Ken Layne put this up the other day:

Well, I'd rather be called a "JFK liberal" than a filthy lefty, but Brian Linse has me listed on his Lefty Directory.
I only read about 15 of these 80+ sites. Of those, I hadn't really considered any of them to be "lefty." Kaus? Jarvis? Freakin' Free-Trade-Or-Die Denton?

Have glanced at some of the other sites, but lefties generally can't write. They sound like earnest preachers. They're rarely funny. Everything's always horrible, the world is so mucked up, we have failed as a species, blah blah blah. As somebody said -- P.J. O'Rourke? -- you'll never hear a good bar described as "leftist."

I put this in the comments:

1. I'd rather be called a cruelly handsome millionaire playboy, but when someone links to me and calls me a lefty I'm not going to rub his nose in it.

2. "We found the greatest bar the other day. It was a blast. The place was totally conservative, man."

3. Any statement that tries to describe half the voters in the US is going to be unfair, self-refuting, or trite. Blithely dismissing half the country as "not funny" folks who "can't write" is a task for lesser minds. I'd gladly put up Andrew "Poor Man" Northrup in any political funny-off. Check out WarLiberal, Meryl Yourish, Electrolite, Oliver Willis, Grim Amusements, Matthew Yglesias. The list goes on.

Or don't, if you've already made up your mind. Jesus, Ken.

And I mean it. If you find yourself starting a sentence about the personal attributes of a political persuasion- if you start to write "Conservatives are..." or "Liberals never..."- erase that sentence and start again. It's bad-faith blogging. Whatever you were about to write will make you sound like a hack. It will be incredibly easy to refute, as funnyman Andrew Northrup demonstrates.

UPDATE: Since liberals are all motivated by guilt (oops, there I go), it took me just a few minutes to feel bad about the really funny left wing blogs I didn't mention, especially my beloved Houston Axis of Left Wing Bloggers. But there are a ton of them, so don't be sore, OK? Please?

UPDATE II: Brian Linse's list of "lefty bloggers" is pretty long, if not comprehensive. If Ken Layne doesn't read anything on this list left of Kaus, either (a) he reads some wicked obscure left-wing blogs, or (b) he lives in a rather tight ideological bubble, at least where blogs are concerned. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but isn't he supposed to be a fun-loving centrist?

So here’s what I thought about Rob’s email about Social Security.

Rob and I agree about the foolishness of Social Security privatization, and we both agree that Social Security is far too popular to go anywhere. As much as I might enjoy a partisan giggle at the thought, Republicans are not going to try to “abolish” Social Security. I’d have to say that abolishing Social Security outright would be catastrophic to the people who paid into it their whole lives, and reasonably expected it to be there when they retired. My grandmother, for example.

Rob correctly guesses that I think we should provide for senior citizens who can’t provide for themselves. Unlike Rob, I don’t have a problem with taxes redistributing income to the poorest members of society, and I don’t think that private charity could ever take the place of public support. I wrote about that here.

The problem is, Rob picked the wrong liberal to provide a spirited defense of Social Security as we know it.

It’s a great thing about this country that our elderly poor don’t just get shoved off in an ice floe or something. But it’s ridiculous that 9 out of 10 people of 65 get Social Security benefits, regardless of need.

Rob thinks that most people should be able to finance their own retirement, and I think that’s just true. It appears that a lot of people agree with me; Americans over 65 are wealthier than any other age group. And yet, the average elderly person receives more assistance from the government than the average poor child. (I’ve heard that several times, but I can’t find the source for it, so disbelieve it if you like.)

There’s an interesting editorial in the Washington Post suggesting that we increase the age at which Social Security benefits begin paying out. Sounds good to me.

I could imagine going further. I could see Social Security working more like (gasp) welfare. Means-testing could ensure that most elderly people aren’t receiving public funds. The cost of providing Social Security benefits plummets, and we still leave no elderly person behind. Yeah, it sucks that most people would pay SS taxes and don’t receive the benefits, but that’s the way our system works. (Side benefit- we’d all get to read amusing posts by Mickey Kaus with titles like “Does Social Security cause slow driving?”)

Unfortunately, the devil is in the details. Obviously, means testing introduces a strong, perverse incentive not to save up for retirement. This is a common criticism of all social welfare policies, but it’s a real problem here. Right now, at least SS doesn’t care if you saved. Under means testing, it actively rewards not saving. I can’t think of a way past this. Also, unlike welfare, we couldn’t chase the recipients back into work.

Anyway, it should be obvious that I don’t really know what I’m talking about, so I’m more than amenable to suggestions about this. Rob and Alkali has been strong advocates in my comments, and they’re making some good points. Go for it, guys.

I don't want to be a professional writer. I couldn't do it even if I did want to. But I do think that I might give up a joint of my pinky if I could toss off gorgeous prose like this for fun. Here's Lileks at the end of the day after his daughter's birthday party.

It’s been two years and I’ve been there for every day. Seven hundred and thirty good-mornings and good nights, from the cross-eyed who-you stare you get at the start to the clever smile, the hug, the goonight daddy bye bye I get now. When you’re a young adult, you wish yourself a long long life so you can do the things you simply must do. When you’re a parent, you realize that little matters as much as the simple, daily act of caring for your child. Give me the time, so that I may give it to her. Happy birthday, sweetheart.

Did you see this?

Harken Energy Corp. set up an offshore subsidiary in the Cayman Islands tax haven while President Bush sat on Harken's board of directors in 1989, the Daily News has learned.

The revelation comes as Republican lawmakers are roundly criticizing the practice of U.S. companies setting up offshore subsidiaries, usually to skirt American disclosure laws or corporate income taxes on foreign income.

Even White House spokesman Ari Fleischer condemned the tactic yesterday, saying, "The President is concerned about corporations in America who take advantage, set up operations outside of America, in an effort to lower their taxes."...

GOP members of Congress also hammered the tactic of creating subsidiaries in tax havens.

"It's not illegal, but it is immoral," Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, said yesterday. "I think it's also a case of patriotism."

Asked what he thought of Bush's involvement in an offshore subsidiary, Grassley said, "I'm not aware of it so I can't comment on it."

Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill blasted the practice this year.

"When we have a tax code that allows companies to cut their taxes on their U.S. business by nominally moving their headquarters offshore, then we need to do something to fix the tax code," O'Neill said in May.

Pretty sleazy. What's the White House's defense?

White House communications director Dan Bartlett said, "As a general practice at that time ... international contracts like this one were done through a subsidiary to contain liability. ... In order to save money [on taxes], you would have to make money, and they didn't make any. They found no oil."

Oh, come on. Says TNR:

Call it the incompetence defense. Harken tried to weasel out of paying its taxes, but it didn't succeed, because it failed to earn a profit. Yes, your honor, we broke into the bank vault, but since we forgot to take the cash with us, we didn't actually steal any money.

Here's a great blog that deserves your attention: Body and Soul. "Jeanne D'Arc" is the rare liberal blogger who's looking at religious themes.

To whet your appetite, here are a couple of posts:

There is no way the United States can be taken seriously as a defender of democracy when we will not even stand up and say a loud and clear NO to a tyrannical "ally" who imprisons an ailing, 63-year-old AMERICAN CITIZEN for the crime of promoting democracy and human rights.

************

A Republican friend of mine (yes, I do have some), recently used the term ("politically correct") in a way that disturbed me. My daughter had just gotten a new Barbie (I'm a feminist and my daughter has a box full of Barbies -- how politically incorrect!) and was showing it off to everyone. She proudly displayed it to our Republican friend, who took one look at the doll's sleek black hair and Asian features and snapped, "What's that, the politically correct Barbie?" To be honest, the comment didn't even make sense to me until after he left and it had time to sink in that "politically correct" had evolved into nothing more than a synonym for "minority." It just makes anything that is related to minorities sound rigid and authoritarian.

To be "politically incorrect" these days is to be exactly what, in the seventies, we called "politically correct" -- using meaningless stock phrases as a substitute for thought. At the time we thought of it as a relic of the Communist, "old left." But nowadays the right owns political correctness -- the thought process as well as the term.

************

Recently, on a local talk radio show, I heard a right winger call in and tell the progressive guest that the trouble with "you liberals" is that "you've forgotten all about God." He was talking to a nun. No one seemed to think this was strange, not even the nun. That's how commonplace the idea that "liberals hate God" has become -- rightwingers can call a nun an atheist and no one will object.

Good stuff. Bring it on!

Jeff Cooper has an interesting post about the opportunity before the Democrats, and how they're managing to blow it.

I'm reminded of the Will Roger's quote: "I belong to no organized political party. I'm a Democrat."

Iain at Grim Amusements has a smashing post on Bush's resistance to welfare provisions that allow up to 10% of welfare recipients to make up their work requirement by going to college.

He does not consider education to be "helping people become independent and it's certainly not my view of understanding the importance of work and helping people achieve the dignity necessary so they can live a free life, free from government control." He begrudges education to people trying to get themselves off welfare. This from a man who wanted to call himself the education president.

What sort of job does he envision welfare recipients having? Low end service jobs for unskilled labor are all very well and good, but they don't lead anywhere. In an economy that's staggering around the way this one is, that will likely lead to frequent bouts of unemployment. It's a job, sure, but it's no way to build a good life. Don't we want people to be able to get off welfare, stay off welfare, and make a better life for themselves and their children?

The best predictor of income is education. People with some college make more than high school graduates, and people with college degrees make a lot more than people who don't. People who make more money pay more taxes, are more valuable to their employers, and are better able to hold onto their jobs. Win-win.

Is it horrible to think that it took the murder of Americans to finally make the administration stop equivocating about Israel? Or won't even that be enough?

Tired of blogs, but still don't know what to do with yourself at work? You could do a lot worse than spending a few hours crusing through the archives at the Straight Dope. Yesterday, I found out that...

- Guinness has a distinctly foamy head because it has two kinds of bubbles, carbon dioxide and nitrogen
- Male fleas drill a hole in the back of female fleas before having sex
- The story that the "Wizard of Oz" is a parable about the free coinage of silver is bullshit
- Stalin went to seminary school
- Howard Hughes' "Spruce Goose" actually flew once
- Nickel-cadminium batteries don't actually develop a "memory"
- You can hypnotize a chicken

Seriously, he's a lot better than whatever I'm going to post today. Have fun.

UPDATE: He's not better than Joe Conason, who wonders why Bush so resents a provision in the welfare reauthorization bill that would allow up to 10% of welfare recipients to meet the work requirement by attending college.

"That provision wasn't written by some wild-eyed radical; its author is Olympia Snowe, the moderate Republican from Maine. The daughter of Greek immigrants, orphaned before she turned 10, Snowe went to a Greek Orthodox day school in Augusta, graduated from public high school and earned a political science degree at the University of Maine... When she imagines a young woman struggling to escape poverty, she may feel a touch of genuine compassion, as opposed to the ersatz White House variety."

Brian Linse has started a new mini-blog, a directory of left-wing bloggers. Share and Enjoy.®

You know, at some point in the future, there will be something that a reasonable person could define as left-wing violence. I have no doubt of that. And if Blogistan still exists in any significant way, there will be a mini-chorus of people saying "Advantage: Kaufiles! He predicted this!"

But it will be nonsense. Kausfiles didn't correctly predict left-wing violence anymore than I correctly predicted Vietnamese-American violence.

Did you see this? To save money, the Bush administration has decided to try to make sure that veterans don't hear about the VA health care benefits to which they are entitled.

In the memo, Miller orders local administrators to "ensure that no marketing activities to enroll new veterans occur within your networks." Efforts to get out the word about VA health services, the memo goes on to say, "with such activities as health fairs, veteran open houses to invite new veterans to the facilities, or enrollment displays at VSO meetings, are inappropriate."

At least they're pro-military.

I can't stand it...

Speaking of people who need blogs, Mark Poyser sent this, which made me smile:

***********

Here's a sneak peek at Ann Coulter's next book, More Slander: And yes, it's backed up with extensive footnotes.

It's amazing what the Leninist-loving,¹ always lying,² Liberal press won't tell you. Even though it's well known that all Liberals eat dog excrement,³ you won't see it reported on the network news. Not only that, but Liberals have a secret plan⁴ to publicly burn Bibles before every NASCAR race in what they like to call the "shithole South".⁵ That's because Liberals want to completely eradicate anything that white folks enjoy.⁶ Did you know that Liberals want to replace Christianity with human sacrifice?⁷ That Liberals want to replace English with Esperanto?⁸ That Liberals want to rename the United States?⁹ They want to call it the United Socialist States of Rhubarb?¹⁰ It's all true, but the Liberal press will never let these facts to be known because that would interfere with their plans to invade every Republican-voting home, take over their den and entertainment center,¹¹ and drink all their beer.¹² This diabolical plan has been ...

¹ The Annotated Sherlock Holmes 471.
² Origin of Eukaryotic Cells 934 - 938.
³ A Study of Spinoza's Ethics 28.
⁴ Better Homes and Gardens (May 12, 1983) 15.
⁵ Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire 372.
⁶ ibid.
⁷ Annalen der Physik 17, 549.
⁸ Oliver Cromwell, An Illustrated History 330ff.
⁹ Leonard Maltin's Movie and Video Guide (1999) 471.
¹⁰ The Very Hungry Caterpillar 7 - 11.
¹¹ Michelin Guide to Fine Dining (New England 2001) 285.
¹² The Ben Hogan Story 285.

Another frequent contributor, Rob Lyman, sent me this about Social Security. Rob needs his own blog, so encourage him. I'm writing my reply slowly (gotta eat), but I shouldn't delay posting this.

I've been saying for a long time we shouldn't privatize Social Security. Privatization has all the problems you and Krugman and others describe.

We should eliminate it instead.

Look, does the government confiscate part of your income and pay you a "food allowance?" Does it decide for you that a certain amount of your income MUST be allotted to clothes? Does it provide housing to every American, paying for it with housing taxes? No, No, and No. So why should the government forcibly confiscate part of your income and return it to you later as a retirement allowance? What are we, children?

If you want a fancy house, you may have to scrimp on the dinners out. If you want lots of fashionable clothes, you may not be able to afford a new car. If you are like me, you live in a modest house, grow vegetables and fruit, and spend the savings on guns. Others may prefer to collect stamps or donate to the Communist Party. If you want to quit working when you are 65 and become a useless mouth, you have an obligation to save for yourself so you aren't a burden on society.

I can see no reason why the principle of freedom + responsibility should not apply to retirement. My wife and I save nearly 20% of our exceedingly modest incomes because we a) want to have a nest egg BEFORE we have kids, and b) want to be rich when we're old. We do this by growing food, eating out only once or twice a month, not buying beer, and manufacturing our own ammo. When we have luck, we shoot some of our food with it. We have made a series of choices which impose costs and provide benefits, and we may change these choices as our life situation changes. We don't need or want the government to "take care" of us by confiscating a big chunk of our income and flushing it down the toilet, which is roughly what Social Security does.

Now, as a liberal, I suppose you are asking "what about seniors in poverty?" It's a fair question, although I do have to wonder, what with FDIC and all, how someone could work for 40 or 50 years and not manage to save a good-sized pile of money. I also wonder where the children of these seniors in poverty are--if you won't help out your own parents, you are quite a loser. I also don't think that retirement at 65 should be an entitlement. When Social Security was enacted, most people DIED before 65, and never got to retire. Why shouldn't the seniors of 2002 keep working until they are 75 or 80? Those who have saved can retire, those who pissed their money away "keeping up with the Joneses" can work until they die. They choose, they live with the consequences.

But OK, there is some small class of people who, through no fault of their own, can't work, have no money, have no relatives, and shouldn't be left to die in the street. Fine. I have no trouble at all helping these people, through private charities or, maybe, through tax dollars.

But there's no reason on Earth we can't start at least means-testing and stop paying for rich seniors to play shuffleboard in Scottsdale. This is the problem (well, one of them, anyway) with the prescription-drug plans in Congress--even Ross Perot gets drug benefits. What kind of system takes money from a Mexican immigrant in a minimum-wage job and transfers it to a white billionaire? The Social Security system! (And farm subsidies, of course, most of which go to Monsanto.)

Anyway, my plan will never, ever, happen, at least not before I'm dead, which should be a number of decades yet. But I'd love to see someone tell me why I'm wrong.

I haven't seen Connie Chung's show, but is it all this stupid?

Tim Wilson has a fairly mind-bending post called "The Never-Ending Saga of Gay Republicans". There's a novel in there somewhere, or at least a damn good New Yorker/ Atlantic piece.

Atrios has an amazing story by Keith Olbermann. It seems that before the Lewinski scandal erupted, his show's most frequent guests were terrorism experts. But they were soon replaced by Clinton-haters. Olbermann acts like a man and realizes that he, among others, bears some responsibility for their focus.

It will never occur to Coulter that in the vast crowd of us who appeared on television news in 1998, and focused entirely on the itinerary of President Clinton's genitalia, she was up near the front. It's a big crowd, and some of us tried to disperse it. But we're all there -- I'm including myself -- and as we head to purgatory for our sins, if not hell, we should all solemnly acknowledge that in fact there most obviously was something else to which we should have been paying attention, and didn't.

UPDATE: Now Atrios has Olbermann's speech in 1998 about the same subject. I wish that the rest of the press had had this much perspective.

I'd love to tell you the punch line to this story. But, I can't because it ain't over yet. All I know is that if even the slightest part of any religion known to man is factually correct, all of these people are going to meet again some day -- in hell. (Extended applause) And I haven't mentioned Paula Jones' attorneys yet....

There are days now when my line of work makes me ashamed, makes me depessed, makes me cry. And it occurs to me that this moral sensor has been fine-tuned within the walls of this campus. Forty years ago the great news broadcaster Edward R. Murrow got up in front of the convention of the radio and television news directors and announced that without moral direction all this great medium would become was "wires and lights in a box," and there are days when I wish it would still be even that idealistic.

About three weeks ago I awakened from my stupor on this subject and told my employers that I simply could not continue doing this show about the endless investigation and the investigation of the investigation, and the investigation of the investigation of the investigation. I had to choose what I felt in my heart was right over what I felt in my wallet was smart. I did not tell them they had 24 hours. I did not threaten them. I let them balance for themselves their professional and moral forces and set their timetable. I await their answer. Of course, I am not buying any new furniture for my home.

Frequent contributor Mark Poyser sent me this:

**********

July 29, 2002 | CHARLESTON, S.C. (AP) -- President Bush urged the Senate Monday to pass legislation to eliminate tariffs for steel manufacturers and "free business from the clutches of our government."

In a South Carolina speech, Bush asked senators not to drag out a renewal of a landmark tariff overhaul when that law expires at the end of September. And he issued unusually pointed criticism of the version recommended by a Senate committee.

"Congress has got to choose whether or not we're going to continue to reform," Bush said. He spoke in a high school gymnasium in front of a backdrop which allowed the words "competition" and "free markets" to repeat behind him in television clips.

"The (Senate) bill would hurt the very people we're trying to help," the president said.

Whoops! Just kidding. Here's the actual story:

July 29, 2002 | CHARLESTON, S.C. (AP) -- President Bush urged the Senate Monday to pass legislation to stiffen work requirements for welfare recipients and "free people from the clutches of our government."

In a South Carolina speech, Bush asked senators not to drag out a renewal of a landmark 1996 welfare overhaul when that law expires at the end of September. And he issued unusually pointed criticism of the version recommended by a Senate committee.

"Congress has got to choose whether or not we're going to continue to reform," Bush said. He spoke in a high school gymnasium in front of a backdrop which allowed the words "work" and "opportunity" to repeat behind him in television clips.

"The (Senate) bill would hurt the very people we're trying to help," the president said.

Glenn Reynolds notes that Aquaman gets no respect. In my mind, the definitive assault on Aquaman's dignity and manhood can be found on the funniest site on the internet, Seanbaby. For example:

When they first formed the Super Friends, they had a good time making office pools on how long it would take until they had to rescue Aquaman again. Now it's just part of the day's scheduled events. Their day goes breakfast, arts and crafts, Earth Science, Batman's Bat-Tips, Lunch, free time, rescue Aquaman, lecture Aquaman, crisis prevention, song practice, rescue Aquaman, punch Aquaman, dinner.

Seanbaby sells stylish "Aquaman sucks" T-shirts, if you're interested.

This is why we need Paul Krugman:

Experts already knew that the Whitman administration had used creative accounting to justify a series of tax cuts. Last year New Jersey Policy Perspective, a local think tank, released a study of fiscal policies in the 1990's titled "Take the Money and Run." Among other things, the state stopped contributing to its pension funds. This made the budget look a lot better, but created a financial hole. In an attempt to fill that hole Governor Whitman violated the basic principles of pension funds by having them engage in stock arbitrage, borrowing money to speculate on the market.

Now the state's taxpayers must make up for an investment loss of $22 billion, most of a year's tax receipts.

I didn't know that. He also reminds us that the White House Office of Management and Budget is lying to you:

The latest antics of the White House Office of Management and Budget have even the most hardened cynics shaking their heads. It's not just that projections for fiscal 2002 have gone from a $150 billion surplus to a $165 billion deficit in the space of a few months; it's not just that the O.M.B. projects a much smaller deficit next year, when everyone else — including the Republican staff of the Senate Budget Committee — says the deficit will increase. It's also the fact that O.M.B officials simply lie about what their own report says.

"The recession erased two-thirds of the projected 10-year surplus. . . . The tax cut, which economists credit for helping the economy recover, generated less than 15% of the change." So reads the agency's press release. Yet as the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities points out, the actual report attributes 40 percent of the budget deterioration to tax cuts, only 10 percent to recession. Maybe dishonesty in the defense of tax cuts is no vice.

He's honest, and he's willing to be demonized. Good stuff.

Eve Tushnet has a short and sweet post that I gotta quote:

THEN WHY DON'T THEY?: "The American economy, our economy, is built on confidence. ...That confidence is well-placed. After all, American technology is the most advanced in the world. Our universities attract the talent of the world. Our workers and ranchers and farmers can compete with anybody in the world."
--President George W. Bush, July 9

Atrios points to a Coultering of Michael Novak that has to be read to be believed. Michael Novak looks at the heroic, miraculous effort to rescue the miners in Somerset, PA, and finds (surprise!) conservatism.

“The sense of community . . . was so powerful it could not be missed,” writes Novak. “These were people who understand instinctively what it is to sacrifice one’s own self-assertion to the urgent needs of the group, and to work as a high-spirited, attentive, docile, alert, and creative team. To hell with what liberals might say or do. They knew what they were doing, and they did things their way.” [Ed.: Emphasis added.]

What on earth is this supposed to mean? What would liberals have said or done differently? How does Novak know that the working-class -- and poor -- people about whom he is writing do not adhere to the basic tenets of American liberalism today? We don’t know, because Novak merely makes an assertion -- all well and good when preaching to the National Review choir, but not good enough when he must confront a skeptic.

Novak surprises us by descending into absurdity. “This operation was not politically correct. Not infrequently, it was not even grammatically correct. But in the universal language of the human spirit, it was not only correct but elegant,” Novak writes. [Ed.: Emphasis added.] What would have made the operation “politically correct”? And not grammatically correct! Who cares? Though, Mr. Safire, please call your office.

What a laughable piece. Thanks, Rittenhouse!

UPDATE: Joe Conason has a post, "How big government saved the Pennsylvania miners." You can disagree with his perspective, but unlike Novak's untethered free verse, he's got a few specifics:

As a state environmental official explained during a Monday evening interview on MSNBC, the weekend miracle would not have been possible without swift technical assistance from the Mine Safety and Health Administration -- a federal agency routinely disparaged, harassed and penny-pinched by conservative politicians at the behest of mining lobbyists. As first reported by the Guardian, a previous overseer of Quecreek No. 1 may have faked an underground map, endangering future miners to increase profits.

UPDATE II: You know that government agency that was instrumental in saving the lives of those miners? The Bush administration budget cut millions from the budget of the Mine Safety and Health Adminstration. In a month, it's going to be unable to function at all. (via Counterspin)

"All of these cuts have occurred in spite of 13 miners killed in a Sept. 23, 2001, methane explosion at ... Brookwood, Ala., despite the flooding of a Massey coal mine on April 14, 2001, when that company mined into an abandoned mine in West Virginia, and despite coal impoundment breaches in Kentucky and West Virginia (several over the past year) that have flooded mining communities, destroyed homes, vehicles, private property and public water supplies.”

*****

“The Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission has come to a screeching halt because there are only two commissioners left on a commission that is supposed to have five members — and as of Aug. 31, the FMSHRC will be left with only one commissioner, which means it cannot function at all.”

-Ellen Smith, editor of Mine Safety and Health News.

UPDATE III: SEASON OF THE WITCH: David Yaseen at Level Gaze notes that the American Enterprise Institute, the thinktank to which Michael Novak belongs, has been aggresively trying to weaken or eliminate workplace safety restrictions. (To be fair, the page that he links to doesn't mention workplace safety, so I have to take his word for it. It does mention that they've argued that workers comp encourages accidents.)

I'm starting to think that this is a fight that Michael Novak really shouldn't have picked.

Rob Humenik has an interesting post about how the State of Texas is fighting to keep the Ten Commandments in the courtroom. The state is forced to pretend that the Ten Commandments is a secular, historical document, rather than a religious one.

Honestly, if I saw the Ten Commandments in a courtroom, I'd think that it didn't belong, but I'd soon forget about it. On the other hand, I'm still a little shocked about the huge memorial to fallen Confederate soldiers right outside the Texas state capital building in Austin. It says:

Died for States Rights Guaranteed under the Constitution

The people of the South, animated by the spirit of 1776, to preserve their rights, withdrew from the Federal Compact in 1861. The North resorted to coercion. The South, against overwhelming numbers and resources, fought until exhausted.

During the war, there were twenty two hundred and fifty seven engagements; in eighteen hundred and eighty-two of these, at least one regiment took part.

Number of men enlisted: Confederate Armies 880, 089 Federal Armies 2,858, 132 Losses from all causes: Confederate 437,000 Federal 485,216"

Two of the best things in life- Weezer and the Muppets- can be enjoyed simultaneously by clicking here and watching the video for "Keep Fishin." Man, did that ever cheer me up.

On the subject of music, months have passed since I've plugged the Mr T. Experience, the outstanding punk band fronted by Blogistan's own Dr. Frank. You may have noticed that he scrupulously avoids self-promotion, or even mentioning his band's name, even when he's talking about music. So I'll do it for him. I love this band; they're funny, catchy, and intelligent, and a lot of the songs hit close to home. If there was any justice in this world, Dr. Frank would be driving his Beemer or his Benz, crossing four lanes, shouting out the window "Money ain't a thing", while the himbos in Crazytown pumped his gas.

Here's a sample of lyrics, from "Alternative is Here to Stay":

I'm in love with an alternative girl,
She's not like the other alternative girls:
She's pierced and dyes and scarified,
She hates Tom Cruise, she loves Anne Rice.
We're gonna be an alternative sight when I take her out on Saturday night.

Alternative is something more than number 1, 2, 3, and 4.
It's 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9. Alternative is doing fine.
Alternative is how we live,
We believe in alternative.
And I think it's safe to say
Alternative is here to stay

She's a toy fox terrier puppy. He's a left-leaning blogger. Together, they fight crime!

They do not, however, blog. We obtained a new puppy this weekend named Ramona, and she's already proved herself to be amazingly smart and affectionate. However, she is not the least bit independent, and has kept us awake for two nights in a row with a cacophany of screams and whines. I'm going to barely have the energy to avoid getting canned today, without the additional stress of spreading liberal lies about the American right.

I did want to make two points about tourists, American and otherwise:

1. Megan McArdle has some keen observations on this subject. I can't resist quoting this:

Europeans get no sympathy from me because I have never, ever seen an American, upon finding out that someone to whom they were speaking hailed from another country, say, "Oh, I hate your country!" and regale the guest to our shores with a half-hour litany of why the foreigner's country, culture, and customs are utterly repulsive. Yet I have not only repeatedly met with this treatment on each of my trips to Europe, but also found, when I repeated them to a native of whatever country I was in, that my putative host defended this behavior with some variation on "Well, you have to admit they're right."

YES! Exactly!

2. I should add that my comment "In your face, Canada!" was entirely facetious. I've only ever met one Canadian I didn't like, which is a pretty dang good average. Toronto is one of the gems of the North American continent. Canadian Niagra Falls kicks the ass of American Niagra Falls sideways. Canadian beer is often delicious. Etc.

However, when you're travelling abroad, some people will mistakenly ask Canadians if they're American. If they react with a hot fury more appropriate to the question, "Are you a donkey molester?" and make said questioner feel ten inches tall, that actually counts as rudeness.