Mark Evanier's newsfromme blog is usually about his adventures as a writer in the realm of comics, cartoons and other stuff.

He does spinkle comments on current event throughout and here a couple of recent favorite quotes.

I keep getting e-mails from people who...well, I'm not sure if they actually oppose Health Care Reform or they simply believe in opposing anything Barack Obama is for. But they keep sending me poll results that suggest most Americans are already satisfied with their health insurance. A couple of these seem to simply ignore that part of the crisis we have in this country is that so many people don't have health insurance. It's like saying, in a land where many are starving to death, "Well, the ones who are eating like what they're eating." Also, a lot of people are perfectly satisfied with their health insurance because they haven't gotten sick lately and so have never tested its value to their lives.

And:

Back in the Reagan administration, Bruce Bartlett was one of the architects of the theory that if we cut taxes (especially for rich people), that would force a shrinkage in government spending. He is now writing pieces like this one saying how that idea has never worked.

I was especially impressed with this line which I came across in Bartlett's comment section. Couldn't have put it better myself...

"Republicans depend on this message (or think they do) because it is essential to the coalition Reagan built, which enabled them to pass off a fundamentally corporate-friendly worldview as a populist appeal to the average American (who hates taxes)."

Someday, the average American will wake up to the revelation that their taxes would be a lot lower if the wealthiest Americans paid some. One of the things I find amazing in our national debate about taxes is that discussions of raising or cutting them are usually only about raising or cutting them for rich people. Even folks who are maniacal about slashing taxes give Obama very little credit for lowering them on the lower and middle class. It's like a tax cut isn't a tax cut unless the folks who own Walmart get it. And you can still be hailed as a great cutter-of-taxes, as per George W. Bush, if you raise them on those who work at Walmart and/or drive up the debt, which of course will lead to higher taxes on someone at some point.

Mark's blog is always a fun read.

Just thought I'd point you kind folks his way.

P.S. Today is the first day (ever!) I've found myself wishing I could watch CSPAN all day.  The chopped-up sound bytes that will undoubtedly be pulled from this marathon are sure be of little use once they've been removed from their original contexts, spun and re-spun.

Fayetteville, NC has a free weekly "Arts 'n Entertainment" magazine called Up & Coming Weekly.

The "Publisher's Pen" segment in the latest issue was titled "The Message From Massachusetts."  It actually prompted me to write my first letter (well, email) in response to an editorial.

Of course, I managed to screw it up.

Read on...

I have been threatening to write another diary from my not-very-progressive viewpoint and here it is.  I hope you don't think I'm getting all JZ on you.  I'm posting this in good faith to offer a different "take" on an issue.  You know I love you all, right?  Right..?

---

In the closing chapter of "The Death of Conservatism," Sam Tanenhaus writes that "Culturally... these are conservative times."  He then goes on to state

[C]onservatives should savor the embrace of "family values" by the nation's homosexual population, who seek the sanctuary,
and responsibilities, of marriage and child-rearing, a development unthinkable a generation ago, when gays personified the excesses of the "alternate lifestyle."

So, why the resistance from my conservative bretheren to the idea of the gay community redifining marriage to include any two consenting adults, same-sex or otherwise?

The final section of the sentence contains an important clue:

[C]onservatives should savor the embrace of "family values" by the nation's homosexual population, who seek the sanctuary, and responsibilities, of marriage and child-rearing, a development unthinkable a generation ago, when gays personified the excesses of the "alternate lifestyle."

Indeed, if someone was to do some "market research" one might find that the "gay" brand has poorly positioned itself here after decades of unfortunate media messages.  

Of course, I can only ever speak for myself on such things, so here are my two cents.

Due to popular demand I have decided to gin up a diary entry.

I read these two bits within the past twelve hours and I figured I'd share them here.

---

I've been getting anti-Obama e-mails from an erstwhile co-worker since before the election last year.

You know, the stuff with the doctored Air Force One photos, the Obama toilet paper, etc., etc.

The latest gotta-go-check-Snopes missive is beyond incoherent.  Whoever wrote it (supposedly Buddy's Hackett's widow?!?) can't even decide if Obama has been in office 9 months or 6 months.

This is just another example of the current media-fed circus-clown conservatism that has pushed me way from the Republican party.

My apologies for stinkin' out the joint with this claptrap, but let's make the most of it.  

How's about we treat this like like one of those games where you have to look at a crazy picture and list all the things you find wrong with it?

---

What the..?

The Right Wing media kept harping on this Saul Alinsky guy so much, I did an internet search on him.

Apparently, it is his Rules For Radicals idea that Rush, Sean, Glenn et al like to invoke as "proof" of the evilness of their opponents.

Yet, they (and practically everyone else, these days) embrace these principles in putting forth their talking points.

Do they protesteth too much?  Read on...

As a result of some discussions in the comment section, I have decided to post something that does not represent a very progressive viewpoint.

I was contemplating starting up a blog to vent my spleen on some editorials I was reading in the newspaper, but after two entries, I decided it was a path I really didn't want to travel.

I'm posting one of them here, not to convince anyone of my own awesome righteousness, but rather to offer my "take" on a specific editorial.

I thought I'd throw this question out again.  What are you reading right now?

I've been trying to educate myself on this here "progressive agenda" and, as a conservative Christian guy, it has been tough sledding.

Several books I've taken out of the library seem so over-the top angry and single-issue focused, I just can't get through them.

Yeah, yeah, I get it!  Senator Craig is a self-hating, closeted queer who was trying to solicit public sex in an airport bathroom.  Great.  What else ya got?  Oh.  Nothing.

Well, I have found the book I have been looking for this past week.
.
.
.

I'll take it!

Obama's Nobel Peace Prize triumph hailed by many

"In less than a year in office, he has transformed the way we look at ourselves and the world we live in and rekindled hope for a world at peace with itself," ElBaradei said. "He has shown an unshakable commitment to diplomacy, mutual respect and dialogue as the best means of resolving conflicts. He has reached out across divides and made clear that he sees the world as one human family, regardless of religion, race or ethnicity."

(10/2 - promoted by leftake)

Something that Garry Moore would do on the old "I've Got A Secret" show was to ask the panelists what books they were currently reading.  Amazingly enough, everyone would actually be in the middle of reading a book and they'd give a few sentences about it. (I can't imagine how the dim-bulbs on the "American Idol" panel would respond to such a question!)

So, who is currently reading what?

The Miami Herald's syndicated columnist, Leonard Pitts has written a piece on the late Walter Cronkite.  Read it HERE.

From Sarah Palin's Washington Post Op-Ed piece:

Unfortunately, many in the national media would rather focus on the personality-driven political gossip of the day than on the gravity of these challenges. So, at risk of disappointing the chattering class, let me make clear what is foremost on my mind and where my focus will be...

OOH LA LA!

This from the person who spent the entire July 4th weekend tweeting and twittering about her super-big, ultra important announcement!

PERSONALITY-DRIVEN POLITICAL GOSSIP?!?!?

Suddenly, this is a bad thing, Ms. Palin?  

Please tweet some more and let us know the state of your belly-button. Your "chattering class" fans demand it.

Hell, yeah!

CAUTION: HALF-BAKED SATIRIC CONTENT AHEAD.

I have decided to become a vegetarian.

There are a lot of good reasons to be a vegetarian.

I understand that there will be a number of health benefits as a result of becoming one.

I expect my cholesterol level to go down, for instance.

An increase in "heart health" is sure to follow.

And, I have to admit, I look forward to a certain feeling of moral superiority to those who aren't vegetarians.

Of course, I have no intention of changing anything about my core food consumption habits.

In fact, I intend to continue eating meat.

You see, I feel that the definition of vegetarianism should be changed to include those who eat meat as well as those who don't eat meat.

You don't oppose this clearly logical approach, do you?

You do?

Boy, what a hate-filled hating hater you are!

I can't help that I eat meat. I was born this way. Ever since I was weaned from mother's milk I have craved and eaten meat. I have always known that I am a meat-eater. I shouldn't have to change the way I am or pretend to be be what I am not to meet "others" idea of how I should live my life.

I feel I should be allowed to eat meat and also have all the benefits and entitlements associated with being a vegetarian. It is unfair that only those people who "don't eat meat" should be granted those benefits.

And I don't see how I would be "spoiling it" for non-meat-eating vegetarians to allow meat-eaters who so desire the "vegetarian" designation to claim it for our own.

Maybe I should post a photo of of my daughter clutching a "Please don't force my Daddy to stop being a vegetarian" sign on the web. Obviously that's what would happen if the meat-phobic hate mongers forced us meat-eating vegetarians to abide by their arbitrary, exclusionary definition of what constitutes "vegetarianism."

My unassailable, crystal-clear logic concludes that the portion of the population who are meat-eaters who want to be identified as vegetarians should be allowed to set the definition for what constitutes vegetarianism.

No rational, clear-thinking, modern human being could or should object to this.

Or are you some sort of logic-hating, minority, fringe hate-monger?

No? Good! I was hoping I could shame you into silence.

Now, let there be no further discussion or dissension on the subject.

I am a vegetarian.

HERE is a blog that comments on the daily MALLARD FILLMORE comic strip.

Let's look at the text from the strip dated 07/02/09, shall we:

---

Caption box: "Meanwhile, at a journalism school near you..."

Bespeckled, chrome-dome Journalist guy: "This new study says we're clueless, effete, elitists who have nothing in common with AVERAGE AMERICANS... whoever they are..."

---

WOW!  Why not just draw President Obama picking his nose and saying "Duh!" 365 days a year?  Its just that witty!

CAUTION: MINDLESS STRAW MAN CONTENT! TURN BACK NOW!

Gosh, but there is a lot of noisy noise being generated twenty-four hours a day by a lot of people who get paid a lot of money to stir the pot. I would go so far as to call these people cynics.

Right now, there are quite a few folks who can't stand the fact that "their guy" lost the 2008 presidential election. To them, the current fairly-elected head of state is evil, incarnate looking to forever ruin our beloved country. He is a hard-line Islamist/Socialist who (gasp!) reads his speeches off a TelePromTer and whose wife is out to make the previous first lady look bad, on purpose!

April's whole "Tea Party" movement to protest phantom tyrannical tax increases smacked of some sort of phony grass roots movement. I remember these sort of things were referred to as "AstroTurf" back during the swift boat veterans for the truth era. (Get it? Artificial grass roots!)

But, you know, there are enough of these amazing media pundits out there so that it cuts both ways.

For instance:

The Bush Theocracy. Wow! Remember when Dubya created The Church of America and punished those who did not immediately sign up? Yeah, me neither!

How about when President Bush ordered endless truckloads of arsenic to be dumped into the nation's drinking water supply? Oh, yeah. Um, it was more a matter of restoring the acceptable levels of allowable arsenic to what they were while Bill Clinton was in office.

Then there's the absolute and total ban that GWB enacted on all scientific research during his presidency. Oh, yeah. He simply didn't want to approve federal funding for stem cell research. And, gosh, there's not another private concern or another country in the whole wide world that could've continued stem cell research. Only through USA Federal Tax Dollars could this be done.

The "mainstream media" is selling us out!

I've seen both conservatives and liberals bellyaching about the blatant bias and distortions the "mainstream media" is inserting into each and every important news story. The liberal point of view is sensitive to things like the current financial melt-down being called "The Obama Recession" while the conservative point of view seems to be that the real truth is limited exclusively to the "talk radio" and "Fox News" outlets that beam into every market 24/7.

Is there any objective source of information anywhere?

I doubt it.

Now, excuse me while I tune out some of this racket.  Calgon, take me awa-a-a-a-a-y.

(Welcome, Craig.  And all other folks who say "no thank you" to the crap spoon fed by the wingnut pundits.   - promoted by leftake)

If this is a haven for "progressives" and lefties, then I'm in the wrong place.

Folks, in my heart of hearts I am a very conservative guy.  I'm pretty sure I would come down on the "wrong side" of many issues as far as many of the folks posting here are concerned.  I am a professing Christian and I even voted for Ronald Regan back in the day.