Friday Blogroll! Hello from Cleveland!

First of all, let me just say that downtown Cleveland is an extremely interesting mix of really old, historical, beautiful buildings and fountains...and a bunch of abandoned crap. It's really not that bad...the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is neat, and I'm sure Jacobs Field is great (if only the Indians were in town), but still...I like Pittsburgh much much more. Anyway, on to the blogroll...and no, it's not quite Friday yet, but I'll be travelling most of the day tomorrow, so I'm getting it in now...

Alicublog has a great post about the still-too-dumb-to-leave-unridiculed list of Top 50 Conservative (If You Take Away All of the Artist's Original Intent and Politics) Rock Songs, including this great blurb from Financial Times:

But it’s not such an anomaly to speak of rock and conservatism in the same breath, for as a musical form it is deeply conservative. Male-dominated, resistant to change, endlessly reproducing a narrow range of guitar chords, it lost whatever radical creative edge it had ages ago.

AMERICAblog finds that, in the year 2006, the 21st Century, people are burning books they don't like.

Thanks, Atrios, for pointing this out. I'm going to have nightmares for a really, really long time.

Avedon has a nice set of links about another old issue, flag burning.

I was going to link to Billmon's strong Rove Nonindictment analysis, but I couldn't pass up a good old fashioned Billmon-style string of quotes. If you want a potentially realistic, potentially pessimistic take on Rove, try Upyernoz. Not saying I agree with him...I hope he's wrong, actually...but well, he definitely could be right...

Thereisnospoon at Booman has a FANTASTIC post about war framing. Just a great read.

In the end, you can use the phrase "measured withdrawal", or you can use the phrase "cut and run." When your average American goes to the ballot box, it all means one and the same thing: Surrender and Defeat in War. And let me tell you something as sure as day: Americans don't accept surrender and defeat in war.

...

But what do we do? What do we do, when the American public will not accept defeat in war? And how are we capable, as Democrats and Americans, of "accepting defeat" in war, regardless of the circumstances? Isn't that cowardly of us, regardless of how many brave soldiers have already been thrown into this immoral meatgrinder?

The reason that these questions SEEM so vexing is because they are UTTER BULLSHIT. The ENTIRE FRAME OF REFERENCE is bullshit. But until the Democrats can figure out to stop walking into the same goddamn GOP rhetorical traps time and again, they're going to continue to be confounded by this seeming predicament.

...

The biggest and by far the most important bullshit assumption being made by all sides is that there is a WAR in Iraq.

THERE IS NO WAR IN IRAQ. There is an OCCUPATION. And there is a resistance to said occupation. This resistance takes many forms: criminal thuggery, despicable terrorism, sectarian violence, and guerrilla warfare.

Great stuff. And speaking of framing, from Echidne...

Go congratulate David Schraub for Debate Link turning two. And if you like links posts (and if you're reading this one, you probably do), check out a good one. I like Debate Link because he usually links to a bunch of issues I would have otherwise missed.

Thank goodness Demosthenes takes on this ridiculous Seth Swirsky post about the "nutty, extreme" left so I don't have to. The only extreme on the left is the extreme mediocrity of its pundits. And its (h/t Digby) politicians. Sweet jesus. If Democrats vote against a sitting Democrat, he'll leave the Democratic Party...and other Democrats will support him. Can we put one-term limits on all offices in the country? It's the only way to get some of these entrenched losers out of office.

DJW from Lawyers, Guns and Money chips in on Lieberman, as well.

And speaking of Democrats potentially sucking, Lance Mannion has a great post pointing out that there could be a political tidal wave at work if nobody blows it.

And while we're thanking goodness for other bloggers addressing things so I don't have to post about them, Interesting Times takes on Byron York's "friendly warning" about Kos' support possibly being a liability.

From Existentialist Cowboy, here's a phenomenal post about America's lost moral authority. Not that we didn't know we'd lost it, but great writing is great writing.

At the end of World War II, when even Winston Churchill espoused the summary executions of Nazi war criminals and Joseph Stalin favored mere show trials, it was the United States, under the leadership of Franklin Roosevelt, that insisted upon war crimes trials. Nazis would not be summarily shot merely because they were Nazis by definition or decree. Rather, they would be given a trial. Even Nazis would be allowed the right of counsel, the right to present a defense.

How can Bush hope to defend democracy —as he has claimed —when he subverts every Democratic principle that has been fought and died for over the last four hundred years? How can Bush justify his war of aggression against Iraq when he subverts the very "democracy" that he claims to bring them? How can Bush accuse anyone outside the United States of "...just hat[ing] freedom" when Bush is himself democracy's most insidious enemy?

Dover Bitch has a guest post at FDL, talking about an issue that we're slowly losing--net neutrality. FDL is one of the best "rallying point" blogs around, as noted by this berlin niebuhr post, and hopefully some good ideas can emerge from this thread.

As always, Holden has a great find from the gaggle. Bush might or might not know about the 2,500th American death in Iraq, but really...why should he be bothered with details like that.

From Fired Up! Missouri, a spokesman for Missouri Governor Blunt shows once again that state-level Republicans are just like national-level Republicans, only more stupid and more extreme. Seriously, running a progressive blog is showing McVeigh-like tendencies? Really?

I wasn't going to link to anything Coulter-related this week, but Paul Waldman has a nice summary:

The real problem with Coulter is not the Vile One herself, but the reporters and news organizations who take her seriously and provide her with megaphones for her little rants.

True, but Hilary Clinton acknowledging her sure doesn't help. But while we're at it, Matt @ Great Society points out that she's also a plagiarist...Adam's Apple Ann, not Hilary.

Instead of linking to another Greenwald post, I'll just point out that berlin linked to two in this post. And instead of linking to a Wolcott post, I'll just point out that he's posting heavily again this week, and you should just read them all.

I honestly don't know enough about the whole "Amnesty for Killers of Americans in Iraq" issue to contribute anything useful (as if I ever contribute anything useful), but Steve Soto makes a very very good point:

But this also leads to a fundamental question: why would the same House GOP that is opposed to what they call amnesty for illegal immigrants turn around and accept amnesty for those who have killed American troops? The House GOP is being grossly inconsistent here, and is displaying questionable values if they feel that purported amnesty for illegal immigrants must be opposed at all costs, while amnesty for insurgents who kill Americans gets a pass just because Bush wants full support for the new government.

Pandagon points out that the Religious Right actually wants states to call a Constitutional Convention to outlaw gay marriage. Now THAT'S old school!

And here's some old-school Susie snark.

And finally, Attaturk presents "Great unreported moments in Bush Snarkitude".