Jonah G at The Corner reprints an email my father could have sent (if he sent email, that is):

Dear Jonah – When you say “trial lawyers,” I think you mean “plaintiffs’ attorneys.” Or more specifically, “contingent fee plaintiffs’ attorneys.” I’m a “trial lawyer,” but I hardly think you’d object to what I do all day long – defend corporate clients from malicious and baseless lawsuits filed by overzealous plaintiffs’ attorneys. So, when you say “trial lawyers,” be careful – you may be alienating an innocent sector of your NRO readership.

The phrase the Corner (and the GOP) is looking for is “ambulence chaser” (scum sucking pigdog isn’t specific enough).

Well, now we know that likening someone to Hitler isn’t name calling, it’s just “irreverent comedy and smart deconstruction of the foibles of the right.” I suppose that isn’t so shocking since its de rigeur to say you’re not a name caller right before calling someone a name. And I always thought that Hitler as a socialist was a leftist. Oh well, I’m hopelessly modern and still believe words have actual meanings.

What’s really shocking is finding out that Hitler was “highly entertaining and had emotion, highs, lows, passion.” No wonder he sent millions on one way train trips to the gas chambers. Glad to know it wasn’t because he was a crazed Jew-hater.

The good news is that after reading this blog, nobody will accuse me — boring, even-keeled intellectual dullard that I am — of being like Hitler.

I found this to be very funny. And despite my title, it does have an important point to make.

Since Missouri is both a battleground and bellwether state, the political ads have started. I’m getting more tired of the “I’m state your name, and I approved this ad” formula than anything else — yet. 

I’m not outraged by the Bush ads showing the devastation at World Trade Center following the terrorist attack there. I am outraged at the lying sacks of shaving cream who work for MoveOn.org and their fraudulent ad. Of course, the organization itself is a fraudulent organization (to borrow a meme from Kerry) as it came into being as a group of so-called political moderates to advocate that we just move on from President Clinton’s legal problems. Somehow these moderates have consistently acted as left wing partisans — all the while claiming to dislike partisanship.

I also get to see ads for the Democrats running for the Senate in Illinois – after Rod Blago… won the race for Governor and credited his St. Louis media buys that covered southern Illinois, the Democrats especially run a lot of ads here meant for Illinois. Blair Hull is like a friend these days who pops in constantly without warning. 

I’ve noticed that a lot of Democrats and some Republicans have difficulty with the difference between price and cost. Cost is what it takes to make or provide something. Price is what you are charged for the thing or service. Politicians are constantly telling me how they are going to lower the cost of something — typically healthcare, occasionally housing — when all they are going to do is lower the obvious price and do nothing for cost. Are they going to do anything about the government regulation and oversight that adds to the cost? Heck no. They’re going to have a single pay system dictate price. It’s enough to make you vote Libertarian.

Why is when a politician does something I don’t like but someone else does, that’s pandering to them, but when he does something I like but somebody else doesn’t, that’s standing up for principle despite opposition. Just curious.

Snopes (AKA Urban Legends Reference Pages) debunks a picture showing John Kerry and Jane Fonda at the same podium at an anti-war rally. OK, there are a couple of things wrong with this picture. First, it’s a fake. I’m not one of those who believe that lying in the service of Truth is possible, let alone desirable. (For the record, I’m OK with lying in the service of humor).

But an even bigger issue is what it says about its target audience. The target happens to be on the right of the political spectrum, but I think the left and the center suffer from the same problems, so I think it speaks to political discourse in this country (probably others, but I think I’ve generalized enough from one lousy photo as it is). OK, here’s my problem. We know that John Kerry was against the Vietnam war: he joined the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, he spoke at anti-war rallies, he testified before Congress against the war, and he heaved medals onto the Capitol grounds as a gesture of protest against the war. These are all well documented facts. Agree or disagree with his then views, they were what they were. So how does being behind the same podium as Jane Fonda change anything? Well, she’s a symbol. Jane bad. Therefore, John bad because next to Jane. Can such simple symbolism truly be effective? No one’s gone broke underestimating the public, or so I’m told.

While I can’t believe in such simplicity of thought, I’m faced with it’s reality. The doctored picture made the internet rounds, so somebody thought it truly meant something. I’ve read posts and comments at partisan political sites that were equally sophisticated and seen how often there is no discussion but simple shouting of slogans past one another. I remember a blogger when faced with the utter collapse of his claim against a particular politician responded that it didn’t matter, the person could have done exactly what was claimed and therefore was just as guilty. Don’t confuse me with the facts, my mind is already made up. I suppose it’s much easier that way – no need to think, simply reiterate the same tired symbology.

And I’m also confronted with my own shortcomings – am I just of guilty of twisting the facts to suit my own prejudices, am I swayed by such symbolism? Am I not human?

This is why it takes a jolt to change people’s thinking. 9-11 was just such a jolt for some people, although not enough of a jolt for many others – which makes you wonder just exactly does it take to convince people they are wrong. I know that my thinking has changed on many a subject – I was filled with theory as a young man, and many did not survive first contact with reality. I’m convinced that had I stayed in the bubble of Academia, many of those theories would be blissfully intact.