At first I thought the "actual plan" referred to your and Teresa's plan for the rest of the week at Viable Paradise. Pretty ambitious, if so.

Bookman's piece in AJC is good, and a whole bunch of things now go click. But if I'd been his editor, I'd have objected to the paragraph about the Crusader artillery system. If the system truly is outmoded (and Bookman doesn't contest that claim), then isn't cancelling it a good idea regardless of whether one has global empire-building on one's mind? He should have found a better example or dropped that point.

I was surprised that your links to some 'sharp analysis from the right' led exclusively to Jim Henley's Unqualified Offerings site. You consider him right of what exactly?

Well, Jim describes himself as a "man of the Right." If "the Right" simply means "people in the neighborhood of Pat Robertson and/or George W. Bush", then obviously that's an eccentric self-description. On the other hand, if "the Right" means "the political tradition that emphasizes self-reliance, individualism, and suspicion of reformism", then Jim certainly qualifies.

I'm nothing like a "man of the Right" myself, but I certainly credit "the Right" (or, alternately, "conservatism") with encompassing more intellectual variety than is found amidst the pea-brains of the supposed "conservatives" now running the Executive Branch.

Hey, by twiddling my font size controls, I can change how much patience Patrick has left!

More guns! Less crime! Tax cuts are good! Administrative law courts are an abomination on the separation of powers! If you eat junk food and get fat, don't come crying to me! To quote Eve Tushnet: "Property rights are human rights!"

Also, what Patrick said.

Besides, his "common sense from the left" is all Max Sawicky. How come I'm the one who has to go before the board of inquiry?

Yeah, really. Jeez. I mean really.

Jim should take heart, though. Sawicky keeps hinting that he holds some deeply conservative social views, almost as if he wants us to beg him to reveal that he opposes beer on Sunday, legal pinball machines, or no-fault divorce.

Perhaps he'll go into detail, after which praise for comments by Max can elicit similar protests asking what's so damn left-wing about this guy, anyway?

Max Sawicky = a pseudonym for Elvis Costello?

Well, we all know there is only one issue (this week, anyway) and where you stand on that defines your political affiliation along the Sacred Continuum. No variations are allowed. Get back in your pigeonholes, people!

As for Tailgunner Bill Quick, apart from the desire to respond with some instructions of Anglo-Saxon origin about what to do with himself, I wonder if his comments don't show the "warblogs"--and I use that word in exactly the derogatory sense that Matt Welch was predicting a while ago--beginning to slide into talk radio irrelevance.

This is not to say that he's not wrong and doesn't deserve to be called bullshit on, but he's preaching to the choir and only to the choir at this point. He pretty much has to be, because who among us traitors has so little self-respect as to listen? I live in a place where Quick-like opinions about Iraq and liberals may be mainstream, but it's still unfashionable to call people traitors in public. That's just alienating to people in the middle.

Oliver Willis talks about the echo chamber; I think Quick is in one, and he's letting his personally rabid nature and the rabid nature of his audience drive him over the top and around the bend. Will Bush and company use the same sort of talk on the mainstream? If they can get it to work--but if it polls badly, I suspect they'll move on to the next tactic.

Maybe I'm a hopeless optimist, but Quick's America (or at least American)-hating doesn't seem like something you can sell long-term to the middle. At least I hope it's not.

Patrick, a Q: In your view, is there also a thoughtless center to go with the thoughtful one?

"Sawicky keeps hinting that he holds some deeply conservative social views"

He's already told us: He thinks Snoop Doggy Dog (actually, I think Mr. Dog might be dropping the redundant middle "Doggy" nowadays) is a piece of shit. Presumably, he thinks about the same of other rappers (although he consider's Dylan's "Subterranean Homesick Blues" to be a good rap song).

Jim asks "is there also a thoughtless center to go with the thoughtful one?"

Well, I'm not Patrick, but I have an opinion on this: Yes, the "thoughtless center" is mostly made up of the folks who, after umpteen months of campaigning and three televised debates, were still undecided in the Presidential election in October of 2000.

Yes, there are people who had honest and thoughtful reasons to dither (even Mickey Kaus). Those who were leaning one way or the other based on who would be a better beer-drinking buddy are not among them.

Jim: good question. And: an answer!

The "thoughtless center" wouldn't be people who waffle. Rather, it would be people who believe the truth must be at some central point between what they suppose to be the "extreme" positions. We've all seen people who delegate their reasoning powers to this kind of easily-gamed methodology.

Great post, Ginger, and good to see you still around.

But does it sound like she's having as much fun as a right winger?

Probably not. After all, there's so much weary work for the modern liberal to do. Corrupting the youth of Athens, making the weaker argument defeat the stronger...why, our gay-recruitment efforts alone entail two evening meetings a week. Who has time for fun?

Your DaquiriPundits and your Undigested Offerings, they have their fun, but who does the hard work of confiscatory taxation that builds your Internet, sonny boy? And comb your hair, it looks like a rat's nest.

And comb your hair, it looks like a rat's nest.

Hey! I resemble that remark!