been bugging me over the past several days that Sarah Palin reminds me of someone but I just could not make the connection. Who is it?!? Then it dawned on me while watching the VP debate who it was. It was George W. Bush, circa 2000. She answers serious questions with simple homilies and bluster. She thinks being a leader means being totally unbending and being certain in a narrow ideology. She constantly offers up that not being a Washington elite is somehow qualifying. She really is this year's George Bush.

P.S. - Of course Ann is for Obama. Duh!

dr kill said...

What Not To Wear? As in, don't wear a Redskins sweater in the 700 level at The Vet?

L. E. Lee said...

It is interesting to see that now after eight years of domestic and foreign policy failures George Bush is now very much a different man than what he presented in 2000. "Older but wiser" I guess....

PogoПОССУМ said...

Announcement
I have now declare the Победы! Victory!

Da, I have won! Again!
Number the 1000!
On the other postings!

It is mine out of reason that I have challenge the entry of many the post until mine, and have declare they are No Good!
They are the false!
So now my post is the is 1000!

Thank you, my Товарищам Comrades!
I blush with the humbles.

Pogo said...

Trooper!
I saw the show. Cool and congrats again.

My wife was quite suspicious that I knew the name of the store, though.
How to explain?

And since you weren't standing in the background, little could I claim "that's him!".

ElcubanitoKC said...

former law student said...
elcub: how about a recipe for moros y cristianos? (If I've spelled that right.)

Also, when I've had leftover pork roast, I have made Cuban sandwiches on my George Foreman grill.

4:22 PM


Sorry, I just saw this! I will give you my personal recipe soon!

Beth said...

Scrapple? I could google it, I know, but do I want to?

The Cuban-style shrimp creole came out well. I didn't think so at first; the plantains weren't as ripe as they should be. So I didn't take any pictures. Then I made more plantains, and they were so good, I forgot and cleaned my plate. Oh, well. It was red. With shrimp in it.

Thanks for the cookbook title, Roger.

ElcubanitoKC said...

Beth, anything with plantains is good. Period. :)

William said...

I gave up trying to speak Spanish, mostly because every Spanish person's English is better than my Spanish but also because no other language on earth has as many double entendres. Papaya, mariposa, the list is endless. And one wrong syllable you're into forbidden territory. Borracho--the word for drunk--is some kind of unspeakable obscenity the way I say it. I just give up.

Lem said...

...also because no other language on earth has as many double entendres.

Borges, Lorca, Isabel Allende and even the plagiarist Neruda is good Spanish.

American Spanish is anything but Spanish.

Lem said...

I challenge anybody to say watching the Red Sox and the Angels tonight to say Baseball is boring.

Lem said...

El espanol de Cervantes adonde estara?

Mixalhs said...

Ann,

I'm insulted that you don't consider me a "serious reader." Just because I'm sassy with you? Don't demand the very full obeisance you denounce!

I actually like you (or am starting to). Or else I wouldn't read this.

If you read my analysis, it actually suggests that if I am right, you will vote for Obama. That is, that conclusion follows from my hypothesis that you are really a liberal trying not to piss off your majority-conservative readers.

That's a good poll!!! How many readers consider themselves conservative and how many liberal?

Lem said...

That is, that conclusion follows from my hypothesis that you are really a liberal trying not to piss off your majority-conservative readers.

The mind of Althouse is too precious to be confined to a few liberal/conservative acres.

Lem said...

The Red Sox magic continues.... ;)

Lem said...

Let's say McCains underdog status is the MLB equivalent of the wild card.

If only McCain could hit like Ortis..

vbspurs said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
vbspurs said...

OT:

James Oreo Simpson has been convicted of attempted douchebaggery 13 years TO THE DAY of his acquittal verdict of having offed his wife and her main gay squeeze.

More after the jump

Cheers,
Victoria

Electric Citizen said...

In light of today's adoring front page article on the distinguished and handsome Prof. Ayers and his lovely wife Bernadette, I'd like to see you vlog on Prof. Ayers, specifically what you think Sen. Obama's relationship with him tells you about his character and knowledge of American history.

If you grew up in the 1960s or even 1970s, you knew the names Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin, and Bernadette Dorhn the same way you knew the names Ellsworth Bunker, McNamara, and Rusk. They were on TV, on magazine covers, in the news.

Ayers was clever enough to keep a low profile. That wouldn't be surprising considering he was involved in making bombs, unlike, say, the mentally-ill fool Abbie Hoffman.

Dohrn is another matter. The Manson quote. It was kind of a famous, I should say infamous quote back in those days. It was one of the most shocking things anyone in the 1960s said. It's a no-brainer...you stay away from people like her.

Here is what she told photographer Richard Avedon on November 10, 1969:

"There is going to come a time when people will have to say, "In 1970, there is no way in which people who really want to be people can put on a uniform in America." And that's legitimate. Killing a cop just because he's a cop, that'll happen. And that should happen. And there's nothing inhuman about it at all. It's survival....What matters is what the people who are fighting are feeling and thinking about. And their humanity. Trying to grapple with the way in which the necessities of revolution--you know, organization discipline and an army and guns and fighting and killing--don't brutalize people but release people to a higher stage." ('The Sixties,' Avedon, p. 73)

That's a sick thought—Killing a policeman "releases people to a higher stage."

But thoughts can become deeds. Cnsider Wikipedia's report on a Weather Underground bombing less than three months later:

"In a bombing that took place on February 16, 1970, and that was credited to the Weathermen at the time,[26][27] a pipe bomb filled with heavy metal staples and lead bullet projectiles was set off on the ledge of a window at the Park Station of the San Francisco Police Department. In the blast, Brian V. McDonnell, a police sergeant, was fatally wounded while Robert Fogarty, another police officer, received severe wounds to his face and legs and was partially blinded.[28]
Weatherman leader Bernardine Dohrn has been suspected of involvement in the February 16, 1970, bombing of the Park Police Station in San Francisco. At the time, Dohrn was said to be living with a Weatherman cell in a houseboat in Sausalito, California, unnamed law enforcement sources later told KRON-TV.[29] An investigation into the case was reopened in 1999,[30] and a San Francisco grand jury looked into the incident, but no indictments followed,[29] and no one was ever arrested for the bombing.[30] An FBI informant, Larry Grathwohl, who successfully penetrated the organization from the late summer of 1969 until April 1970, later testified to a U.S. Senate subcommittee that Bill Ayers, then a high-ranking member of the organization and a member of its Central Committee (but not then Dohrn's husband), had said Dohrn constructed and planted the bomb. Grathwohl testified that Ayers had told him specifically where the bomb was placed (on a window ledge) and what kind of shrapnel was put in it. Grathwohl said Ayers was emphatic, leading Grathwohl to believe Ayers either was present at some point during the operation or had heard about it from someone who was there.[31] In a book about his experiences published in 1976, Grathwohl wrote that Ayers, who had recently attended a meeting of the group's Central Committee, said Dohrn had planned the operation, made the bomb and placed it herself.[32] In 2008, author David Freddoso commented that "Ayers and Dohrn escaped prosecution only because of government misconduct in collecting evidence against them".[31][33]

I would not suggest that Sen. Obama would have or should have known such details of Ayers' and Dohrn's lives or that he is a secret Marxist revolutionary as they both so openly are, but he should have known they are and were nasty evil people, and it tells me much about his character and knowledge of American history that he would associate with such malignant creatures.

If you are under the age of 30 and reading this, we used to have a saying in the 1960s—"Don't trust anyone over 30."

My new slogan...based on the gooey adoration today's kids have for Obama? "Don't trust anyone under 30."

former law student said...

Cnsider Wikipedia's report on a Weather Underground bombing less than three months later:

Yes, indeed. Go back to wikipedia, and click on the link to the KRON-TV story from 2003, about the reopened investigation of the 1970 SF bombing. Note that there were three candidate organizations, including the Black Liberation Army, who had made a practice of blowing up SF Police Stations:

Last fall, according to law enforcement sources, San Francisco police turned over its evidence to the US attorney, who took over the investigation. The government quietly convened a federal grand jury which subpoenaed former members of not only the Weather Underground but the Black Panthers and the more militant Black Liberation Army, which investigators believe was responsible for the Ingleside shooting.

The KRON-TV article does not allege even that Ayers was in California at the time. Further, to credit the Grathwohl testimony to Congress, you have to believe that an FBI informant would suppress information material to a murder investigation. Did Grathwohl testify in front of the 2000-2003 grand jury? Apparently there was no fire behind the smoke, because it's five years later, and still no indictment of Dohrn or Ayers. (There is no statute of limitations for murder.)

L. E. Lee said...

I find it hilarious that Sarah Palin does not think it is far to look back to the Bush presidency (he is still prez by the way) but the McCain campaign wants to make what happen in the 1960s (Obama was not even ten years old by the way) a campaign issue. Ain't gonna work this time guys!

L. E. Lee said...

far = fair

L. E. Lee said...

Just to clarify, I do hope that the right wingers who dominate the republican message do continue to focus on the 1960s Weather Underground. Focusing on that instead of the economy will be sure to turn off all but the most rabid conservative voter and it will provide great entertainment to progressives!

blake said...

Apparently there was no fire behind the smoke, because it's five years later, and still no indictment of Dohrn or Ayers. (There is no statute of limitations for murder.)

"Guilty as sin, free as a bird."

Methadras said...

Ann Althouse said...

Liberals demand full obeisance.


That's quite fascist and typical of the liberal mindset. Ardent stringency to liberal theology and dogma.

It's so... un-liberal.

Liberalism is fascism. To un-liberalize it would mean that you trying to join their group would have been easy, but in your own words it isn't that easy because your agreement with a lot of their liberalism doesn't jive with their adherence to it's totality. Un-liberal from your point of view, but in reality quite fascistic from theirs.

But true. All the serious readers of this blog realize that I'm probably going to vote for Obama.

Well, at least you are finally coming to the realization, which I and a lot of others have already surmised long ago that this is what you 'probably' would have done and will do. However, I still ask you, even in the face of what a fraud Mr. Barely really is, why will you 'probably' cast your vote for someone like that? Is it for the hope and the change or because he's young and you figure he'll grow into the position in the vein of Bill Clinton?

vbspurs said...

New target = 1050! Come on now, help a brotha out!

Mixalhs said...

Methadras,

Be careful how you use the word "fascist." One, it dilutes your message when you use unwarranted hyberbole. Two, it's embarrassing when you don't know that fascism lies on the extreme right (with communism on the extreme left).

As for "Mr. Barely" (which is not even a clever nickname), I imagine part of why most people are voting for him is because they understand that the President is not really just one person but rather an administration of people working in the executive capacity.

In that vein, many of us think the Republicans have had their shot, done a substandard job, and even if Dems won't be much better, they can't do much worse and should be given their due shot.

That's my opinion...as an independent.

Mixalhs said...

I will point out, Ann, that you might want to readjust your theory on the "serious readers." Don't conflate readers with commenters.

Also in your "cruel neutrality" poll, 47% thought you'd vote McCain and only 36% though you'd vote Obama. Something you want might consider.

blake said...

Also in your "cruel neutrality" poll, 47% thought you'd vote McCain and only 36% though you'd vote Obama. Something you want might consider.

Why should she care? Althouse's readership is largely right-leaning and don't stop reading because she's left-leaning.

blake said...

Two, it's embarrassing when you don't know that fascism lies on the extreme right (with communism on the extreme left).

That's a leftist construct. The Nazis--the ultimate fascists--styled themselves socialists. But in fact, the actions of fascists are not much different from self-styled socialists and communists. Fascism is:

A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

And that's also communism, and its nicer cousin, socialism.

There's no way you get to communism, socialism or fascism by advocating for smaller, more limited government. Period.

The danger there would be anarchy, or (as in the early days of the US), complete ineffectiveness. These days, that's not a danger anyone can take seriously. The US is the furthest along that axis, and it's still pretty damn socialist.

former law student said...

There's no way you get to communism, socialism or fascism by advocating for smaller, more limited government. Period.

Advocating is easy; executing is hard.

Good 2005 article from Reason online, showing the increase in government spending during the Bush administration, unrelated to the War on Terror.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/34112.html

I include a few highlights:

Bush the Budget Buster
When it comes to spending, George W. Bush is no Reagan. Hell, he's not even

Veronique de Rugy and Nick Gillespie | October 19, 2005

The Bush administration recently released its mid-session review of the federal budget for fiscal 2006. The new data reveal that in spite of repeated promises of fiscal responsibility by the Bush administration and congressional Republicans, things are bad and getting worse. After five years of Republican reign, it's time for small-government conservatives to acknowledge that the GOP has forfeited its credibility when it comes to spending restraint.

... During his five years at the helm of the nation's budget, the president has expanded a wide array of "compassionate" welfare-state, defense, and nondefense programs. When it comes to spending, Bush is no Reagan. Alas, he is also no Clinton and not even Nixon. The recent president he most resembles is in fact fellow Texan and legendary spendthrift Lyndon Baines Johnson—except that Bush is in many ways even more profligate with the public till.

The federal pie has two parts, each accounting for about 50 percent of outlays. "Mandatory spending" includes entitlement programs such as Medicare and student loans that are provided by law rather than by annual appropriations. Then there is discretionary spending, comprising most defense spending, homeland security, and programs such as farm subsidies and education. Discretionary spending is what the president and Congress decide to spend each year through appropriations bills. Because discretionary spending can theoretically be zeroed out each year, it is generally regarded as the clearest indicator of whether a president and Congress are serious about reducing government spending. Some major entitlement programs—most notably Social Security—are "off-budget," meaning they are not accounted for in either the mandatory or discretionary figures.
...[It's] clear that Bush has been a big spender across the board.

Total real discretionary outlays will increase about 35.8 percent under Bush (FY2001-06) while they increased by 25.2 percent under LBJ (FY1964-69) and 11.9 percent under Reagan (FY1981-86). By contrast, they decreased by 16.5 under Nixon (FY1969-74) and by 8.2 percent under Clinton (FY1993-98). Comparing Bush to his predecessors is instructive. Bush and Reagan both substantially increased defense spending (by 44.5 and 34.8 percent respectively). However, Reagan cut real nondefense discretionary outlays by 11.1 percent while Bush increased them by 27.9 percent. Clinton and Nixon both raised nondefense spending (by 1.9 percent and 23.1 respectively), but they both cut defense spending substantially (by 16.8 and 32.2 percent).

Bush and LBJ alone massively increased defense and nondefense spending. ... Like a lax parent who can't or won't discipline his self-centered toddler, [Bush] has exercised virtually no control whatsoever over Congress.

... when homeland security spending is separated out, the increase in discretionary spending is still huge: 36 percent on Bush's watch.

... A substantial portion of Bush's increase in discretionary spending stems from new domestic spending initiatives. For a ready example, look no further than the Department of Education, one of three departments targeted for elimination by Republicans in 1994, when Tom DeLay and his budget-cutting friends first took control of Congress. In the last five years, Education's budget has grown by a stunning 79.9 percent. ..

blake said...

fls --

Just so. The statists dominate eduction, politics and the media. The Reps are half avowed statists, and 1/4 de facto statists. The Dems are all avowed statists.

Mixalhs said...

Blake, blake. see you not the irony? Let me help you.

A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator,

Sounds to me a bit like an overstretching executive? One who acts unilaterally without support from the people or its nation's allies.


stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship,

You can't vote for Kerry, we have a war on our hands! Look, I just turned the dial to orange!!! If we don't act now our freedom will be taken away from us by Saddam and his WMDs! Or as O'Reilly put it, once this country goes to war, everyone needs to support it or shut up! Oh, wait, but he's a liberal....bad example I guess.

and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

Nationalism=Patriotism=Liberal???

Also, liberals are the racists? Right...

blake said...

Sounds to me a bit like an overstretching executive? One who acts unilaterally without support from the people or its nation's allies.

You know, the irony here is that you lefitsts come here pretending to not to be, and then repeat left-wing talking points.

Overstretching executive? Almost every President expands (or tries to) the powers of the executive. So much of what Bush is trashed for went completely unnoticed under Clinton. There are murky areas about what the executive can and cannot do, but Bush has been roundly attacked for doing things that are perfectly within the sphere of the office (like dismissing US Attorneys).

As for him acting "unilaterally", this has come to mean, apparently, "We voted for it then but now we don't, so we pretend he acted unilaterally." Particularly about the Iraq war.

As for allies, once again, we see that Clinton, who really did do in Bosnia what Bush is accused of in Iraq, goes virtually uncommented.

Of course, our "allies" apparently only include Germany and France, and somehow Russia, all of whom profited mightily from Saddam and the UN's "oil for food" program.

Meanwhile, Poland, South Korea, Albania, etc. etc. etc., don't count.

And all while ignoring the fact that both Germany and France ended up electing pro-US leaders.

The elements of Bush's term that are the most fascist are the ones that left would not be bashing--would be cheering--if they had done them (evidenced by the fact that they championed the same proposals in the past).

Also, liberals are the racists? Right...

First of all, they're not liberals, they're statists.

Second of all, yeah, there are plenty of racists on the left. You know them by their use of the term "race traitor" or some variation, by photoshopping blackface onto Republican candidates, and so on.

Plenty of sexists, too, as the candidacy of Sarah Palin has revealed.

Mixalhs said...

Blake,

(1)

I am excusing the dems in Congress for voting for the war, but to be fair, they did so on completely falsified information. It's true, though, that anyone watching Powell's presentation to the UN could see it was a load of bologna (I called it then, as did anyone with a brain).

But this is all part of the culture of fear. Bush made Americans afraid. He used 9/11 to scare the people into submission, this of course forced the dems behind the war because of the political pressure from their petrified constituents.

(2) You are ignoring that NATO was involved in "Bosnia." Convenient.

(3) Prove the sexism against Palin. All I've heard have been complaints that any attack on Palin is sexist because she's a woman. The meme on this has been illogical and hard to swallow. Give me a real example, not just an naked conclusion. In other words, try to do here what Palin can't in interviews. Oops, that's probably "sexist" by your definition.

Mixalhs said...

Blake:

Also, you didn't address the other points, which I take as a concession.

blake said...

Mix--

I reject your entire partisan premise: that there's anything extraordinarily fascist about the Bush administration. All you've done is make assertions. The burden of proof is on you.

Now, I will agree wholeheartedly that the administration's opponents have accused him of being fascist and doing fascist things--said accusaations you've repeated here. But this does not constitute proof.

If you really want to engage this topic seriously--and it can be, from a historical basis--then I would suggest trying to prove a single point. And not just dressing up "Bush lied, people died."

Mixalhs said...

Blake,

How quickly we forget the facts. This whole conversation started with Methadras's baseless assertion that "[l]iberalism is fascism." You seem to adopt that as your own (indeed, you defend it).

I was simply pointing out elements of fascist-leaning tendencies we have seen in the Bush Administration (and I would never go so far as to call Bush a fascist -- that would be as facile as Mathadras's original point).

I was only applying your definition of fascism. A definition that you seem to believe -- even without facts, evidence, or even argument for that matter -- described liberals.

Finally, you can ignore what Bush has done, but you are in a tiny minority, not only in this country, but in the entire world. Some examples: war on a country that never attacked us or threatened to; promulgation of false intelligence to inspire fear (and if you haven't gotten the message of fear, I don't where you have been these last years); typical conservative suppression of anti-war sentiment by calling it "unpatriotic"; increased executive power through Patriot Act inter alia; imprisoned suspected enemies without evidence or due process in on American territory in violation of the Constitution; fired US Attorneys who refused to insulate his cronies from criminal charges, etc. (and of course the firing is within his power, but it's his reasons for doing so -- suppression of truth, protection of criminal supporters, and desire for biased prosecution -- that merits scrutiny).

blake said...

Finally, you can ignore what Bush has done, but you are in a tiny minority, not only in this country, but in the entire world.

Wouldn't be the first time.

(Argumentum ad populum)

I was only applying your definition of fascism. A definition that you seem to believe -- even without facts, evidence, or even argument for that matter -- described liberals.

No, I said statists or, if you like, collectivists. That you conflate "liberal" with this other philosophy indicates complicity.

(Fallacy: Equivocation.)

I don't need to "prove" this because it's a consequence of the definitions. Those who argue for greater government control are pushing down the axis to totalitarianism--which is really all these other dressed-up ideas like "fascism" and "communism" are.

Does the Patriot Act push us along toward totalitarianism? Sure. But no more than the War on Drugs, the Great Society, The New Deal, etc. And the Patriot Act won't be repealed by the next Dem President any more than those other policies were.

Those suggesting that the Bush administration is extraordinarily need to back this up with comparisons to previous administrations. Something you've failed to do.

The difference is only that when a Dem does it, their ideological compatriots shield them from attack.