Chad Strawderman's "The Deep End" 13

Doug Suttles vs. Dennis Miller

"I want Barack Obama to roll the eggs out on the lawn at Easter. I want him to save the bird's neck at Thanksgiving. I want him to light the tree at Christmas and fund the military.  And the rest of it—I just don't trust the government. I'm not paranoid. I'm not a militia guy. I just don't think they know what they're doing." —former comedian Dennis Miller

British oil giant BP confirmed Thursday that up to 5,000 barrels of oil a day are spilling from the site of the deadly oil rig explosion the occurred earlier this month in the gulf. Doug Suttles, the oil company's chief operating officer, told NBC's Today show that oil is bubbling up from the ocean bottom at a rate of 1,000 to 5,000 barrels a day. He said the company would welcome help from the U.S. Defense Department and other agencies in containing the slick. "We'll take help from anyone," Suttles said. —NPR

Chad Strawderman's "The Deep End" 12

Chad Strawderman's "The Deep End" 11

The Fine Art of Bullshitting 3

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell hinted on Sunday that Republicans would campaign for office in the months ahead on a pledge to undo health care legislation, should it become law. . . . "Certainly politically, it is a big problem for [Democrats]. They all kind of joined hands and went off a cliff together," McConnell told ABC's "This Week," when asked whether the GOP would push for a health care reform repeal. "There is great unrest in the Democratic Party. And the reason for that it is, the surveys indicate the American people are overwhelmingly opposed to this effort to have the government take over their health care."—Sam Stein, Huffington Post (emphases mine)

"Two-thirds of Americans support stricter federal regulation of banks and other financial institutions, and by a double-digit margin the public trusts President Obama above the Republicans in Congress to handle the issue – a caution flag for the GOP in an election year." —ABC News / Washington Post poll (emphasis mine)

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell sought to rally his senators, arguing that a vote to delay debate was not a vote against regulation but for a bipartisan bill. "All of us want to deliver a reform that will tighten the screws on Wall Street," McConnell said. "But we're not going to be rushed on another massive bill based on the assurances of our friends on the other side."—Huffington Post (emphasis mine)

Chad Strawderman's "The Deep End" 10

Even assholes can start triple plays

As reported by the Yahoo! sports blog, the Yankees' Alex Rodriguez had a bit of a disagreement with Dallas Braden of the Oakland A's yesterday.

According to 'Duk,

In the sixth inning of the A's 4-2 victory, Rodriguez went from first to third on a foul ball by Robinson Cano. His trip back to first took him right over the pitcher's mound, an unspoken no-no that ticked Braden off right away.... After a double play ended the inning, the 26-year-old pitcher immediately started yelling at A-Rod ... who claimed he didn't know he had done anything wrong.

After the incident, Braden said, "I don't care if I'm Cy Young or the 25th man on the roster, if I've got the ball in my hand and I'm on that mound, that's my mound ... He ran across the pitcher's mound foot on my rubber. No, not happening. We're not the door mat anymore."

A-Roid saw things a bit differently.  He said, "He just told me to get off his mound. I was a little surprised. I'd never quite heard that. Especially from a guy that has a handful of wins in his career ... I thought it was pretty funny actually."

This is yet another reason to hate the Yankees. Neither teams nor players can exempt themselves from the rules, written or unwritten.

But this is what really disgusts me. By bringing up Braden's career win total, A-Roid is trying to pull rank on Braden. Since A-Roid simply couldn't contain himself during that recent "loosey-goosey" era, his own stats are meaningless. So here's A-Roid, acting as if he has special privileges because of his stats, when in fact Braden's stats mean more A-Roid's.

Hey, A-Roid, you're an arrogant prick. Even assholes can start triple plays.  Your ticket to the Hall of Fame has been cancelled. Enjoy the ride while it lasts, and then go away. The sooner, the better.

Source of word vomit stream identified as RedState's hysterical Ziganto

The pace at which RedState's Lori Ziganto churns out her hysterical, dimwitted screeds is impressive.  I simply don't have the time to respond to all of them since I work well over 40 hours a week.  And that doesn't include the work I do around the house.

Anyway, according to Ziganto, Obama expressed disapproval of the United States' superpower status in remarks he made at the recent nuclear security summit.  Ziganto writes,

Yesterday at his nuclear conference, Obama said the following:

“Whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower.”

Whether we like it or not. That’s like what Mommies say when telling you to eat your yucky vegetables. Would he prefer that we be vulnerable and weak? Heck of an American Can-Do attitude, Barry!  

("Barry," by the way, is birtherspeak.  While outing herself as a birther might play well with her readers, it makes her look unhinged to the rest of us.)  The title of her little essay is, "Obama and His Administration Lament America’s Superpower Status."

One finds more predictable conservative shrieking about Obama in her little essay.  Ziganto writes, "Obama does not believe in American Exceptionalism and he is actively pursuing its decline."  Ziganto also writes:

Obama’s entire career path was predicated on the belief that America is icky and needs “fixed.” That America needs to be more like Europe. He goes on apology tours grousing about all our delusionally perceived wrongs, for goodness sake. He can’t even bring himself to ever praise America. 

And she goes on to ally herself with Liz Cheney.  According to Ziganto, she and Cheney live up to the creed, "Walk softly, but carry a big lipstick."  (Say what?  If I disagree with them, will they sneak up on me and give me a makeover?)  That kind of tells you everything you need to know.

Anyway, I wonder why the quotation that sparked Ziganto's touch of word vomit was so short?  Gee, I wonder what the context was? Let's take a look!

I remain committed to being a partner with countries around the world, and in particular hot spots around the world, to see if we can reduce those tensions and ultimately resolve those conflicts.  And the Middle East would be a prime example.  I think that the need for peace between Israelis and Palestinians and the Arab states remains as critical as ever. 

It is a very hard thing to do.  And I know that even if we are applying all of our political capital to that issue, the Israeli people through their government, and the Palestinian people through the Palestinian Authority, as well as other Arab states, may say to themselves, we are not prepared to resolve this -- these issues -- no matter how much pressure the United States brings to bear. 

And the truth is, in some of these conflicts the United States can’t impose solutions unless the participants in these conflicts are willing to break out of old patterns of antagonism. I think it was former Secretary of State Jim Baker who said, in the context of Middle East peace, we can’t want it more than they do. 

But what we can make sure of is, is that we are constantly present, constantly engaged, and setting out very clearly to both sides our belief that not only is it in the interests of each party to resolve these conflicts but it’s also in the interest of the United States.  It is a vital national security interest of the United States to reduce these conflicts because whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower, and when conflicts break out, one way or another we get pulled into them.  And that ends up costing us significantly in terms of both blood and treasure.

So I’m going to keep on at it.  But I think on all these issues -- nuclear disarmament, nuclear proliferation, Middle East peace -- progress is going to be measured not in days, not in weeks.  It’s going to take time.  And progress will be halting.  And sometimes we’ll take one step forward and two steps back, and there will be frustrations.  And so it’s not going to run on the typical cable news 24/7 news cycle.  But if we’re persistent, and we’ve got the right approach, then over time, I think that we can make progress.

(Emphasis mine.)  Obviously, Obama is acknowledging our superpower status and what he takes to be its attendant responsibilities.  He is also saying that, all else being equal, it is better in the long run that we lead other nations in striving for peace rather than engage them in war.

Only in the mind of an hysterical conservative blogger is acknowledging the costs of war a condemnation of military strength.

Ziganto, you're a f*cking idiot.  There, I said it.

Incidentally, Lori, how do you square your claim that Obama is pursuing the decline of American exceptionalism with Obama's assertion in the very same speech you quote that "because of the steps we’ve taken [at the summit], the American people will be safer"?

I find it funny that Ziganto, who likely supports the Republican Party, claims that Obama is anti-American when it is the Party of No that is so intent on having us mired in a no-can-do malaise—for political purposes, of course.

How can Ziganto, with her overworked, sputtering brain, square what she says in her hysterical little essay with Obama's assertion that "I stand here today as hopeful as ever that the United States of America will endure, that it will prevail; that the dream of our founders will live on in our time"? Or Obama's declaration that "To ensure prosperity here at home and peace abroad, we all share the belief we have to maintain the strongest military on the planet"? Or Obama's message that

in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope. For when we have faced down impossible odds; when we've been told that we're not ready, or that we shouldn't try, or that we can't, generations of Americans have responded with a simple creed that sums up the spirit of a people. Yes we can.  

Or Obama's statement at the 2004 Democratic National Convention that

Tonight, we gather to affirm the greatness of our nation not because of the height of our skyscrapers, or the power of our military, or the size of our economy; our pride is based on a very simple premise, summed up in a declaration made over two hundred years ago: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  That is the true genius of America. 

Ziganto, take your snark and boobs and find something that you're actually qualified to do—fast food, say.

A New day on Earth

Watch Jon Stewart ridicule Fox "News" for seriously considering the suggestion that the Nuclear Security Summit logo is actually an "Islamic image," or as Stewart puts it, a "coded message to the Muslim world." John Oliver makes a cameo.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
A Farewell to Arms
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

The design of the logo actually reminded me of this kind of image:

This is a picture of "the Sun emerging from behind the Earth" as seen from Apollo 12 in 1969. "From this distant perspective, part of the solar disk peers over the Earth's limb, its direct light producing the jewel-like glint, while sunlight scattered by the atmosphere creates the thin bright crescent."

What the image reminded me of is the sun rising on a new day on Earth. I like that better than the actual inspiration for the logo, which is the Bohr model of the hydrogen atom with which we are all familiar.

Beavis and Butthead freed from the fackles

 Sean Hannity (left) discusses new nuclear arms control policy with Newt Gingrich

As anyone who has been reading this blog for a while knows, I have a Sisyphean compulsion to combat false and misleading right-wing propaganda. If only I could cut through the bullshit as well as The Daily Show's Jon Stewart. The following video shows us just how unscrupulous the propagandists can be and just how well Stewart demolishes them. 

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
The Big Bang Treaty
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

Chad Strawderman's "The Deep End" 9

Three Questions

I just heard Michael Savage devote a segment to the following question:

If the Russians are our friends, then why did Obama sign a treaty to reduce the size of our nuclear force?  

He seemed to be thinking that such treaties are signed only at the end of hostilities, and we are obviously not at war with Russia.  

I would answer with another question:

If the Russians are our friends, then of what use is a large nuclear force? 

According to the Associated Press, "If ratified by the Senate and by Russia's legislature, the reductions still would leave both countries, by far the world's largest nuclear powers, with immense arsenals – and the ability to easily annihilate each other."

I guess it's pretty clear now that the purpose of Michael Savage and others like him is not to provide anyone with any useful information.  And if there is any question in your mind about this, then take it from Glenn Beck, who claims to be in the entertainment business.  So I guess that only one question remains:

How could anyone find that shit entertaining? 

Chad Strawderman's "The Deep End" 8

RedState's bk suffers injury in attempt to use logic

When one oversimplifies issues and refuses to make important distinctions, one will find double standards where none exist.

Such is the case with RedState blogger bk.

In "Abortion vs death penalty double standard," bk accuses "'true' liberals" of (1) working to minimize the suffering of criminals who are being executed but (2) not working to minimize the suffering of sentient fetuses that are being aborted.

I suppose that bk would respond to my criticism of his post below by asserting that I am a false liberal (whatever that is).  Anyway, here it is.

bk cites this New York Times story as evidence that liberals don't want criminals being executed to feel pain.  The story concerns the death penalty case Baze v. Rees, in which "a United States District Court judge in Tennessee ruled that the state had, in fact, violated the Eighth Amendment by disregarding the 'substantial risk' that the three-drug cocktail [used in lethal injection] would cause 'unnecessary pain.'"

Notice that the motivation isn't compassion for the condemned: it is concern about the constitutionality of the punishment.  The Eighth Amendment prohibits "cruel and unusual punishment."  bk can't simply ignore the Constitution, even if it would give him great satisfaction to know that criminals feel pain when they are executed.

Anyway, bk asserts that liberals are opposed to a bill being considered in Nebraska that "would make all abortions after the 20th week illegal because of the suffering of the baby vs the current law there that looks at viability on a case by case basis." (Notice his use of the word "baby" to refer to the fetus—a vile technique used by pro-lifers to convert others to their cause by non-rational means.) According to bk,

The same sort of liberals who didn’t want criminals to allegedly suffer for a moment just before death are absolutely outraged at this idea. They are worried because with the Roberts court having already okayed partial birth abortion bans in Gonzales v. Carhart that they might allow another “pillar” of Roe v. Wade to be chopped down by setting a fixed limit – a “bright line” – on viability.  

Allow me to explain, bk.

I am liberal.

I am pro-choice.  I believe that abortion should be legal, safe, and (most importantly) rare.  I don't believe that abortion should be available without restriction, as bk claims.  For example, I am against partial birth abortion unless continuation of a pregnancy threatens the life or health of a woman.  Aborting a viable fetus is equivalent to infanticide in my view.  Why am I pro-choice?  I believe that abortion is a serious moral issue.  The decision to terminate fetal life ought not to be made lightly.  But human beings have a right to control their own bodies.  (Indeed, if we don't have that, what's left to have?)  No government or church has a right to dictate to a woman what her reproductive choices will be.  Many pro-lifers forget that women have rights if fetuses have rights; to them, it is as if women are mere livestock.  But no right is absolute.  It is true that some fetuses are sentient, and fetal sentience is a moral problem for pro-choicers.  But fetal sentience is not the only moral consideration.

I am opposed to the death penalty.  I believe that criminal punishment is justified by its deterrent effect.  There is no scientific proof that the deterrent effect of the death penalty is superior to that of all other alternative punishments, such as life in prison without parole.  And life in prison without parole is a severe punishment.  Common sense arguments that the death penalty is a superior deterrent are no better than common sense arguments that abolition of the death penalty would deter murders.  So the death penalty is overkill: for all we know, we can deter all murders that can be deterred without it, so the death penalty is unnecessary.  And I haven't even mentioned the issue of executing innocent people, an issue that a conservative ought to be concerned about if their support of the death penalty is justified by something other than a lust for blood.  If it could be shown that the death penalty were a superior deterrent, then we would be justified in using it, even if it caused those who received it to suffer.

We ought to minimize unnecessary suffering in this world, be it experienced by the innocent or guilty, human being or sentient non-human animal.  But this is only one of our moral duties.  There are others, bk.  So I reject your rudimentary argument that liberals accept a double standard here. 

Notice that I could formulate an equally sloppy argument to show that "true conservatives" accept a number of double standards: they have concern for the suffering of fetuses, for example, but not for the suffering of infants, especially if they have preexisting conditions or their parents are impoverished.  Of course, there are actual examples of plenty of conservative politicians holding plainly contradictory positions, but we needn't go into that here.  

It is posts like bk's that engender the belief that conservative bloggers can win debates only by oversimplifying the issues, refusing to recognize important distinctions, and attributing strawmen to their opponents who they reduce to mere caricatures.  Conservatives, those debating strategies make you look like morons.  I know a lot of you think that many liberals are mindless idiots, and I suppose that some of them are.  But many of us are actually pretty smart—smart enough to see bk's post for what it is: an attempt to propagandize a readership whose intellectual defenses are down.

Chad Strawderman's "The Deep End" 7

Chad Strawderman's "The Deep End" 6

Chad Strawderman's "The Deep End" 5

RedState's whopping adolescent non sequitur

You have no doubt heard about the threats and vandalism surrounding the vote on health care reform in the House March 21.  Talking Points memo prepared a catalog of the mayhem for your perusal should your memory need refreshing. 

RedState's approach to this phenomenon has been one whopping adolescent non sequitur. 

I know I'm a bit late with this, but I am lucky enough to be employed full time.  I do what I can.

Erick Erickson's general approach has been to avoid his own party's complicity and blame Democrats for the whole thing. This isn't surprising, as I have said before, given the Republican Party's refusal to take responsibility for anything. He and Moe Lane love to point out that Republicans are also targets of threats and vandalism. According to Erickson:

The threats, potential acts of violence, and violence against those who voted for the health care legislation must be condemned. . . . I have heard the audio of some of the threats. I get worse stuff routinely. Rush Limbaugh gets worse stuff on a daily basis. Republican members of Congress have gotten similar and worse stuff. Thank God this wasn’t a free trade vote or a variety of left wing groups would have half the country in flames right now.

Erickson says that Democrats shouldn’t be surprised and that they were playing with fire by passing the health care reform bill.  In another post, Erickson writes, "We’re not the ones stirring the pot of socialism taking over the private sector. The Democrats are. We’ve just been pointing out the facts that . . . the Democrats find so inconvenient including, yes, the so called 'death panels.'" According to Erickson, "[H]ad the Democrats not done what they did none of this would be happening. . . . Oh, and let’s not forget Alan Grayson on the floor of the House saying the GOP wants people to die." (Erickson, of course, conveniently neglects to mention Republicans warning Americans that they would die if health care reform were passed.)  In that post, he repeats the claim that Democratic supporters are also guilty of violence. "[I]f we go back to the August townhalls," writes Erickson, "7 out of 10 violent acts were by Democrat supporters. And now? Police say the bullet that hit Eric Cantor’s office was most likely random, but it is not definitive. What about the threats his office has gotten in the past week? What about the threats Congresswoman Schmidt received or the other Republicans?"

Moe Lane's glee in pointing out violent behavior among Democratic supporters is apparent. In the post "DNC successful: Ablemarle County GOP HQ attacked," Lane quotes a report that "someone threw bricks through the headquarter’s [sic] windows, breaking three of them." He writes, "If I were the Albemarle County GOP, I’d send the bill for the windows to the Democratic National Committee. After all, they adamantly refused to take responsibility for their own rhetoric, so it only seems fair that they at least pay out some monetary compensation for their demagoguery." Lane also reports, "[T]he United States Attorney in Philadelphia filed 'a two-count complaint and warrant . . . charging Norman Leboon with threatening to kill United States Congressman Eric Cantor and his family.'" You can probably guess what Lane's response is to uproar over Sarah Palin's "reload map." He directs us to a Verum Serum post blaming Democrats for the same fundraising tactics, i.e., using maps and language that "are, if anything, more militant than what Palin used in her Facebook posting."

To summarize, RedState's response to the vandalism and threats by Republican supporters and their incitement by Republican leaders is as follows:

1. Democratic supporters are guilty of vandalism and threats; 
2. Democratic leaders are guilty of inciting those acts. 
3. Democrats were asking for it.  

Now, what is wrong with this response?  Well, when one summarizes it as I have, the fog lifts and its problems come into view.  Let's just grant the truth of (1).  It wouldn't surprise me if some Democratic supporters resort to criminal acts.  And if (1) is true, then (2) probably has a kernel of truth in it.  Whether we hold a person A responsible for the actions of another person B, however, we have to ask: what did A do to incite B to act?  The more inflammatory A's behavior or language, the more responsible A is for inciting B.  And though I don't have the time now to do this research for you, there is no question that the behavior and language on the right has been far more inflammatory than behavior and language on the left.  One would have to be uninformed or in the grip of a partisan fantasy to claim otherwise.  The right has all of the "responsibility-free talkers on television and radio" as David Frum puts it.  The left has MSNBC, but their rhetoric simply doesn't compare to that of, say, Michael Savage.  While RedState is quick to blame Democratic leaders for inciting their supporters to criminal behavior, however, they say absolutely nothing about the culpability of Republican leaders for inciting the same behavior. 

But the more important question is this.  Let's suppose that (1) and (2) are both true.  What possible relevance does that have to this issue?  In the end, the correct answer is, I believe, "None."  The issues are these: Republican supporters have been threatening Democratic lawmakers and committing vandalism, and Republicans are responsible for inciting some of their behavior.  Erickson addresses the first issue by saying the behavior must be condemned.  But he does so in passing; he clearly seems interested in other matters.  By accusing Democratic leaders and supporters of doing the same things, they aren't really addressing the issue at all; they are shifting their (and our) attention to something else that only seems to be related simply because it is on the same topic, i.e., threats and vandalism. 

Why has RedState chosen to respond to the threats and vandalism in the way that they have?  Let's survey some possibilities.

1. Erickson and Lane are saying that the behavior of Republican leaders and supporters is permissible since Democratic leaders and supporters are guilty of the same behavior.  Everyone is familiar with this method, employed by children, of justifying objectionable behavior.  And anyone familiar with logic knows that this maneuver is a fallacy.  One cannot justify the behavior on the right merely by claiming that some people on the left engage in the same behavior.  Erickson asserts repeatedly that we ought not condone the threats and vandalism, however, and I would like to be charitable and take him at his word.  But if I do, then it would seem to follow that Erickson himself does not recognize the irrelevance of his own comments on this issue.  Therefore, either Erickson is resorting to the child's method of self-defense, or he is unaware of a basic point in rudimentary critical thinking texts. 
2. Erickson and Lane are saying that all such behavior is wrong, and consistency demands that anyone who condemns such behavior among Republican leaders and supporters condemn the same behavior among Democratic leaders and supporters.  Perhaps they are criticizing the media for failing to cover and condemn criminal acts by Democrats.  Anyone who has read RedState enough knows that their bloggers buy into the myth of the liberal media.  On the other hand, it is probably true that most of the behavior in question has been perpetrated by Republican leaders and supporters, so naturally it will receive the lion's share of the coverage.  But even if we interpret them as having this motivation, it is clear that they are attempting to divert attention away from the issues at hand and toward alleged objectionable behavior among Democrats.  
3. Erickson and Lane are worried that the threats and vandalism reflect badly on conservatives, so they are concerned with pointing out that liberals also engage in the same behavior in order to reestablish parity.  Sorry, RedState, but this isn't going to work.  There's a reason that stereotypical Republicans are portrayed as an intolerant, prejudiced, fearful, anti-intellectual, gun-toting regular folk having compassion only for corporations: because there is some truth in that stereotype, and Republicans have been nurturing that stereotype for decades by appealing to just that sort of person for support.  And for that reason, attempting to graft a similar stereotype onto liberals comes off as a bit desperate and absurd.  Of course, stereotypes can only be generally true, if they are true at all.  There are plenty of Republicans who do not fit the stereotype: I know a few.  But even if we suppose that this maneuver does work, how is it relevant to the matter at hand?  It is not. Again, they are diverting your attention away from the issues at hand and toward alleged objectionable behavior among Democrats. 

Finally, let us consider (3): Democrats were asking for it.  This is not the first time I have dealt with this kind of argument from the right.  Even The Onion has dealt with it.  If the threats and vandalism ought to be condemned as Erickson claims, then why claim that Democrats were asking for it?  If the behavior in question is wrong, then it doesn't matter what the Democrats were asking for.  The behavior ought to be condemned, and that's that.  All kinds of reprehensible behavior can be excused in this manner: had he not been so annoying, he wouldn't have been assaulted; had she not dressed so provocatively, she wouldn't have been raped, and so on.  It makes it sound as if the victim is to blame: he shouldn't have been so annoying; she shouldn't have been so attractive, and so on.  But is it true that the Democrats ought not to have passed health care reform?  They were lawfully elected and lawfully passed the legislation.  Democrats did nothing wrong.

So we see that RedState's response to the threats and vandalism is a non sequitur: it is completely irrelevant to the issues at hand. But RedState isn't interested in sound thinking.  The fallacies they commit are convincing, especially to a readership that has been groomed to accept them.  For them, if Democrats enact legislation to which they are opposed, and Democratic supporters engage in criminal behavior, perhaps incited by a handful of Democratic leaders and pundits, then there is nothing wrong with spitting on congressmen, referring to congressmen with the n-word, threatening congressmen, and damaging private property.  They were asking for it, after all.  And this comes from the family values, law and order party.  Republicans truly have lost their souls.

The New Pornographers, "Sing Me Spanish Techno"

My favorite albums of 2000–2009 (so far)

2000

P J Harvey, Stories from the City, Stories from the Sea 

Radiohead, Kid A

XTC, Wasp Star [Apple Venus Volume 2]

2001

Electric Light Orchestra, Zoom

Ben Folds, Rockin’ the Suburbs

Muse, Origin of Symmetry

The Strokes, Is This It 

Yes, Magnification

2002

30 Seconds to Mars, 30 Seconds to Mars

Coldplay, A Rush of Blood to the Head

Interpol, Turn on the Bright Lights 

2003

David Bowie, Reality

Death Cab for Cutie, Transatlanticism

King Crimson, The Power to Believe

Muse, Absolution

The New Pornographers, Electric Version

2004

Arcade Fire, Funeral

The Killers, Hot Fuss

Pinback, Summer in Abaddon

Tears for Fears, Everybody Loves a Happy Ending

31Knots, Talk Like Blood

2005

The Evpatoria Report, Golevka

Mew, "And the Glass Handed Kites"

The New Pornographers, Twin Cinema

Sigur Ros, Takk . . .

System of a Down, Hypnotize

System of a Down, Mezmerize

2006

Clawjob, Space Crackers

Muse, Black Holes and Revelations

2007

Angels & Airwaves, I-Empire

Beardfish, Sleeping in Traffic: Part One

Blonde Redhead, 23

 The Fall of Troy, Manipulator

Interpol, Our Love to Admire

The Mandible, (Here Come the) Mandible

The National, Boxer

Pinback, Autumn of the Seraphs

Porcupine Tree, Fear of a Blank Planet

2008

Beardfish, Sleeping In Traffic: Part Two

Coldplay, Viva La Vida or Death and All His Friends

Elbow, The Seldom Seen Kid

Glasvegas, Glasvegas

MGMT, Oracular Spectacular

Parts & Labor, Receivers

Sigur Ros, Med Sud I Eyrum Vid Spilum Endalaust

The Weepies, Hideaway

2009

The Decemberists, The Hazards of Love 

IQ, Frequency

Metric, Fantasies

Mew, No More Stories Are Told Today I'm Sorry They Washed Away No More Stories The World Is Grey I'm Tired Let's Wash Away

 
Polvo, In Prism

Silversun Pickups, Swoon

Steven Wilson, Insurgentes