Saturday, December 30, 2006
The question is, who has to die next to satisfy their itch?
UPDATE: I guess I'm not the only person with this take on things. Funny, if sad.
Monday, December 18, 2006
Far from being a "fine mom," Mary Cheney is behaving on the level of an animal being bred for its offspring, so she and her partner in delusion can selfishly continue playing "pretend family."A Freeper's head explodes when George W. Bush says Mary Cheney will be a "fine mom." Instead, clearly, she's closer to an animal that can still play "pretend family." Sort of like a mentally-ill horse with a Play-Doh set.
Well, she's outdone even herself this time.
Mind you, she's still interesting to read, because a wacky opinion or two does manage to sneak in now and again. Like her enthusiastic support for the torture at Abu Ghraib. Or how she said she was absolutely sure there was no intelligent life on other planets, because only Earth is mentioned in the Bible. I hate to break it to you, La Shawn, but God doesn't mention microwave ovens or the Nintendo Wii in the Bible either - does that mean they don't exist?
Wait - I take it back about the Nintendo Wii. I'm beginning to think its existence is just a cruel joke, probably by some godless heathens. When will they learn?
Happy Winter Solstice, everyone.
Thursday, December 14, 2006
Draw your own conclusions.
Bonus video: Ray Comfort enjoys a banana.
(Thanks to Lisa, who I hope will write her own weblog one day.)
Friday, December 08, 2006
The selfishness in this is demanding to experience motherhood and having a child, just because she can. there are plenty of children worthy of adoption that she could raise and devote her life to. just because one is capable of bearing a child doesn't mean one SHOULD, and especially if the lifestyle she has chosen doesn't encompass bearing a child as a consequence thereof. yes, it is extremely selfish of her.OK. So you're in favor of gay people adopting?
As far as I know, both Cheney and her husband/wife/roommate/partner/whatever are working women. So unless one of them is planning on giving up their career, this child will be raised, in effect, without either a true mother or father. But of course, children of the "elite" have always been abandoned by their parents and raised by nannies. That's why so many of them are so incredibly screwed up to begin with.Hmm. So the real problem is that Mary Cheney is rich, is that right? When will you right-wingers stop hating the rich?
It looks like FReepers are now going pro-gay. Or is it just selectively pro-gay because it's Dick Cheyney's daughter? 'It's ok when this person does it, but no one else can.' Despicable. No wonder conservatives are losing. We can't even be consistent in our message.Yes - you need to be more consistently anti-gay. Good luck with that!
As a matter of fact, a lesbian couple that I know had a baby through artificial insemination and then when the child was ready to enter school, the mother realized that she didn't want to be a lesbian anymore because it would make life too difficult for the child. She's now married to a man.Whew! Glad everything worked out.
Wait, I'm confused. Mary Cheney wants us all to skip underwear and ride in limos?
But when you consider that Mary Cheny has an agenda. One that includes gay marriages, gays adopting children, special rights for gays, then on to abortion rights, abandoning the WOD, Cutting and Running, and even going panty-less in limo's...Well the point is that Mary Cheney's baby DOES affect us all.
The fact that Cheney had a lesbian daughter to begin with should have disqualified him from being on a conservative Republican ticket. Its not like he just found out in 2001. The idiots in charge of Bush's campaign are to blame for this even coming up.If only. If only.
"They formed a study group. That's great - but the test was three years ago."
-Jon Stewart, last night on The Daily Show
"In all my time in Washington I've never seen such smugness, arrogance, or such insufferable moral superiority. Self-congratulatory. Full of itself. Horrible."Memo to Bill Bennett: Look in the mirror, dude.
-Gambling addict and moral scold Bill Bennett, on National Review Online's "The Corner" weblog
Thursday, December 07, 2006
Then, Rumsfeld is out.
Then, John Bolton is gone from the U.N.
Then, Secretary of Defense nominee Robert Gates says we are not winning in Iraq.
And now, Mary Cheney is pregnant.
When did we enter this beautiful alternate universe? I never want to leave.
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
"As much as I love the president and what he stands for, this "saving face" stubbornness is really not representative of conservative values. He must own up, change the tune, and come up with a new plan. It's a civil war, and it's all because we tried to give them democracy too quickly. A pro-USA dictator would have done the job and kept them from fighting."
-FreeRepublic commenter aristotleman, on Bush's inability to say the phrase "civil war" when talking about Iraq
Saturday, November 18, 2006
Monday, November 13, 2006
These days I've been struck by how the crapweasels refer to it as the "Democrat Party" instead of the "Democratic Party." Is this because "democratic" is too positive a word? Is it because the word "democrat" ends in "rat"? I honestly don't know. But even the New York Times Manual of Style and Usage has noticed:
Democrat (n.), Democratic (adj.), for the party and its members. Do not use Democrat as a modifier (the Democrat Party), that construction is used by opponents to disparage the party.Now that the right-wingers don't control every aspect of American society, expect this sort of crap to ramp up, along with fake outrage at everything even remotely liberal. Remember when Bill Clinton's haircut was a giant scandal? Multiply that by 1,000, and you might get close to how it's going to be for the next two years.
Be careful what you wish for, as they say - you might just get it.
Saturday, November 04, 2006
Thanks, Dean. Love you too, man. I've wanted to compare you to one of the creatures from "The Island of Dr. Moreau" for a long time, but I've managed to hold off.
For reasons that are too embarrassing to recount here, I was going over my archives at my old site, and came upon this sample text for wimpy Democrats to use back in late 2003 when talking about marriage rights for gay people. Well now it's election time again, and I think I hit the nail on the head back then.
I think what's important here is to understand the difference between civil and religious marriage. Religious marriage is a sacrament, and I don't believe the government has any business telling any religion who they can and cannot marry. But civil marriage is a legal contract that's enforced by the state, and that confers rights on the citizens that enter into that contract. I believe Americans are a fundamentally fair people. And this is about fairness - allowing people who want to enter into committed relationships, relationships that strengthen the society, to get the rights conferred by civil marriage.See? That wasn't so difficult, now was it?
There's a lot of talk about civil unions these days - trying to create a system alongside civil marriage that would involve the same rights. But why create a new system, a new bureaucracy, to try to simulate something already in place? Is that fair? I don't think it is. "Separate but equal" didn't work in the civil rights era, and it doesn't work here. I know there are a lot of Americans who are uncomfortable with homosexuality. But that unease shouldn't be enough reason to deny basic rights to citizens of the United States of America.
Sunday, October 29, 2006
Thursday, October 26, 2006
Friday, October 20, 2006
“Homosexuality is wrong and the root of all evil and homosexual marriage will be the downfall of Western Society so we must amend the Constitution to ban it and we will use homosexuals as campaign props every two years, but oh, by the way, we hate the sin and not the sinner, and even then the sin doesn’t bother us that much as long as you stay in the closet and do whatever you want as long as we don’ know about it and we are fine with that but recognize we will still call you out in public as evil and scream about gay adoptions so we can get elected but if any of us are gay we should be allowed to keep that private and oh, by the way, you are not normal because the bible says so.”Yup. That's about right.
Unfortunately, when I hear "Christians" like those on FreeRepublic talk about the evils of homosexuality, I can't help thinking of Kissing Hank's Ass.
Thursday, October 19, 2006
If we are forced to abandon this democracy project, the failure isn't ours -- it's the Iraqi's, especially the Sunnis and Shiites. To some extent, it's also Europe's fault (including the UK's) by forcing together people who clearly don't belong in the same country.
The Iraqi country Sunnis are Deliverance cretins times 5.
The Democrats and what passes today as the establishment U.S. news media have gone to great lengths to sabotage our efforts in Iraq, blunt the domestic war on terrorism and encourage every anti-American faction in the world. This has been done partly for partisan politics and partly in behalf of a delusional ideology that believes lice-infested savages and psychopathic dictators will respond to reason.
Modern Christians are civilized. We are trying to coax these people into the family of civilized man. If we were old school Christians they're men and boys would be dead and their women undergoing a seed change. As they would like very much to do to us if they could.
It may have worked better if the Dims/Pinkos/MSM/Jew-Haters/Iranians/Syrians hadn't been throwing wrenches in the works at every f%#king turn. Then again, it's possible they're not ready for democracy. Churchill suggested WWII might have been averted had a constitutional monarchy been established in Germany after WWI instead of a liberal democracy. The same may hold true in the Arab world.
Kill 'em all and let their god (if they have any) sort them out!
I'm getting tired of this shit! Why should we be allowed to be kicked around?
Bonus quote, about Barack Obama at a book signing:
There is one other aspect to Osama Obama that will preclude him from being elected POTUS. Call it crass, but the guy's picture could fit right in with the 9/11 hijackers photo's. A good portion of the electorate is going to take one look at this guy in the primary and say "he ain't from around here"....
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
"I am really disgusted by this.
An individual's private sexual preferences is not a matter for the public arena and not something we should be discussing about anyone. What the hell ever happened to the concept of "in private"? We're not even talking behavior - this is just the preferences we're talking about. That is private, unless an individual wants to make it public him/herself.
I blame Bill Clinton for dragging this subject into the public arena."
-random commenter at Little Green Footballs
The mind bobbles.
But the difference, says Bill, is that gay is something you *do*, not something you *are.*
The "activist" didn't let out a peep.
Here's one way it could have gone, just off the top of my head:
"Bill, being gay is definitely something you are. Were you straight before you had sex? Of course you were. It's not about who you have sex with - it's about who you love. And as long as there are those who are willing to demonize gay people for political gain, [as his comments are illustrated by b-roll of transvestites in a gay pride parade] we feel it's important to highlight the accomplishments of gay and lesbian people in our society."See? That wasn't difficult, was it?
Damn, people on the left are, by and large, a bunch of whining, weak, clueless, spineless appeasers. Start standing up for yourself, or I have no use for you.
UPDATE: Exception to the above: Russ Feingold. Go Russ.
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
The President can designate you (or anyone else) as an enemy combatant. If so, you can be held without trial indefinitely, without charges. If you are at some point tried in a military court (so you can be executed for war crimes), you won't be shown the evidence against you, you will have a court-appointed lawyer, and you can't appeal. Hearsay can be used as testimony, as can information beaten out of witnesses. Speaking of that, the President can decide what does and what does not constitute "torture" of you under rules that will not be disclosed to the public.
Basically, you're fucked.
Welcome to the world, baby.
UPDATE: Shocker - Fox News is already lying about the Military Commissions Act.
Monday, October 16, 2006
By the way, *my* religion is right.
Thursday, October 12, 2006
"He's entitled to a defense of some sort, and a trial of some sort."Don't you just love the phrase "of some sort" there? Seems to me like you either have a proper defense and a fair trial, or you don't. I'm just a commie fascist sympathizer who wants to crown Osama bin Laden King of America, so don't mind me. Still, I wouldn't want Dean-O in charge of deciding what "sort" of defense and trial all his enemies get. Michael Moore, for instance, would probably be hauled before Judge Kim du Toit and summarily eviscerated by jackals, in a scene that would make the witch trial in "Monty Python" look like "Twelve Angry Men."
-Lying crapweasel Dean Esmay, pontificating on his idea of the legal rights of a convert to Islam who is the first American to be charged with treason since World War II.
"I applaud the Iraqis for their courage in the face of violence. I am, you know, amazed that this is a society which so wants to be free that they’re willing to — you know, that there’s a level of violence that they tolerate."
-President Bush, news conference, Oct. 11
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
Will this cause them to lose the House or Senate this year? Nope. Because to paraphrase a commenter on Balloon Juice, the Reps are drowning, but the Dems don't have enough sense to toss them an anvil.
Sunday, October 01, 2006
Boy does that take me back. After all, how dare Michael Schiavo to spend years caring for his wife. How dare he try experimental treatments that took months but got no results. How dare he train to become an emergency room nurse to learn how to better care for Terri. How dare he start dating again, at the urging of the in-laws who would so viciously turn on him later. How dare he pursue a malpractice suit against his wife's doctors, the $1 million settlement of which was used for her care. And most of all, how dare he spend years of his life trying to carry out her wishes that she not sit for decades as a brainless husk in a hospital bed, being used as a cruel prop in a depraved political game.
HOW DARE HE.
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
Sunday, September 24, 2006
"You...said that humanity was a flawed creation. And that people still kill one another for petty jealousy and greed. You said that humanity never asked itself why it deserved to survive.
Maybe you don't."
- Cylon Sharon (Boomer), Battlestar Galactica, "Resurrection Ship"
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
HOMER: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm.
LISA: That's specious reasoning, Dad.
HOMER: ... Thank you, dear.
[Lisa grabs a rock from the lawn, shows it to Homer]
LISA: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
HOMER: Oh, how does it work?
LISA: It doesn't work.
LISA: It's just a stupid rock.
LISA: But I don't see any tigers around, do you?
[Homer thinks for a moment, then pulls out some money]
HOMER: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.
I think you can work out the rest of the metaphor for yourself.
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
Half a lifetime ago, I worked in this now-empty space. And for 40 days after the attacks, I worked here again, trying to make sense of what happened, and was yet to happen, as a reporter.
All the time, I knew that the very air I breathed contained the remains of thousands of people, including four of my friends, two in the planes and -- as I discovered from those "missing posters" seared still into my soul -- two more in the Towers.
And I knew too, that this was the pyre for hundreds of New York policemen and firemen, of whom my family can claim half a dozen or more, as our ancestors.
I belabor this to emphasize that, for me this was, and is, and always shall be, personal.
And anyone who claims that I and others like me are "soft,"or have "forgotten" the lessons of what happened here is at best a grasping, opportunistic, dilettante and at worst, an idiot whether he is a commentator, or a Vice President, or a President.
However, of all the things those of us who were here five years ago could have forecast -- of all the nightmares that unfolded before our eyes, and the others that unfolded only in our minds -- none of us could have predicted this.
Five years later this space is still empty.
Five years later there is no memorial to the dead.
Five years later there is no building rising to show with proud defiance that we would not have our America wrung from us, by cowards and criminals.
Five years later this country's wound is still open.
Five years later this country's mass grave is still unmarked.
Five years later this is still just a background for a photo-op.
It is beyond shameful.
At the dedication of the Gettysburg Memorial -- barely four months after the last soldier staggered from another Pennsylvania field -- Mr. Lincoln said, "we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
Lincoln used those words to immortalize their sacrifice.
Today our leaders could use those same words to rationalize their reprehensible inaction. "We cannot dedicate, we can not consecrate, we can not hallow this ground." So we won't.
Instead they bicker and buck pass. They thwart private efforts, and jostle to claim credit for initiatives that go nowhere. They spend the money on irrelevant wars, and elaborate self-congratulations, and buying off columnists to write how good a job they're doing instead of doing any job at all.
Five years later, Mr. Bush, we are still fighting the terrorists on these streets. And look carefully, sir, on these 16 empty acres. The terrorists are clearly, still winning.
And, in a crime against every victim here and every patriotic sentiment you mouthed but did not enact, you have done nothing about it.
And there is something worse still than this vast gaping hole in this city, and in the fabric of our nation. There is its symbolism of the promise unfulfilled, the urgent oath, reduced to lazy execution.
The only positive on 9/11 and the days and weeks that so slowly and painfully followed it was the unanimous humanity, here, and throughout the country. The government, the President in particular, was given every possible measure of support.
Those who did not belong to his party -- tabled that.
Those who doubted the mechanics of his election -- ignored that.
Those who wondered of his qualifications -- forgot that.
History teaches us that nearly unanimous support of a government cannot be taken away from that government by its critics. It can only be squandered by those who use it not to heal a nation's wounds, but to take political advantage.
Terrorists did not come and steal our newly-regained sense of being American first, and political, fiftieth. Nor did the Democrats. Nor did the media. Nor did the people.
The President -- and those around him -- did that.
They promised bi-partisanship, and then showed that to them, "bi-partisanship" meant that their party would rule and the rest would have to follow, or be branded, with ever-escalating hysteria, as morally or intellectually confused, as appeasers, as those who, in the Vice President's words yesterday, "validate the strategy of the terrorists."
They promised protection, and then showed that to them "protection" meant going to war against a despot whose hand they had once shaken, a despot who we now learn from our own Senate Intelligence Committee, hated al-Qaida as much as we did.
The polite phrase for how so many of us were duped into supporting a war, on the false premise that it had 'something to do' with 9/11 is "lying by implication."
The impolite phrase is "impeachable offense."
Not once in now five years has this President ever offered to assume responsibility for the failures that led to this empty space, and to this, the current, curdled, version of our beloved country.
Still, there is a last snapping flame from a final candle of respect and fairness: even his most virulent critics have never suggested he alone bears the full brunt of the blame for 9/11.
Half the time, in fact, this President has been so gently treated, that he has seemed not even to be the man most responsible for anything in his own administration.
Yet what is happening this very night?
A mini-series, created, influenced -- possibly financed by -- the most radical and cold of domestic political Machiavellis, continues to be televised into our homes.
The documented truths of the last fifteen years are replaced by bald-faced lies; the talking points of the current regime parroted; the whole sorry story blurred, by spin, to make the party out of office seem vacillating and impotent, and the party in office, seem like the only option.
How dare you, Mr. President, after taking cynical advantage of the unanimity and love, and transmuting it into fraudulent war and needless death, after monstrously transforming it into fear and suspicion and turning that fear into the campaign slogan of three elections? How dare you -- or those around you -- ever "spin" 9/11?
Just as the terrorists have succeeded -- are still succeeding -- as long as there is no memorial and no construction here at Ground Zero.
So, too, have they succeeded, and are still succeeding as long as this government uses 9/11 as a wedge to pit Americans against Americans.
This is an odd point to cite a television program, especially one from March of 1960. But as Disney's continuing sell-out of the truth (and this country) suggests, even television programs can be powerful things.
And long ago, a series called "The Twilight Zone" broadcast a riveting episode entitled "The Monsters Are Due On Maple Street."
In brief: a meteor sparks rumors of an invasion by extra-terrestrials disguised as humans. The electricity goes out. A neighbor pleads for calm. Suddenly his car -- and only his car -- starts. Someone suggests he must be the alien. Then another man's lights go on. As charges and suspicion and panic overtake the street, guns are inevitably produced. An "alien" is shot -- but he turns out to be just another neighbor, returning from going for help. The camera pulls back to a near-by hill, where two extra-terrestrials are seen manipulating a small device that can jam electricity. The veteran tells his novice that there's no need to actually attack, that you just turn off a few of the human machines and then, "they pick the most dangerous enemy they can find, and it's themselves."
And then, in perhaps his finest piece of writing, Rod Serling sums it up with words of remarkable prescience, given where we find ourselves tonight: "The tools of conquest do not necessarily come with bombs and explosions and fallout. There are weapons that are simply thoughts, attitudes, prejudices, to be found only in the minds of men.
"For the record, prejudices can kill and suspicion can destroy, and a thoughtless, frightened search for a scapegoat has a fallout all its own -- for the children, and the children yet unborn."
When those who dissent are told time and time again -- as we will be, if not tonight by the President, then tomorrow by his portable public chorus -- that he is preserving our freedom, but that if we use any of it, we are somehow un-American...When we are scolded, that if we merely question, we have "forgotten the lessons of 9/11"... look into this empty space behind me and the bi-partisanship upon which this administration also did not build, and tell me:
Who has left this hole in the ground?
We have not forgotten, Mr. President.
May this country forgive you.
Saturday, September 09, 2006
For them, 9/11 is a combination security blanket and abusive father, and they can't get enough of it. Can't get enough. And that sickens me beyond my capacity to express.
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
Reminds me of a story that I don't think I recounted when it happened. My mother called me the day after Election Day 2004 (whose outcome, amazingly, I could understand much better than that in 2000) to see how I was handling things.
Mom: I just called to make sure you didn't have your head in the oven.
Me: I have an electric oven.
Friday, August 25, 2006
It’s probably just that I’ve got my tinfoil hat on too tight, but I find myself wondering if ginning up a war with Iran is part of a strategy for getting out of Iraq. The occupation is a political disaster for the administration, and the President has to know that, even if he can’t bring himself to admit that anything is wrong. He’s painted himself into a corner where he can’t withdraw substantial numbers of troops without being accused of flip-flopping and provoking the wrath of his base. But what if the troops were simply redeployed to counter a new “grave and gathering threat”, i.e. Iran? It wouldn’t be cutting and running, it’d be a strategic redeployment in the fight against Islamic fascism. It also neatly solves most of the “what army” question Tim poses. Bush can simultaneously remove the Iraqi monkey from his back and take advantage of a new round of fear-mongering and patriotic fervor as everyone rallies around the flag in the run up to war. Plus, his speechwriters have to do a minimum of editing, just change the “q” to an “n” and they can reuse their tried and true material. Normally I’d think that this sounds crazy (because it is), but I wouldn’t put much past the administration at this stage. I suspect Bush can see his presidency circling the drain, and is desperate to rescue it. I can see him thinking that this would be a gamble worth taking in hopes of salvaging his legacy as remaker of the Middle East.
-commenter Larv 0n Balloon Juice
Wednesday, August 23, 2006
"What about shoes? Is it okay if she wears shoes?"UPDATE: But then again, there's this, from the "You would hope it's humor but it's probably not" category:
-Free Republic commenter on a Forbes story titled "Don't Marry Career Women," the content of which should be self-evident
"Look, I don't mind products made by Chinese slave labor, but I'll be damned if I'll shop at a place that cozies up to gays."
-Comment on a story about Wal-Mart making deals with the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce
Monday, August 21, 2006
Wednesday, August 16, 2006
GEORGE: Hey, there's a steep cliff! Let's drive off it!
HOWARD: What, are you crazy? We'll be killed!
GEORGE: Heh. I don't think so. It'll be a rush!
[George swerves wildly, and the car careens off the cliff and into the air]
GEORGE: [mockingly, to HOWARD]: Go ahead, take the wheel if you think you're so goddamned smart.
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
Ken Mehlman's latest replacement phrase is "Adapting to Win." Apart from its awkwardness, there's two tiny problems with it: they haven't been adapting, and they sure as hell haven't been doing any winning. That phrase makes about as much sense as "Fishing to Surprise!" or " Knitting to Confound!"
`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'BONUS: If the terrorists are Islamic fascists, then why wasn't Eric Rudolph described as a Christian fascist? (Maybe we should ask Dean Esmay.)
Thursday, August 10, 2006
Congresswoman Maxine Waters had parachuted into Connecticut earlier in the week to campaign against Lieberman because he once expressed reservations about affirmative action, without which she would not have a job that didn't involve wearing a paper hat.If it weren't for the right-wing dominance of media and politics, Ann Coulter wouldn't have a job that didn't involve masturbating caged animals for artificial insemination.
Wednesday, August 09, 2006
Lamont's victory isn't just a win for the antiwar wing of the party. It's a victory for Americans who fear the recklessness of the Bush administration, who feel the wheels are falling off the truck, and who want Democrats to fix it. Mainstream Democrats who can't see that political reality are a threat to the party. The charge of "liberal McCarthyism" against Lamont voters and their lefty blogger backers by some Beltway voices, including Beltway Democrats -- based mainly on the words of anonymous posters in comments threads, by the way, Lanny Davis -– is far worse for Democratic prospects than the random excesses of the antiwar left. (Imagine a GOP in which Karl Rove penned Op-Eds in the New York Times savaging the Christian right.) The notion that Lamont supporters are somehow "destroying the center" or killing bipartisanism is fiction; George W. Bush did that. Lieberman is suffering the consequences.
-Joan Walsh, Salon
You see, despite what Joe Lieberman believes, invading Iraq and diverting our attention away from Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden is not being strong on national security. Blind allegiance to George W. Bush and his failed "stay the course" strategy is not being strong on national security. And no, Senator Lieberman, no matter how you demonize your opponents, there is no "antisecurity wing" of the Democratic Party.
-Gen. Wesley Clark
The man whose (largely Republican) media supporters glorified him as one of the few "men of principle" left in Washington has revealed himself to be bereft of all principles save one -- the "principle" that Joe Lieberman's Senate seat belongs to him personally and that no mere voters, those silly, unenlightened masses, have the right to take that away from him. In the face of this rare testament to true democracy -- the decisive rejection of Lieberman by Connecticut voters in defiance of virtually the entire national political establishment -- Lieberman had nothing but scorn, contempt and defiance for their decision.
He thus intoned: "I am disappointed not just because I lost, but because the old politics of partisan polarization won today. For the sake of our state, our country and my party, I cannot and will not let that result stand." This man of principle "will not let that result stand" -- "that result" being the considered decision of the voters whom he has claimed to represent for the last 18 years.A more selfish and craven act is difficult to imagine.
-Glenn Greenwald, Salon's War Room
Lieberman finished his campaign on a desperate note, proclaiming his purity of heart as a Democrat and assailing Bush on Iraq blunders, even as he announced in losing that he would not abide by his party's verdict and instead run as an independent. The man of faith is now running on bad faith. Self-righteousness fostered self-delusion, leading to self-destruction. Lieberman's fall is a cautionary tale not limited to Connecticut.
-Sidney Blumenthal, Salon
Now Lieberman has the stink of loser on him. His concession speech was the last gasp of the man with cement shoes sinking into Long Island Sound, vowing impotent vengeance on those who did him in. Accusing someone of "partisan politics" in a party's primary is not unlike accusing a marathon runner of running a marathon. And sure, sure, Republicans and some Democrats will attempt to prop him up in his doomed "independent" run, but he's got no party machine behind him, only the hope that a three-term Senator can run as a heroic underdog rather than some pathetic figure who wasn't even good enough for his own party. Goddamn, it'll be sad. One hopes, desperately, that Bill Clinton'll show up on Lieberman's doorstep and get him to agree that the most noble thing is for a man to fall on his sword.
Lieberman lost because he was wrong, on the war, on indecency, on torture, on Social Security, and more, more, more. He lost not because he said he was right, but because he tried to say that wrong was right.
"One thing is for certain: there is no stopping them; the ants will soon be here. And I for one welcome our new insect overlords. I'd like to remind them that as a trusted TV personality, I can be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their underground sugar caves."Let's face it: at this point, the best way to describe Lieberman is "appeaser." He's willing to sink both his own career and the interests of his party - the party that nominated him for VP in 2000 against Bush - to serve the President and his death cult administration. He's a sickening symbol of the weakness and appeasing nature of the current Democratic Party. It's time for him (and his mindset) to go.
Tuesday, August 08, 2006
I don't know how much more of this humor I can take.
If you don't think these fucking bastards are not going to rest until the entire world is in flames, you're not paying attention.
I expected "World Trade Center" to recreate the shock, the disbelief, the horror and the fury of a nation gut-punched by the shattering realization it has been attacked and is at war.
To rewrite a Righteous Brothers lyric, we've lost that warlike feelin'.-Stu Bykofsky, Philly.com
Monday, August 07, 2006
Beyond striking a blow against the Iraq war and the neoconservatives who are responsible for it, a Lamont victory would deal a hard blow to the power of incumbency and the entitlement mindset it has spawned. It would be seen, rightfully so, as a repudiation of the Beltway pundit and political classes that, from the start and with virtual unanimity, viewed the Lamont challenge with scorn, as a distasteful rebellion by the crazed, dirty, unenlightened masses. The most important impact of a Lamont win is that it would shake the foundations of a self-contained Beltway political structure that is as unresponsive as it is corrupt at its core.
-Glenn Greenwald, Salon's War Room
Thursday, August 03, 2006
Bush Grants Self Permission to Grant More Power to Self
And let's not forget the headline that started it all. Still gives me chills, the same way watching the "Greatest American Hero" theme song played over Bush's "Mission Accomplished" stunt does in "Fahrenheit 9/11."
During the 40-minute speech, Bush also promised to bring an end to the severe war drought that plagued the nation under Clinton, assuring citizens that the U.S. will engage in at least one Gulf War-level armed conflict in the next four years.Oh. my. god.
"You better believe we're going to mix it up with somebody at some point during my administration," said Bush, who plans a 250 percent boost in military spending. "Unlike my predecessor, I am fully committed to putting soldiers in battle situations. Otherwise, what is the point of even having a military?"
Tuesday, August 01, 2006
A Play in One Act
NEOCON: That hornet's nest is interfering with my enjoyment of our tree. Let's poke it and get all those hornets out.
LIBERAL A: What, are you crazy?
NEOCON: No, it's a great plan. I have my hornet-poking stick, and it's still got a few good pokes left in it. Here goes!
[swarm of hornets emerge, stinging both NEOCON and LIBERAL A]
NEOCON: Damn you, Liberal A! You didn't help me poke! This is all your fault.
[THE WORLD EXPLODES]
Monday, July 31, 2006
That really is the essence of neoconservativsm. It's nothing more noble or complex than a base belief that we have to wage as many wars as possible and kill as many people as possible until people are sufficiently fearful of the U.S. that they will comply with our mandates...
To neconservatives, everything that made the U.S. a respected superpower over the last six decades is all obsolete and worthless. To them, foreign policy experts from both political parties are responsible for 9/11 and the rise of Islamic extremism because they believe too much in diplomacy and restraint. They didn't wage enough wars and the wars they did wage weren't ferocious enough... People around the world need to know that they either comply with our instructions or fire and brimstone will rain upon their heads...
[Neoconservatism] is opposed to every guiding principle of American foreign policy under both political parties, and seeks to transform the U.S. into a rogue state which operates with no moral limits or ethical constraints, and for which unrestrained war is always the preferred option. All failures can be and are explained away by the fact that we just haven't killed enough people yet. It is homicidal madness, real derangement, masquerading as some sort of serious philosophy, and it is a true indictment of our political life that its advocates are taken seriously at all, let alone often listened to at the highest levels of our government.
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
- Valerie Plame
- John Kerry's war service
- Howard Dean
- Church-state separation
- Liberalism, Conservatism, Fascism
- Michael Moore
- "Fahrenheit 9/11"
- Ann Coulter
- The "War" on Christmas
- Joe Lieberman
- Global warming
- Liberal weblogs
- Bill Clinton
- The death penalty
- Stem-cell research
- Gay marriage
There's lots more, but this is a start. I'll add them as I think of them.
Friday, July 21, 2006
It is undeniably powerful, an immensely affecting and well-meaning real-life tale of two Port Authority policemen trapped in the rubble underneath the collapsed concourse between the North and South Towers.
Nonetheless, because "World Trade Center" tells a story of joyous survival rather than a story of death, it is a fundamental falsification of the meaning of 9/11 - even though the story it tells is true.
Just when you think they can't get any lower, they grab a shovel.
Oh and guess what he thought of "United 93"? He loved it, because the movie "showed it all - the monstrous terrorists, the confused responders and the unimaginable heroics." I for one am so fucking sick of right-wing crapweasels telling me what I should think about 9/11. How dare they.
Monday, July 17, 2006
Maybe on the way home, he can stop over in London and grab the Queen's boobs or something. Now that would make for some great TV. (Maybe he can make a honking noise at the same time. No, that's just too much to hope for.)
Let's face it, about 25 percent of the American electorate would have cheered Bush on if he had slashed Merkel's throat on live TV. That's just the world we're living in, folks. Enjoy.
UPDATE: As a commenter on Oliver Willis' site said, imagine the right-wing reaction if, say, Jacques Chirac had done something similar to Condi Rice.
Sunday, July 16, 2006
All you have to do is watch Bill O'Reilly's show. Or listen to Rush. Or read Coulter, Malkin, FreeRepublic, or Dean's World. They rarely evidence an emotion that isn't some variation of red-hot anger or contempt. At liberals, anti-war activists, environmentalists, feminists, gays, Muslims, college professors, AIDS workers, journalists, Europeans, or any politician left of Zell Miller. It's often anger at the powerless, like Cindy Sheehan. Why should someone so insignificant cause right-wingers to descend into frothing rage?
It's just endless. They have just about everything they could have ever wanted, but still they nearly burst a blood vessel on a daily basis. Why?
Personally, I think this is because they realize, deep down, that their world isn't built on solid ground. They know, but don't want to admit, that the rug could be pulled out from under them at a moment's notice. They're insecure, really, just like the junior high school bully who makes fun of the fat kid. They'll do anything to make sure they don't become the kid everyone else picks on. And people follow the bully because they have those same sorts of fears. Adolescent first strike policy.
But how long can this go on? How long before they choke on their own bile? A long time, from the look of things. Too long.
Friday, July 14, 2006
Thursday, July 06, 2006
Saturday, July 01, 2006
Why do they hate our freedom?
Although this is in equal measure saddening and maddening, it doesn't surprise me one bit. When the country gets enthusiastically behind an endless, amorphous war against an enemy whose only definition comes from the administration that started the war, this is what you get. And believe me, it's going to get *way* worse before it gets better. Strap in, people.
Thursday, June 29, 2006
This side of the looking glass is a scary place. Send me back, please.
Was Rush Limbaugh so supercilious that he didn't think that as a man on probation for doctor-shopping Oxycontin, his bags wouldn't be searched by customs on his return from sex tourism hotspot the Dominican Republic?
On his radio show Tuesday, Limbaugh said, "I had a great time in the Dominican Republic. Wish I could tell you about it."
Ick. No. Please.
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
For anyone who is accusing the Times of "treason," or claiming that they harmed national security, what is the answer to this question:What, specifically, would a terrorist have been willing to do on June 22 [the day before the banking story was published] that he would not do on June 23 as a result of the Times' article?The same question has been repeatedly asked, but never answered, with regard to the "treasonous" Times disclosure of the warrantless eavesdropping program:What, specifically, would a terrorist have been willing to do on December 15 [the day before the NSA story was published] that he would not do on December 16 as a result of the Times article?Prior to the "treasonous" Times articles, The Terrorists already knew that we were eavesdropping on their international calls and monitoring their banking transactions -- because that information was previously, and repeatedly, put into the public domain, often by the Bush administration and President Bush himself. What the Times revealed is the lack of oversight and checks on these intelligence-gathering activities, not the existence of the activities themselves, which were already well known.
Oh, and a message to Brit Hume (from me, not Glenn): Go fuck yourself.
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
This isn't a movie review site, so I'll just say that it was just as depressing and hopeless as I'd remembered, but it may have been blunted a bit this time by just how insane things are now in the real world. Terrorism is only one of Gilliam's targets in the movie, but whatever he trains his lens on gets a devastating blow.
Jill: Doesn't it bother you the sort of things you do at Information Retrieval?As prescient as the "you'd rather have terrorists" line is — it could be coming out of a host of mouths: Coulter, Hannity, Malkin et al. — the biggest OMG moment for me came when the Dick-Cheney-like Helpmann is being interviewed on TV at the beginning of the film:
Sam: What? I suppose you'd rather have terrorists?
Jill: How many terrorists have you met, Sam? Actual terrorists?
Sam (dumbfounded): Actual terrorists?
Sam: Well, it's only my first day.
Helpmann: We're fielding all their strokes, running a lot of them out, and pretty consistently knocking them for six. I'd say they're nearly out of the game.Freaky.
Interviewer: How do you account for the fact that the bombing campaign has been going on for thirteen years?
Helpmann: Beginners' luck.
The Bush Administration now has the power to monitor your bank records and phone calls. They can designate you an illegal combattant and imprison you indefinitely without charges, and without access to counsel. While in custody, you can be tortured for information you may or may not have. (And by "you" I don't mean some abstract person. I mean YOU.) They can bypass the federal court system whenever they determine it's necessary. Now, they are seriously flirting with imprisoning journalists who attempt to expose the adminstration's power grabs.
The clear rationale underlying the arguments of Bush supporters needs to be highlighted. They believe that the Bush administration ought to be allowed to act in complete secrecy, with no oversight of any kind. George Bush is Good and the administration wants nothing other than to stop The Terrorists from killing us. There is no need for oversight over what they are doing because we can trust our political officials to do good on their own. We don't need any courts or any Congress or any media serving as a "watchdog" over the Bush administration. There is no reason to distrust what they do. We should -- and must -- let them act in total secrecy for our own good, for our protection. And anyone who prevents them from acting in total secrecy is not merely an enemy of the Bush administration, but of the United States, i.e., is a traitor.
The defining ethos of our country is a distrust of government power -- or at least it always used to be. The entirety of the Constitution is devoted to imposing safeguards against government abuses because our country was founded upon the principle that we do not place blind faith in political officials to act properly. But the argument being peddled now is that we can place blind trust in the Bush administration and we need not worry ourselves about anything. At the very least, such a dramatic reversal of how we think about our government ought to be the subject of debate.I think it's time to pick a side. And if you pick the administration's side, I think you ought to be able to answer a simple question: what more are you willing to give up in the name of fighting terrorism? Where is the line? Because up to now, the President himself has been able to define that ever-shifting line for all of us.
Pick a side.
Monday, June 26, 2006
Sure, John McCain objected. But I wonder what Peter King and Tom Tancredo think of this idea. I have a feeling I know what Michelle Malkin might think.
Friday, June 23, 2006
My honest assessment is that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld (at least) should be not only removed from office, but imprisoned. The damage they've done to American society, goverment and culture is nearly incalculable, and will take at least a generation to repair, if it can be done at all.
Meanwhile, we sleep.
Thursday, June 22, 2006
- No abortions, ever. Both mother and doctor will be prosecuted for murder. If it's murder, it's murder.
- A massive law enforcement ramp-up in order to forcibly eject every illegal alien currently on American soil. Build a giant death wall along every foot of the U.S.-Mexico border.
- Death penalty for all murderers and sex offenders, after a single "trial." No appeals. All executions public, and televised.
- Gay people barred by Constitutional Amendment from marriage, adopting or raising children, teaching in schools, and military service of any kind. Sodomy laws re-introduced and zealously enforced. Further measures as needed.
- Divorce and adultery both illegal, with harsh sentences in all cases, no exceptions.
- Dismantle both the Department of Education and the entire U.S. public education system. All school taxes are abolished.
- Unions outlawed. Every state to follow "at-will" labor practices in all industries.
- No more White House press conferences. If the President wants to say something to us, he'll go on TV and do it.
- Homeland Security will be in charge of stopping speech in any form judged "anti-American."
- The Ten Commandments, in either sculptural or written form, posted in every courthouse and public building. (Obviously, religion in school is now a non-issue.)
O’Reilly: Now to me, they’re not fighting it hard enough. See, if I’m president, I got probably another 50-60 thousand with orders to shoot on sight anybody violating curfews. Shoot them on sight. That’s me… President O’Reilly… Curfew in Ramadi, seven o’clock at night. You’re on the street? You’re dead. I shoot you right between the eyes. OK? That’s how I run that country. Just like Saddam ran it. [Emphasis mine. -TM] Saddam didn’t have explosions - he didn’t have bombers. Did he? Because if you got out of line, you’re dead.Hey Bill, I've got the perfect guy for the job. I'm sure he's looking for work, too - if he can beat the rap.
-The Radio Factor, 6/19/06
UPDATE: Thanks to Utopia commenter Anonymous' favorite weblogger, the Rude Pundit, who reminded me that O'Reilly also said that the International Red Cross was to blame for the Guantanamo prisoners' suicides.
Not. making. this. up.
Oh, and pre-emptively: the minute The Rude Pundit gets a high-profile nightly TV show, or is featured on the cover of Time, we might begin to discuss how he "compares" to O'Reilly, Coulter, or the rogue's gallery of hate merchants infecting the right-wing airwaves these days. Until then, not so much.
Tuesday, June 20, 2006
The most revealing moment came when he thought the cameras were off: Before he gave his national address announcing that the war had begun, a camera caught Bush pumping his fist, as though instead of initiating a war he had kicked a winning field goal or hit a home run. "Feels good," he said.If that doesn't make you feel at least a little sick to your stomach, I fear for your soul.
Sunday, June 18, 2006
Friday, June 16, 2006
Percent of peer-reviewed articles that concluded global warming was naturally occurring (not caused by human activity): 0 percent
Percent of news articles which presented global warming as disputed theory: 53 percent
Human beings have an extraordinary capacity to deny reality, if that reality conflicts with their deeply-held beliefs. (See: HIV denialists, who so desperately want to believe that AIDS is caused by drug use and icky gay sex, not a virus that anyone can get.) And the mass media has extraordinary power to shape reactions to that reality. Add to that the anti-intellectualism gripping American society today, and you have a recipe for disaster.
See this movie.
Thursday, June 15, 2006
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
"It is a shame when the overboard Homosexuals look less offensive than the so-called religious People."
"I bet some of Phelps gang are closet fags themselves."
"Unfortunately what I hate is the fact that I also think homosexuals are an abomination and these monkeys make people with real convictions Biblically grounded look like idiots."
-random Free Republic mouth-breathers
Monday, June 12, 2006
Seriously. Put up or shut up, bitches.
Thursday, June 08, 2006
Having seen Kristen Breitweiser several times on television, I think she would be happy to debate anyone, anytime on any aspect of our pre-9/11 preparedness or what has happened in terms of homeland security since then. I don’t think anyone who supports the Bush Administration’s policies really wants that debate because she knows more about this subject than probably anyone else, including the 9/11 Commission. I don’t give her positions on anything more credence because her husband died, I give them credence because she really knows her shit.
These women did what I hope I would have done in their place. They could have gone on with their lives, but they decided that they would do everything they could to try to make sure this never happens to anyone else. I can’t think of a better way to honor their dead loved ones.
Love it love it love it.
I have to agree with a commenter on (I think) Balloon Juice who said, someday that girl's mouth is gonna write a check her butt can't cash.
Wednesday, June 07, 2006
To me it's pretty simple: incest, bestiality, and for that matter the lamp, all fail the consent test. Underage people of any gender can't consent to a marriage, nor should they. Animals definitely can't consent. So there you go. Simple, right? It's not about what you or I consider perverted; it's whether both parties can consent to the relationship.
Which leads into polygamy. I believe that if all parties are adults and consent to the arrangement, I have no problem with it. Those who know better about these issues than I do say that much polygamy in this country involves coercion and/or underage girls, both of which would fail my consent test.
Finally, am I the only one who thinks Rick Santorum is just a little *too* preoccupied with "man-on-dog" sex?
Bennett: Look, it's a debate about whether you think marriage is between a man and a women.Of course, people like La Shawn Barber believe being gay *is* a random (and destructive) fetish, so there you go. Some people are unreachable. But I think there are a lot of people out there who would respond if the debate were put in Stewart's terms, instead of Bennett's.
Stewart: I disagree, I think it's a debate about whether you think gay people are part of the human condition or just a random fetish.
Tuesday, June 06, 2006
But wait. It gets better - much better. Damon now lives in a house built by the charity Homes for Our Troops. Homes for Our Troops is one of the charities to which Michael Moore donated profits from - wait for it - "Fahrenheit 9/11."
Monday, June 05, 2006
First, and perhaps most important, this has absolutely no chance of getting out of the Senate, much less passing the House and making it out to the state legislatures. So spending any time or emotion on it is stupid. I know that. That doesn't stop it from, as Grandpa Simpson would say, "angrying up my blood."
Next: Everyone, including the far-right religious fanatics this is being aimed at, know that this is a political stunt by a President whose approval ratings are hovering just this side of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. Bush's statement is also meaningless, except in that it represents a craven flipflop from his earlier position to let the states handle it.
Next. Memo to hard-right religious fanatics: Did you by any chance notice that you're not getting squat from this President? Women are still getting abortions, even strippers and unwed teens. Sodomy is still legal. Revival meetings still cannot be held on public school football fields. Fags continue to flaunt their evil deviances in your face. You're getting nothing! Are a few meaningless words in support of your cause really enough? Where are the results? Think about it.
Next. I can't stand these Democratic operatives going on every national media outlet and using this as their debate tactic against the anti-gay amendment: Hey, the American people don't care about this; they care about jobs, and Iraq, and gas prices. To this I say, get a spine, will you, Dems? How about, "This amendment would enshrine discrimination into the Constitution"? Something like that. Something real and true. Can't manage it? No, I didn't think you could, you spineless, scum-sucking political operatives. Go fuck yourselves.
Next. As Atrios pointed out, why isn't every fucktard who screams about "activist judges redefining marriage against the will of the American people" asked a simple question: "When Loving v. Virginia made mixed marriages legal in 1967, 73 percent of the American public disapproved of interracial marriage. Was that an 'activist court'? Was that a bad legal decision, since it went against the will of the majority?" But of course that question will never be asked. The press knows where its bread is buttered.
Next. A fascinating factoid I came across when researching this entry: In February 2004, Massachusetts residents disapproved of same-sex marriage 53 percent to 35 percent. In May 2004, the state began marrying gay couples. When the same poll was taken in March 2005, less than a year later, the numbers had done a complete reversal: 56 percent in favor, 35 percent opposed. I guess letting those gays get married isn't so bad, after all.
Finally. My opinion, and I'm serious about this, is that the government should get out of the marriage business entirely. If people want to get married in a church, or on a beach, or in prison, or while naked or underwater, they are welcome to do so. But it should be a religious and/or cultural institution, not a legal one. Why should the state be sanctioning anyone's relationship in the first place? You want property rights, or child custody, or whatever - go to a lawyer. That means you, breeders. Yeah, you. I'm sure the lawyers will be behind this plan. You don't want the state to sanction icky gay sex? Fine. But it's not going to sanction your lifesize-sex-doll, Internet-porn, getting-it-on-with-the -babysitter hetero marriage either.
CODA: You think I have a potty mouth? Try the always-bracing Rude Pundit.
Thursday, June 01, 2006
Attacking World War II troops for atrocities that were actually committed by Nazis? Bill O'Reilly is a traitor.
UPDATE: O'Reilly also peddled this same outrageous falsehood last year, so it's not exactly a slip of the tongue. And for the cherry on top of the sundae, Fox scrubbed O'Reilly's transcript, replacing "Malmedy" with "Normandy."
Wednesday, May 31, 2006
Will wonders never cease?
Tuesday, May 30, 2006
There are serious academic scholars who say the German people, or at least vast swaths of them, were bullied and terrified into following Hitler's gang of criminals. A gang of criminals who were never legitimately elected. I can point you to academic sources that debunk the "Hitler was elected" nonsense any time you like. He and his group of thugs seized power, through terror duplicity and coercion. They then constructed an image of German national unity that had nothing to do with what everyday Germans actually thought.Hmmmm.
Monday, May 29, 2006
Tuesday, May 23, 2006
Monday, May 22, 2006
If you bothered to ask me what my position was, I would tell you very simply that we need to do three things: #1, we need to prosecute companies who wink and nod and hire illegals. This would stop the incentive for people to come in the country. If they don't have jobs to come to, they will stay home. #2, we need to make a serious and abiding effort to improve economic and trading relations with Mexico so that their economy is not an open cesspool of corruption and misery. We contributed to that mightily with the ill-conceived NAFTA giveaway to large corporations. We need leadership to come up with a trade program that actually improves economic conditions for everyone, instead of just for large companies. #3, we CANNOT deport 12 million people, and more importantly we should not. What we should do is make a sane and rational process for becoming naturalized that isn't up to the whims of paper-pushing assholes, and not insist on horrific punitive measures that are only there to make racist pricks feel good about "administerin' justice." The people are here, and they have families here, and some of them believe it or not are refugees from oppresive regimes who came to America because they thought it was the land of the free. We owe it to them to give them the opportunity to do it right, instead of wasting tremendous amounts of taxpayer money, blood, effort, and time doing a purely spiteful thing like yanking them out of the lives they have established here and putting them in tremendous peril, just because we've suddenly decided to enforce the rules that we've been winking and nodding at for 30 years. Large corporations enabled this situation by nudge nudging and selectively enforcing immigration laws. Nobody, especially the Republican Congress, deserves any political capital for suddenly creating a crisis out of whole cloth and capitalizing on it.
And that's what I'm really fucking sick of. The hysterical bullshit assertion that this is suddenly a crisis. Jesus Fuck, I grew up in Denver, Co, and know goddamn well what's going on. DO NOT presume to tell ME what I do or do not understand about immigration. You have no idea who I am or what I do or who I know, so you can climb off your fuckin' high horse of knowledge and come down here where your assertions stand or fall based on their truth. And the truth of it is, we are engaged in this discussion because Republicans are scared shitless of losing their base. And the reason they are using this issue is to scare their base with the image of a bunch of "filthy brown people" scumming up their alabaster fucking communities. And any impulse in that direction I encounter from anyone will be met with unremitting, withering scorn. Deal with the REAL ISSUE. Do not make up fake issues to scream about. I will mock you, I will get the facts, I will jam them right up your ass, and I will shut you down. Bank on it.
Friday, May 19, 2006
Gibson's remarks led to a fantastic comment over at Digby's Hullabaloo site:
Once again, I spent the morning trying to explain 'water' to my goldfish. He listens well, but just doesn't see it.
It's like explaining racism to John Gibson.
How do you tell a blind person what 'red' is?
"I'm upset with the Democrats too. Because after all this time, they still haven't found one woman willing to have oral sex with President Bush so we can impeach him."
-Woman in the audience of the Stephanie Miller Show on Air America, broadcasting from the Barrymore Theater in Madison
Thursday, May 18, 2006
My favorite little tidbit about the anti-gay-marriage vote detailed in the above link is how Arlen Specter voted for the ban in his Judiciary Committee, even though he's personally opposed to it, because it "deserves debate in the full Senate." Full-on crapweaselry on display these days.
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
Monday, May 15, 2006
Fox's John Gibson says that it's white Americans' duty to make more babies, to counter the tide of brown people streaming across our borders.
A World Net Daily columnist says that deporting those millions of illegal Mexicans should be no problem - after all, look how quickly the Nazis got rid of 6 million Jews.
The thing is, I'm glad when the essential racism of the right wing gets thrust out in the open like this. I would much rather they be honest, than try to couch everything in mushy code-word rhetoric. Stand up for yourself, racists!
And to those fuckheads like Brit Hume who are pushing the "hey, if you didn't do anything wrong, you don't have anything to worry about, right?" line of anti-American bullshit - and to those whom it comforts - I feel I need to again reprint some immortal lines from "A Man for All Seasons":
More: And go he should, if he were the devil himself, until he broke the law.
Roper: So now you'd give the devil benefit of law!
More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get to the devil?
Roper: Yes! I'd cut down every law in England to do that.
More: Oh? And when the last law was down and the devil turned round on you - where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, man's laws, not God's, and if you cut them down - and you're just the man to do it - do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the devil benefit of law - for my own safety's sake.
Saturday, May 13, 2006
Friday, May 05, 2006
Stephanopoulos: And is it curious to you that given how much control U.S. and coalition forces now have in the country, they haven’t found any weapons of mass destruction?Let's face it: Donald Rumsfeld isn't going anywhere. Bush firing Rumsfeld would be like firing himself - it would be admitting that his entire Iraq "experiment" (tm Dean Esmay), the centerpiece of his presidency, was a colossal mistake. So Rumsfeld stays.
Rumsfeld: We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.
-"This Week," 3/30/03
But the quote above has always seemed to me to be a perfect encapsulation of the entire Iraq war, and in fact of the administration as a whole. In the first half of the quote, Rumsfeld "knows where [the WMD] are." And then seconds later, he proves for anyone who was even half listening that in fact they "know" nothing of the kind. (The "somewhat" is the cherry on top of the sundae.)
The simple fact is, no one who supported the war in Iraq, administration or citizen, much cared whether those pesky WMD existed or not. We needed to kick some Arab ass and this was the easiest target. The bully always picks on the weakest kid. (Is it any wonder that Iran wants to bulk up a little bit before recess?)
Meanwhile, we watch "United 93" so we can refresh the hatred and fear and hopelessness we felt that day. And we step out onto the playground with our dukes held up defiantly, waiting. For something.
Wednesday, May 03, 2006
Just for a moment, Colbert brought a heavily sheltered President Bush face to face with the outrage and revulsion that large swathes of the American public feel for him and what he has done to our country.Now see, I'm a word person. And when I or someone else use just the exact right word, I get a little chill of pleasure down my spine. That ever happen to you?
Well it happened to me when I read the word "revulsion." What a fantastic, fantastic word. Don't you just have the urge to find a way to work that into your regular conversation tomorrow? (Well, probably not. But I do.) It so perfectly characterizes the feeling I get when I consider our President and all he represents. Revulsion.
Of course, for those on the right that's just my (uncommon) admission of Bush Derangement Syndrome, the whacked-out hatred of Bush that has no basis in reality.
The thing is, it's all about reality. It's about where we came from, where we are, and where we are going. It's about our inability as a society to even agree on what "reality" is. Traitors and patriots staring at each other from each side of the looking glass, snarling and spitting.
It's about not only not trying to suppress our worst instincts, but reveling in them. It's about whittling the universe down to six inches in front of our faces - if that. It's about money and power and privilege and religion. It's about Dennis Hastert driving a hybrid car a block away from a photo op press conference, then jumping into an Escalade.
We know full well the Emperor has no clothes. And we don't care.
It's not really about Bush at all. He's just a symbol, a pawn in a high-stakes game he only partially understands. But that's part of the picture, too.
What I feel, all too often, is revulsion. Thanks, Scott Rosenberg, for giving me a word for it.
Tuesday, May 02, 2006
Too bad the cat's out of the bag - the anthem was already translated into Spanish. In 1919. Oops. Can't unring that bell. Stop them before they translate again!
And don't show Sen. Alexander this - he might have a seizure of some kind.
Just when you think these boobs can't get any more stupid, venal or irrelevant, they prove you wrong.