Home | Away

---

Tuesday, April 13, 2004

Actually, I’m not sure how I would feel if I were occupied

I’m sorry, everyone, but I’m having an out-of-body experience.  Did Bush really just say he wouldn’t be happy if he were occupied?  (It’s still Tuesday night here even though the blog says Wednesday, because the server goes by Greenwich Mean Time for some reason.) Did he really say “I plan on telling the American people that I’ve got a plan to win the war on terror”?  Did he really suggest that everyone who opposed this war believes that “brown-skinned” people can’t be free?

And are Peggy and company really going to trot out the comparisons to Churchill tomorrow morning?

UPDATE:  It’s now Wednesday morning, and the full transcript is here.  The “brown-skinned” line is actually

Some of the debate really center around the fact that people don’t believe Iraq can be free; that if you’re Muslim, or perhaps brown-skinned, you can’t be self-governing and free.

And I’d missed this one:

One of my hardest parts of my job is to console the family members who have lost their life.

No comment here.

Negroponte:  our man in Baghdad

So Bush is going to appoint small-time liar and death-squad enabler John Negroponte as U.S. ambassador to Iraq.  That should stabilize the region, pronto.

Soon to come:  Oliver North, U.S. ambassador to Iran.  Richard Perle, ambassador to Syria.  Daniel Pipes, ambassador to Jordan.  It’s the neocon-foreign-policy version of fantasy baseball.

I wonder if Jeane Kirkpatrick will show up in here somewhere.  Turkey, perhaps?  Would the President give her Turkey?

Last words on Nader

Yes, these are the very last words I’m going to spend on Ralph Nader.  The last 2500.  Here they are, in syntactical order:

--Very deep breath.--

Over the past two weeks, I’ve revised an essay (between copyediting and page proofs); put together a special-session proposal for the 2004 MLA convention in Philadelphia; read and handed back ten ten-page essay drafts from my seminar students; filed my taxes; reviewed someone for promotion and tenure; read a dissertation proposal; read another dissertation proposal; beaten my email inbox down from 40 items to 5; and, of course, prepared my usual classes (Kindred and Beloved in the African-American novel class, Paul Gilroy’s The Black Atlantic and Simon Frith’s Performing Rites in the cultural studies seminar) and played my usual hockey games (still struggling in the A division, still just shy of 50 goals for the year in the B).  Today represents my first respite in a long, long time.

That’s why the blogging has been kind of halfhearted and sporadic here and there—it’s really something of a luxury, and I certainly didn’t have the chance to cover Condi in real time on Thursday or follow the administration’s increasingly hallucinatory renderings of that August 6 memo since then.  Instead, on Friday I took a bit of week-old news about Ralph Nader “reaching out” to conservatives, and over the weekend I just worked, worked, worked.  (Janet and the kids were in Connecticut w/her family for the Easter weekend, and for the first time since we moved to central Pennsylvania I had a weekend alone in this house. Completely weird.) I knew, of course, that in posting something on Nader I would draw fire from certain predictable quarters, and these predictable quarters have reminded me that my sporadic Nader commentaries have generated a small clump of bizarre, missing-the-point complaints from any number of people who have decided, for reasons that continue to escape me, that their opposition to Bush is so pure and so righteous that it cannot be compromised by the idea of supporting a liberal Democrat for the Presidency.

So let me take the Nader complaints seriously, as part of my ongoing effort to get Nader supporters to stop being Nader supporters.  And I’ll say at the outset what should go without saying: of course Ralph should run if he wants to.  So should everyone else who wants to, including LaRouche and Perot and David McReynolds and John Hagelin and Alan Keyes.  But you shouldn’t vote for any of these guys.

On April 7, Tyler Dixon (with Whitney Trettien) wrote, “In a fit of finger-pointing blog entries, well-respected writers such as Michael Berube and Max Sawicky have even fatuously alluded to a conspiracy theory:  apparently Ralph Nader intentionally tipped the election to Bush, for reasons known only to him and his wacky co-conspirators.”

I presume that Dixon and Trettien are referring to this post, in which I noted that Ralph Nader himself said that he would prefer Bush to Gore in 2000.  All I did was quote from this June 2000 issue of Outside magazine:

If California tips Green enough, Bush could win the state and the whole damn election.  Which, Nader confided to Outside in June, wouldn’t be so bad. When asked if someone put a gun to his head and told him to vote for either Gore or Bush, which he would choose, Nader answered without hesitation: “Bush.”

Let’s start with some very basic points.  Thing one: there’s no conspiracy here, folks.  To have a conspiracy—or to allege that people like me have alleged a conspiracy—you need more than one person.  I never said that Nader conspired with anyone to put Bush in office; I said merely that he tried to swing the election to Bush.  Those of you who were actually paying attention in 2000 (and remember, I hold Nader voters to a higher standard on this count than I do the centrist fools who didn’t like Gore claiming that he invented the Internet while writing Love Story, because I pay Nader voters the compliment of taking their political self-representations at face value) will remember that Nader initially agreed not to campaign in “swing states” in the weeks preceding the election if it looked as if his candidacy would hurt Gore—and then he betrayed that pledge, campaigning almost exclusively in swing states in October and November.  Why?  Because like many of his supporters, he despised Gore more than he disliked Bush. 

Perhaps Dixon and Trettien were getting their information from one Curtiss Leung over at Hector Rottweiler Jr.’s blog, who wrote back in February, “There’s great distemper among liberals over Ralph Nader’s candidacy.  Michael Bérubé, going farther than the untenable thesis that Nader cost Gore the election, quotes Nader out of context to support the conspiracy theory that Nader intended to throw the election to Bush.”

Now, this is hard to believe.  I quoted Nader out of context?  The man said he would vote for Bush, I quoted him saying he would vote for Bush.  Exactly how much context do we need here?  Ah, but Curtiss thinks that this line from Ralph is the key:

“If you want the parties to diverge from one another, have Bush win.”

Curtiss thinks this “not only gives the lie to Bérubé’s thesis, but is eerily precient [sic].” But holy Jesus in an Easter basket, folks, Curtiss has got to be kidding.  First of all, Ralph subscribes here precisely to the Leninist “the worse the better” thesis for which progressives like me criticized him in 2000: Bush should win because he will heighten the contradictions and further shred the welfare state, yadda yadda yadda, thus leading to a renewal of the American left once people realize how bad things can get.  As many (but not quite enough) serious progressives argued four years ago, this line of thinking didn’t work in 1980-84 (or in 1968-72) and it won’t work now.  Second, what’s all this about the parties diverging, anyway?  Isn’t Ralph running today on nothing other than the argument that they have not diverged enough?  How can Ralph have been “precient” about this in such a way as to require him to run for President yet again?  And third, “divergence” in and of itself is not a value; it needs to be supplemented by the possibility that the newly divergent Democrats will actually beat their opponents.  What’s the point of fostering “divergence” if the result is a feral Tom DeLay GOP that controls the entire country and a feeble liberal-progressive Democratic party that controls a few cities and college towns?  “Ah, yes, we’re completely powerless, except for that tough new recycling law in Madison, Wisconsin,” the Curtisses will say in 2012 when the parties have diverged a little more to their liking, “but at least we know now that our opposition is truly oppositional.”

And as for that “untenable thesis that Nader cost Gore the election,” I’m finding it as hard to speak to certain Naderites about this as it is to speak to Bushies about their man’s National Guard service.  The layers of denial are just so impervious to empirical demonstrations.  But as far as I’m concerned, this study settles the question.  Don’t even try to address Nader’s impact on the 2000 election if you haven’t read it.

I’m beginning to wonder, though, whether I should continue to think of this debate in terms of rationality and empirical demonstrations.  When I think back to my experience in the well-beyond-alternative-rock scene in the 1980s, I start to believe that the Nader/Green phenomenon has to be understood in affective rather than rational terms.  The affective argument runs something like this: The problem with Democrats is that they’re complete corporate sellouts, man, just like Hüsker Dü when they released Flip Your Wig in 1985. Yes, that’s right, Hüsker Dü were sellouts—that was the consensus of the crowd I ran with.  (Note to Bob Mould:  I like your blog and I’ve always liked Flip Your Wig.  I argued with those people, I swear I did.) In fact, anybody with a record contract was probably a sellout, unless they’d signed with a very pure and very independent label.  SST was sufficiently cool as a label, yes, but Flip Your Wig included songs that had melodies, so it was back to Zen Arcade for the purists among us.  Ian MacKaye was of course our hero (and he sang backup on my band Baby Opaque’s cover of “Long Black Veil” in 1984, which got lots of college-radio airplay and afforded me my one brief encounter with alt-rock legend), because his bands, Minor Threat and Fugazi, and his label, Dischord, were completely DIY-anarcho-syndicalist-utopian affairs, utterly outside the influence of mass media and their Demoblican duopoly over our lives.  As for everybody else, the virtue of any one artist could be gauged by his or her distance from the machinery of mainstream commercial success.  It was a simple guide to life, but it had its consolations.

And let’s not forget the corollary: for the very pure left, as for the very pure alt-rock crowd, nothing fails like success.  If you’re really alternative, you have to stay alternative, even if the mainstream changes as a result of all your hard work.  That’s why, back in the 1980s, we never thought of the alt-rock scene as “having influence” on mainstream culture; on the contrary, we thought of mainstream culture as “co-opting” the alternative scene.  That’s also why there’s no point in having our man Nader run in the primaries in order to push the Democratic nominee to the left, dude—he’d only co-opt our issues and sell us out, man.  To be a true alternative, Nader has to stay outside the system—it’s the only way to live.

As an attitude toward commercial music culture, this kind of thing is fairly harmless—just a bit adolescent and simplistic, and more than a bit self-congratulatory.  But mostly harmless.  As an attitude toward electoral politics, however, it’s just not remotely serious or responsible.

Now to turn to Chun the Unavoidable, who certainly presents himself as serious and responsible, and who has recently taken issue with this post of mine, calling it a piece of “callow mockery” and insisting that Nader’s appeal to conservatives is “actually very shrewd.” But once again, the Nader fans miss the point, and this time I thought the point was a simple one.

So, in two paragraphs, here’s the point. 

As his open letter reminds us, Nader is a terrible candidate. Yes, he’s “on the left,” but he belongs to a nasty, authoritarian, crypto-conservative left that wants people to stop playing those violent video games and stop looking at sexually explicit images.  He’s not too concerned about women’s reproductive rights, as we all know, but he is very worried about the decline of parental authority in Today’s Modern World.  Hence his “appeal” to conservatives.  (And look again at his praise for the Texas GOP—that’s right, the same Texas GOP that gave you that outrageous mid-term redistricting!) But back in the real world, conservatives are far too politically savvy to fall for “appeals” like this; unlike their counterparts on the left, they didn’t break ranks in 2000 in favor of Pat Buchanan or an “independent” Alan Keyes/Gary Bauer candidacy, and they’re not going to break ranks now.  They’re not going to punish Bush for supporting amnesty for illegal Hispanic immigrants from Mars, or for running up a $500 billion deficit and lying about Medicare.  They know what side their bread is oiled on.  Nader’s open letter to them is just another of Ralph’s exercises in self-delusion.  Which brings me to . . .

Nader would be a terrible President. He has no experience in elected office and nothing but disdain for people with that experience.  He wouldn’t be able to get a budget—or a single damn piece of legislation—through this Congress.  He’d be able to declaim, yes, and personally, even I would thrill to a couple of his denunciations of this or that, as I did in 2000 when he spoke of the insanity of our drug laws and the disgraceful fact that we have two million prisoners behind bars, many of whom have been incarcerated for casual drug use not far removed from that of the youthful Bush or Gore. But he wouldn’t be able to do a blessed thing about any of it.

Now, I will occasionally support a third-party candidate on principle, and I have done so in the past.  But not Ralph.  My opposition to him is not the opposition of some craven ex-indie-leftist who’s decided to come in from the cold, sign with Sony-Columbia Records and put out a “crossover” record with Tom Petty.  My opposition to Ralph is based both on his form and his substance, neither of which I like.  If we had a credible protest candidate—a Russ Feingold, say, or maybe Lani Guinier on a Voting Rights ticket—and if we were talking about the elections of 1988 or 1996 instead of an election involving the most right-wing President in over a century, then I’d consider leaving the Democrats, as I did when I joined the New Party in 1996.  But I ain’t doing it for Ralph—not in 2000, not now, not ever.

So, then, in conclusion: the six percent of you who are still showing up as Nader supporters in national polls need to check yourselves on two counts.  One: are you voting for Nader because you actually think he’s the best available candidate?  If so, keep looking.  Seriously, if you’re going to throw away your vote, throw it at a better person. Two: are you voting for Nader in order to lodge a protest against the duopoly of American politics?  Very well, but then, your support for any unelectable fringe candidate will send exactly the same “message.” Remember, there’s no “movement” behind Nader this time, no pretense that he can pull five percent for the Greens nationally and get them federal matching funds so that they can follow the national-third-party path laid out most recently by Ross Perot’s Reform Party.  There’s just Ralph.  So you might as well vote for the Constitution Party or the Socialist Workers Party or the Natural Law Party—and remember, if you sign up for John Hagelin’s campaign on the Natural Law ticket, you also get all of Hagelin’s news bulletins from other solar systems, free of charge.  And that Vedic Defense Shield of his is really pretty awesome when you think about it.

As for how I could support a third-party candidate in a country that is shackled with a thoroughly undemocratic electoral system in which third-party candidates are assured of being protest candidates and nothing more, that will have to wait for a followup post, in which I take the Lani Guinier reference and run with it a bit longer.

Monday, April 12, 2004

President’s Daily Briefing:  Rapid Response Mode

Fort Hood, Texas, April 11, 2004-- Stung by critics who claim that his administration did not respond adequately to the President’s Daily Briefing of August 6, 2001, George Bush insisted today that the briefing contained no “specific” information.  “The PDB was no indication of a terrorist threat,” the President insisted in remarks to the White House travel pool. “There was not a time and place of an attack.”

Echoing statements made on Thursday by Condoleeza Rice, who told Richard Ben-Veniste that the August 6 PDB contained ”no new threat information,” Bush argued that “we would have acted . . . any administration would have acted” if he had received more definite information from American intelligence services.

“Take right now, for instance,” Bush remarked.  “We received very precise intelligence this past week that there was going to be some mighty fine fishing and biking to be done right here in Texas.  They mentioned a place, a time, and they even mentioned a nice four-pound bass that had my name on it.  Naturally, we acted right away.” The President then displayed the bass to murmurs of admiration from the White House press corps.  “We’d heard a lot of chatter in the system this past week,” the President continued, “and we moved on it.  There’s no way my administration is going to let a big one like this baby get away-- not when we have the information we need for an effective, rapid response.”

David Sirota has the real deal here.

Friday, April 09, 2004

A uniter, not a divider

It’s good to see Ralph Nader reaching out across partisan lines, championing the “defiant” agenda of the Texas Republican Party platform, and bonding with William Bennett over the Bush Administration’s lamentable reluctance to address the problem of how the media distribute pornography and subvert “family values” and “parental discipline.”

Take it away Ralph:

The first basic sign of a platform fissure between the conservative base and the big business Republicans came with the 2002 Texas state Republican Party platform which requires candidates to read every page and initial that it has been read. In an October 2, 2003 letter I asked President Bush whether he supports this platform. This defiant document announces over twenty domestic and foreign policies diametrically opposed to what the Bush Administration is doing or not doing. . . .

I once noted to William Bennett that ‘Big business is on a collision course with conservative principles.’ He agreed. Certainly he has demonstrated this point in his less than successful attempts to have his Party take on the giant media issue of corporate commercial violence and pornography especially directed to children with its subversion of family values, parental discipline and wholesome childhoods. What has Mr. Bush said about this worsening exploitation on our public airways, cable channels and videos? Do decent people even have a right of rebuttal on the same media?

The full text of Nader’s open letter to conservatives is reproduced here (click “more"), or you can go to the source, VoteNader.org.

Now let’s see if Ralph picks Joe Lieberman as his running mate!  That would be fun.  And Ralph could use the Joementum.

Thursday, April 08, 2004

Exodus-- movement of Jah people

For once I’m going to post without comment.  Besides, I’m told that my server’s capacity for satire has been exceeded (see preceding post).

U.S. Terrorism Policy Spawns Steady Staff Exodus

By Caroline Drees, Security Correspondent

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Since the Sept. 11 attacks, the Bush administration has faced a steady exodus of counterterrorism officials, many disappointed by a preoccupation with Iraq they said undermined the U.S. fight against terrorism.

Former counterterrorism officials said at least half a dozen have left the White House Office for Combating Terrorism or related agencies in frustration in the 2 1/2 years since the attacks.

Some also left because they felt President Bush had sidelined his counterterrorism experts and paid almost exclusive heed to the vice president, the defense secretary and other Cabinet members in planning the “war on terror,” former counterterrorism officials said.

“I’m kind of hoping for regime change,” one official who quit told Reuters.

The whole story is here.

American Airspace

As Putin rears his head and comes into the airspace of the United States of America, where-- where do they go?

Straight here. To this blog.

You are now in American Airspace.

Ginormous looming Putin head h/t.

About Michael Bérubé

I teach American literature and cultural studies at Penn State University. And I have been certified as dangerous by the David Horowitz Center for Freedom Fries and Apple Fritters.

I'm also on the National Council of the AAUP, and if you're a college professor or graduate student, you should join the AAUP. Just click on the handy logo:

_______

Pitching Stats

Best Education Blog, 2006 Wizbang Weblog Awards

2005 Koufax Award runner up / honorable mention for Best Series.

Second place, 2005 Wizbang Weblog Awards, Best of the Top 251-500 Blogs.

2004 Koufax Award honorable mention for Best Writing, Best New Blog, and Most Humorous Post.

_______

Rhetorical Occasions

What's Liberal?

Reviews / blog discussions:

November 2006 was Liberalpalooza Month®, brought to you by The Valve

Bitch. Ph.D., December 13

Joseph Kugelmass, November 28, and Valve cross-reference

Dave Maier, November 21, and Valve cross-reference

Adam Kotsko, November 11, and Valve cross-reference

Timothy Burke, November 9, and Valve cross-reference

Jodi Dean, November 8, and Valve cross-reference

Mark Bauerlein, November 3 (a generous cross-post of his New Criterion review)

Dr. Virago, November 2

Daniel Drezner, November 2 (and brief reply to Drezner by Eric Rauchway at TNR's "Open University")

John Holbo, November 1 (event announcement and kayfabe kickoff)

Ophelia Benson, Butterflies and Wheels, October 26

_______

Other Reviews / blog discussions:

Chris Potter, Pittsburgh City Paper, December 21

Glenn Altschuler, Philadelphia Inquirer, October 22

David Horowitz, FrontPage.com, October 20

Maximilian Pakaluk, National Review Online, October 19

Ezra Klein, Campus Progress, October 18

Jonathan Liu, New York Observer, October 9

Aaron Swartz, Raw Thought, October 4

Eric Rauchway, American Prospect Online, Sept 29

Aaron Barlow, ePluribus Media, Sept 16

Alan Wolfe, New York Times Book Review, Sept 10

Tyler Cowen, Marginal Revolution, Sept 7

Chris Clarke, Creek Running North, Aug 30

Amanda Marcotte, Pandagon, Aug 18

Interviews:

With Pittsburgh City Paper (Chris Potter), December 21

With The Talking Dog, November 27

With the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (Bill Schackner), November 26

Free Exchange on Campus, part one and part two

Podcast on Inside Higher Ed with Scott McLemee, together with McLemee's essay

Adaptations into other media

Brilliant and beautiful and profoundly moving graphic novel in .pdf format by Chris Clarke.

Visitors: 6824070

Blogroll

• Those That Belong to the Emperor

  (Academics)

  1. Acephalous
  2. Akma’s Random Thoughts
  3. Amardeep Singh
  4. Barblog
  5. Barely Tenured
  6. Big Monkey, Helpy Chalk
  7. Blogenspiel
  8. Chutry Experiment
  9. Cliopatria
  10. Cosmic Variance
  11. Crooked Timber
  12. Culture Cat
  13. Easily Distracted
  14. Edge of the American West
  15. Feminist Law Professors
  16. Ferule and Fescue
  17. I Cite
  18. Jonathan Goodwin
  19. John Quiggin
  20. Leiter Reports
  21. Liberty and Power
  22. Little Professor
  23. New Kid on the Hallway
  24. Objectivist v. Constructivist v. Theist
  25. pas au-dela
  26. Phronesisaical
  27. Planned Obsolescence
  28. Playing School, Irreverently
  29. PolySigh
  30. Posthegemony
  31. Print Culture
  32. Reassigned Time
  33. Ron Silliman
  34. Scott Rettberg
  35. Scribbling Woman 2
  36. Sherman Dorn
  37. Steven Shaviro
  38. The Valve
• Those Drawn with a Very Fine Camelhair Brush

  (Politics, Culture, That Kind of Thing)

  1. Afro-Netizen
  2. Agitprop
  3. Alas, A Blog
  4. All Facts and Opinions
  5. All Spin Zone
  6. American Street
  7. Amygdala
  8. Angry Bear
  9. Angry Black Bitch
  10. Back to Iraq 3.0
  11. BAGNews
  12. Belgravia Dispatch
  13. Black Commentator
  14. Blondesense
  15. Bob Harris
  16. Booman Tribune
  17. Brilliant at Breakfast
  18. Buridan’s Ass
  19. Corrente
  20. David Corn
  21. David Sirota
  22. Driftglass
  23. Ezra Klein
  24. Feministe
  25. Feministing
  26. First Draft
  27. Intel Dump
  28. Interesting Times
  29. King of Zembla
  30. Lauren (yes, that Lauren!)
  31. Lean Left
  32. Left Coaster
  33. Liberal Avenger
  34. Linkmeister
  35. Mad Melancholic Feminista
  36. Marc Cooper
  37. Mark A. R. Kleinman
  38. Martini Republic
  39. Matt Yglesias
  40. Media Matters
  41. Mitchell Freedman
  42. My Left Wing
  43. Nathan Newman
  44. Norwegianity
  45. Obsidian Wings
  46. Oliver Willis
  47. One Good Thing
  48. Orcinus
  49. Pam's House Blend
  50. Political Animal
  51. Seeing the Forest
  52. Suburban Guerrilla
• Those Included in the Present Classification

  (Snark and Raillery)

  1. Alicublog
  2. Bartcop
  3. By Neddie Jingo
  4. Dependable Renegade
  5. Doctor Biobrain
  6. Doghouse Riley
  7. Fafblog
  8. Heretik
  9. Jesus’ General
  10. Jon Swift
  11. Needlenose
  12. No More Mister Nice Blog
  13. Norbizness
  14. Opinions You Should Have
  15. Poor Man Institute
  16. Roger Ailes
  17. Rubber Hose
  18. Rude Pundit
  19. Sadly, No!
  20. Skippy the Bush Kangaroo
  21. TBogg
  22. Three Bulls
  23. World O’ Crap
• Those That From a Long Way Off Look Like Flies

  (But are Actually Huge Blogs with Billions of Readers)

  1. Altercation
  2. AmericaBlog
  3. Boing Boing
  4. BradBlog
  5. Brad DeLong
  6. Busy, Busy, Busy
  7. Center for American Progress
  8. Crooks and Liars
  9. Daily Howler
  10. Daily Kos
  11. Daou Report
  12. Democratic Strategist
  13. Eschaton
  14. Firedoglake
  15. Glenn Greenwald
  16. Huffington Post
  17. Hullabaloo
  18. Informed Comment
  19. Kevin Drum
  20. Liberal Oasis
  21. Mahablog
  22. MyDD
  23. Media Matters
  24. Pandagon
  25. Talking Points Memo
  26. Talk Left
  27. Tapped
  28. Think Progress
  29. This Modern World
  30. TomPaine
  31. Uggabugga
  32. Wonkette
• Fabulous Ones

  (Comrades and Unclassifiables)

  1. 11D
  2. Amitava Kumar
  3. Arse Poetica
  4. Autism Vox
  5. Avedon Carol
  6. Beautiful Horizons
  7. Bitch. Ph.D.
  8. Bookslut
  9. Bulworth
  10. Charlie Bertsch
  11. Coyote Crossing
  12. David E’s Fablog
  13. Dohiyi Mir
  14. Echidne of the Snakes
  15. Elayne Riggs
  16. Fact-Esque
  17. Frogs and Ravens
  18. GreeneSpace
  19. Heather Havrilesky
  20. HeatStrings
  21. I Blame the Patriarchy
  22. I’m Not One to Blog, But . . .
  23. John and Belle Have a Blog
  24. Kathryn Cramer
  25. Lance Mannion
  26. Lawyers, Guns and Money
  27. Mad Kane
  28. Majikthise
  29. Making Light
  30. Orange Tangerine
  31. Pacific Views
  32. Pharyngula
  33. Progressive Blog Digest
  34. Quod She
  35. Road to Surfdom
  36. Rox Populi
  37. Scott McLemee
  38. Sisyphus Shrugged
  39. Shakespeare’s Sister
  40. Steve Rubio
  41. Super Bon!
  42. SurfnPoetry
  43. Talking Dog
  44. The Weblog
  45. Unfogged
  46. uTopian TurtleTop
  47. Useless Tree
  48. Wampum
  49. What Do I Know?
  50. Wood s Lot
  51. Yeah, But Houdini

Search

Advanced Search

Monthly Archives

• December 2008
• November 2008
• October 2008
• September 2008
• January 2007
• December 2006
• November 2006
• October 2006
• September 2006
• August 2006
• July 2006
• June 2006
• May 2006
• April 2006
• March 2006
• February 2006
• January 2006
• December 2005
• November 2005
• October 2005
• September 2005
• August 2005
• July 2005
• June 2005
• May 2005
• April 2005
• March 2005
• February 2005
• January 2005
• December 2004
• November 2004
• October 2004
• September 2004
• August 2004
• July 2004
• June 2004
• May 2004
• April 2004
• March 2004
• February 2004
• January 2004
• January 1985
• Complete Archives
• Category Archives

Most recent entries

• More on Peter Singer and Jamie Bérubé
• Partying like it’s 1915
• If you’re goin’ to San Diego. . . .
• Because today seemed like a good day to have this argument again
• Senate Dems Vote to Punish Lieberman
• Security and Sudafed
• Postcard from Omaha
• The whole world’s only source
• On birth certificates and Bill Ayers
• MeTubes
• Democratic Concern Trolls Voice Concern About the Future of Democratic Concern Trolling
• Operations
• Open letter to Governor Palin’s supporters
• I will so take away your gusto
• Obama Appreciation Day

Syndicate

• RSS 2.0
• Atom

Site manager and web administrator: Kurt Nelson, Blusparx Consulting: kurt.nelson at gmail dot com.

All bloggy material copyright 2004-2008 by Michael Bérubé