Utopia

I have hazel eyes.

2011-09-07T04:23:00.000-07:00

I don't base my identity on my eye color. Having hazel eyes is just a part of me. I'm certainly not proud of having hazel eyes, but I'm not ashamed, either. Most of the time, I don't even think about it.

But if the government told me I couldn't get married to someone else with hazel eyes, or that I couldn't be in the military unless I wore blue contact lenses, or if people stood outside my eye doctor's office with signs that read "Hazel-Eyed Go To Hell!," I might start to think that my hazel eyes were pretty important. I might start to resent people who disliked me just because of my eye color. I might start spending more time than is necessarily healthy wondering what it was about my eye color that got certain people so riled up.

I might get angry when people said absurd or bizarre things, like that I shouldn't be able to teach children unless I wore sunglasses to hide my "condition."

But that would never happen, right?

Happy to have a job

2011-03-19T11:46:00.000-07:00

"Brain drain? Perhaps, in the short run. But maybe Wisconsin will see new infusion of brains as younger workers step up and take those positions, happy to have the jobs even without the lavish pensions of yore."
-comment on "The Costly Brain Drain in Wisconsin," by Ruth Conniff, The Progressive

One of the phrases that has "angered up my blood" the most during this Wisconsin war on the middle class has been the line: "You should be happy to have a job at all." Often followed up with some variation on "Suck it up, you lazy parasite."

This is so disturbing to me because it means that the right-wing crapweasel propaganda has seeped so deep into the psyche of the lower and middle classes that they are willing to throw their lot in with the employer and say, in effect, "I am only worth what my employer says I am. I only deserve what my employer is willing to provide, however meager. Not only am I content with ceding power to my employer, but I demand it."

That attitude is sick and wrong, and resembles nothing so much as an abused spouse telling a friend, "He wouldn't have hit me if I had just put dinner on the table on time."

Eleanor Roosevelt famously said, "No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." This isn't just about taking our government back - it's about taking ourselves back. We better start now, before it's too late.

Taking a break

2007-03-13T06:38:00.000-07:00

My outrage meter is broken. Six years in the red will do that. I just can't dedicate any more energy right now to the insanity that surrounds us.

Based on past experience, I'll probably be back at some point. Maybe not.

Editing

2007-03-12T18:39:00.000-07:00

"Lewis Libby has now been found guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice for lies that had absolutely no legal consequence."

So begins Ann Coulter's latest column on how the Libby prosecution is (surprise!) a terrible miscarriage of justice, and how Bush just must absolutely pardon Libby, now.

Ann, sweetie, let me just suggest a minor edit to your lead paragraph:

"~~Lewis Libby~~ Bill Clinton has now been found guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice for lies that had absolutely no legal consequence."

There. Much better - and more accurate!

Resonance

2007-03-12T14:25:00.000-07:00

Lt. Gen. Kevin Kiley is the third high-ranking military official forced out because of the scandalous treatment of veterans at Walter Reed Hospital. Could this finally be a tipping point, where patriotic Americans begin to realize that conservatives don't care at all about the troops, no matter how much accusatory finger-pointing or heart-tugging country songs stomp through our war-infested culture?

No wait. What was I thinking? Of course, the answer is "no." The line is a dot, people.

What goes around

2007-03-09T14:40:00.000-08:00

Unhinged eliminationist gun-obsessed perv Kim du Toit has decided that he's shutting down comments on his site, because he's tired of a few stray attacks on him and his wife, the vivacious, bombastic universal scold Connie du Toit. Up to now, his flying monkeys have pretty much toed the line, probably because they are too busy stroking their highly-polished shotguns to challenge him on anything. Well, those happy days are gone.

I must admit that one of my sharpest incidents of schadenfreude was when I learned that Kim and Connie's homeschooling database business, Did Today, collapsed because investors were horrified with the du Toits' combined online output. Who knew that years of calling for the violent death of your political enemies would have such negative consequences?

And so the withdrawal continues, as they homeschool their children and retreat into their fantasy of the 1950s America that never existed in the first place.

Go with God, you two.

Dirty Sanchez

2007-03-08T10:22:00.000-08:00

So did you hear the one about the military guy who was the toast of the right, after speaking out about being called names on the Columbia University campus by the college's "radical anti-military students"?

Yeah - turns out his previous career was in show business. He was a star - of gay porn.

And guess what? Matt "Rod Majors" Sanchez had his picture taken at CPAC with Ann Coulter, just as she was making the "faggot" comment about John Edwards. He was at CPAC to accept the Jeanne Kirkpatrick Academic Freedom Award.

You can't make this stuff up, people.

Of course, the crapweasels are rallying around him. Because let's face it: he may be a (self-denying ex-porn-star ex-manwhore) faggot, but he's *their* faggot. It's also sad and tragic that Sanchez has pledged his undying support to a movement that doesn't think he should have been allowed into the military in the first place.

My favorite part of his whining display of victimhood on Salon was his contention that lefty blogs were "prying into his private life." Personally, I think if your naked ass is displayed on video racks in every porn shop in the U.S., your "film career" isn't part of your "private life."

Libby, Libby, Libby goes to Prison, Prison, Prison

2007-03-06T20:19:00.000-08:00

Of course, he won't. He'll get a pardon, sometime between Election Day 2008 and Inauguration Day 2009. But it's just too pleasurable not to write that headline.

Coulter apologia

2007-03-06T13:25:00.000-08:00

In surveying the right-wing crapweasel web sites, as I do more often than I should for the sake of my blood pressure and overall sanity, I've come across a broad spectrum of defenses of Ann Coulter's "faggot" remark. I hereby record them for posterity - paraphrased, but with the basic meaning intact.

Ann wasn't calling Edwards a faggot - she was referring to Isaiah Washington from "Grey's Anatomy."
Ann didn't call Edwards a faggot - in fact, she specifically *declined* to call him a faggot.
Ann was using the word in the "schoolyard taunt" sort of way - not to mean "gay." (This came not only from her defenders, but from Ann herself on "Hannity" last night)
I thought being gay was great, according to liberals. Is there something wrong with being gay, now?
Gays call each other "faggot" all the time. What's the big deal?
Faggot actually means: bundle of sticks, female prostitute, old woman, bassoon (!) etc. etc. ad infinitum.
The comment didn't have anything to do with Edwards - it was all about media hysteria over language.
It was a joke!
There were a lot worse things Ann could have called Edwards, but she didn't.
Why are liberals trying to take away Ann Coulter's freedom of speech? Liberal Nazis.
Apparently to liberals, it's OK to say vicious things about Christians, but you can't sneeze in the direction of a gay.
Ann was taken out of context (again).
I hate liberals and their manufactured outrage.
Ann was making a good point. Who wants the Breck Girl as Commander-in-Chief?

UPDATE: Best weblog comment of the week, from Hot Air:

I'd just like to add that liberals don't love to bash Christians, just people who call themselves Christians right after calling someone else a faggot.

Ich bin ein Faggot

2007-03-03T17:42:00.000-08:00

Memo to Ann Coulter:

When Michelle Malkin denounces you for being over the top, you've got a problem. Seriously.

Still, though, please keep it up. Ramp it up if possible. Say every single hateful, racist, bigoted thing that your slavering followers are thinking but dare not say. Cap it off with another performance at CPAC 2008 - maybe you can call Barack Obama a half-breed nigger terrorist-lover or something. (Just an idea - feel free to steal it.) Because the Democrats are going to need all the help they can get to take back the White House next year.

Godspeed, Ann.

UPDATE: Shorter "Hot Air" comment section:

Calling someone a "faggot" is no big deal. When I was growing up, we called each other "faggots" all the time, and it didn't have anything to do with whether anyone was homosexual - or, as we have to say now, "gay." Damn fags and their euphemisms. Go Ann!

Everything's hunky-dory

2007-02-27T13:28:00.000-08:00

When I heard the news story today about the explosion in Ramadi, I laughed. Which makes me a bad person. But when the U.S. government tries to minimize the reports of a truck bomb killing 18 children on a soccer field by saying, no, we set off the explosion ourselves, and it just wounded 30 people - we're down the rabbit hole.

Further down.

People in Hell want water

2007-02-26T23:26:00.000-08:00

If Hillary Clinton gave the fantasy speech outlined by Gary Kamiya in Salon, I just might consider voting for her. But she won't, not in a million years. So I won't. Simple, no?

Quote of the Week

2007-02-26T09:58:00.000-08:00

"I love America. Just because I think gay dudes should be allowed to adopt kids and we should all drive hybrid cars doesn’t mean that I don’t love America."

-Liz Lemon (Tina Fey), "30 Rock"

"30 Rock" is one of the best-written shows on TV right now, and definitely the best-written (and funniest) comedy. No surprise, since Tina Fey jumped ship as head writer on SNL to write and star in her own show. Alec Baldwin is also fantastic as GE exec Jack Donaghy, who has a giant photo of a toaster on the wall in his office.

Speaking of offices, "The Office" is brilliant, but I don't think it's a "comedy" in the traditional TV sense. The tone and aims are completely different.

If you haven't seen "30 Rock," give it a chance. I don't want this one to get cancelled.

Democrats Fail to Pass Symbolic, Non-Binding Resolution Declaring Earth Not Flat

2007-02-26T04:51:00.000-08:00

This Modern World nails how I feel every time some anti-science nut like Dean Esmay (who also believes passionately that Terri Schiavo could have lept out of her hospital bed if just given a chance, and that HIV is harmless) laughs at Al Gore or writes some variation of this:

Boy, it sure was cold today. And we got 7 inches of snow overnight. Someone call Al Gore!

I think I need to take a break from the browser when every time I open it, my most common emotion is "loathing."

UPDATE: Some high-quality braying from Dean and his flying monkeys about Al Gore's Oscar win last night. Al better watch out - a few more good works, and he might surpass Jimmy Carter as Most Hated Man on Earth for the crapweasels.

How about 'who gives a shit'?

2007-02-21T03:54:00.000-08:00

Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi gives voice to anger over a national media that is a lot more concerned with Britney Spears' hairdo and Anna Nicole's "death fridge" than anything that matters in this world. The thing is, just like our government, in this country we have the exact media that we deserve.

Doth protest

2007-02-19T07:58:00.000-08:00

A choice comment from a Freeper called "Catholic Canadian," in a discussion about former NBA star Tim Hardaway's statement that he "hates gay people":

"At one point, I tried to be tolerant of gays that I met. I would talk to them as normal individuals. After awhile though, all civilised talk with them decends into lewd and suggestive sexual comments, innuendo, attempts at touching and suggestions that you go back to their place."

Uh huh.

Monkeys with typewriters

2007-02-15T15:15:00.000-08:00

The latest salvo in the right wing's war against environmentalism? Hybrid cars are dangerous because they are too quiet, and thus threaten the safety of the blind.

I'm not making this up.

"That's not a real story," says my brother.
"Yes it is! I'll send you the link."
"You must have left something out," he says, incredulous.
"No. It's real," I say.
"Are you sure that isn't an Onion story? Because I would laugh at it if it was in the Onion."

This story is hilarious for many reasons. But the one that leaps to mind is, I can imagine right-wingers trying to come up with a list of reasons why hybrid cars should be banned. But I can't for the life of me imagine them coming up with that one in a million years.

I give up

2007-02-15T11:39:00.000-08:00

I'm tired of fighting. So this is to announce that from now on I believe the following:

-The King James Version of the Bible is the inerrant word of God.
-Abortion is murder.
-Global warming is a hoax.
-HIV does not cause AIDS.
-Valerie Plame was not a covert agent.
-Saddam had WMD.
-Saddam helped plan 9/11.
-The minimum wage hurts the poor.
-George W. Bush is a Texas rancher.
-Bill and Hillary Clinton killed Vince Foster.
-Tom Cruise is not gay.
-Gay sex is indistinguishable from rape, incest and bestiality.
-Iraq is not in the middle of a civil war.
-$9 billion missing in Iraq is no big deal.
-George W. Bush is the reason we haven't had a terrorist attack since 9/11.
-Ann Coulter is funny, sexy, and correct.
-Michael Moore is a holocaust denier.
-Hybrid cars are dangerous because they are too quiet.
-Anyone who criticizes the Iraq war or the President is a traitor.
-The more guns we have, the safer we are.

If more revelations come to me, I'll add them. Thanks for your attention.

Pretension

2007-02-14T12:13:00.000-08:00

This isn't a pop culture weblog, although pop culture is another of my abiding interests. And I do tend to focus, as some commenters like to point out, on stuff that "angries up my blood," as Grandpa Simpson says. So I couldn't pass up this Entertainment Weekly writeup on ABC's "Lost," which has suffered a major loss in audience (including me) this season:

Nobody is more proud - and more defensive - about Lost than [series star Matthew] Fox. The fall from amazing grace? That's just the headline-hungry media tearing down what the cast and crew built up. The ratings decline? Those were simply hype-intrigued looky-loos who've decided Lost isn't for them and gravitated toward less complicated fare. "Good riddance," says Fox.... And what of the devotees who yearn for those innocent invisible-peanut-butter-flavored beach days? "The people who rag on it that way aren't strong enough fans, really," he says. "Those people are copping out."

Memo to Matthew Fox: fuck you. You're an actor on a television show - a show that started with a handful of intriguing ideas that then proceeded to systematically crap all over them. This show made you a star, and it might not be the best move to be insulting the very people who put you there.

It physically pains me to channel Laura Ingraham, but shut up and act.

Hillary, Hillary, Hillary

2007-02-07T15:57:00.000-08:00

I don't much like Hillary Clinton. I think she has all of her husband's bad points and none of the good ones. But I have to say, I would relish like a fine wine her election to President in November 2008 - just to see the massive number of head explosions that would result among the crapweasel right wing as Hillary and Bill saunter back into the White House. It would be like watching all three "Scanners" movies at the same time.

The BMFC initiative

2007-02-07T09:09:00.000-08:00

The usual crapweasel suspects on the right are all up in arms about the proposed ballot measure in Washington State that would require married couples to have children within three years, or have their marriages annulled.

After carping for years that marriage is all about children, these doofuses are taken aback with their own "morality" being thrown back in their faces. As usual, though, I don't think the measure's proponents have gone far enough. On my old site, I outlined a similar proposal, something I called the Bureau of Marriage and Family Certification (BMFC).*

Here's the rundown:

1. No marriage allowed where the woman is older than child-bearing age (medical certification required).

2. All engaged couples must sign a Procreation Pledge, agreeing to attempt to conceive for at least the first five years of the marriage.

3. Both marriage partners must be heterosexual, to avoid conflict with Rule 2. Heterosexuality will be authenticated by the BMFC, using investigative techniques, or in difficult cases, medical arousal testing.

4. All new marriages will be monitored by the BMFC for no less than one (1) year, to make sure the union is legitimate and not undertaken for financial or other non-approved reasons, especially including theft of company or government benefits.

5. Divorce will be strictly regulated. All civil divorces will have to be approved by the BMFC, after a 3-5 year evaluation process.

I think this is a good start in forcing the right wing to confront the real consequences of their worldview. Marriage is all about children? Divorce is too easy? People shouldn't get married just to get benefits? Fine. Then write it into law, bitches.

When I lived in Michigan, an ambitious local prosecutor thought his ticket to fame would be prosecuting women for giving birth to crack-addicted babies. Great idea, right? Get tough! But once he started actually throwing poor black mothers in jail, the bloom fell off the rose.

You think abortion is murder? Fine. Then every single doctor who performs an abortion, and every single woman who gets one, should be charged with and convicted of murder. Murder is murder. And the woman doesn't get off the hook because the baby was conceived in a rape. A fetus is a person, full stop. Deal with that reality, and maybe we can talk.

*NOTE: I take no responsibility for how people will pronounce this acronym. :-)

Because I miss Molly

2007-02-04T12:44:00.000-08:00

A quote from a 1995 Molly Ivins article on Rush Limbaugh, in Mother Jones magazine:

I have a correspondent named Irwin Wingo in Weatherford, Texas. Irwin and some of the leading men of the town are in the habit of meeting about 10 every morning at the Chat'n'Chew Cafe to drink coffee and discuss the state of the world. One of their members is a dittohead, a Limbaugh listener. He came in one day, plopped himself down, and said, "I think Rush is right. Racism in this country is dead. I don't know what the niggers will find to gripe about now."

Godspeed, Molly.

Amen, brother

2007-02-03T13:32:00.000-08:00

The whole "Mary Cheney's baby" thing has been fascinating, hasn't it? It's just another layer of frosting on the cake that is Mary Cheney's lesbianism in the first place. How galling it must be for those right-wing crapweasels to have a perverted selfish hedonist smack dab in the middle of that nest of vipers called the Cheney family.

Of course, Lynne and Dick haven't exactly charged to their daughter's defense, and Mary herself has been even worse - taking the right-wing's money, both at Coors and from her own father's campaign, and staying silent when it came to standing up to the elements in her father's party that abhor her very existence.

As usual, other people say it more eloquently than I can - in this case, it's Dan Savage. Preach it, brother!

Screw him

2007-02-01T20:30:00.000-08:00

Molly Ivins died just a few days after she revealed that her cancer had come back for a third time. I'm surprised at how much this hurts. I don't have a lot of words at this point, so I'll turn it over to Tbogg commenter D. Sidhe, who responded to Dean Esmay's despicable display of hatred thusly:

Of course I'm sure all of this will just go into the hopper as proof of Dean's little thesis that the left is full of angry people like Molly Ivins. But you know what? Screw him. How dare he demean Molly's anger, her completely legitimate anger, at what he and his boy Bush and the rest of the people like him have done to her--and our--country? Of course she was angry. These jackasses are tearing our entire country apart, and have spent the last six years calling us traitors for even noticing it, who wouldn't be angry about that? Jesus Christ, Dean, if you thought we were destroying the country you loved, wouldn't you be angry? You even seem plenty angry at the moment, to say that kind of thing about a woman who's just died, and you're on top. Do me a favor, and remember how you felt during the Clinton years. Now remember how angry you got when you found a couple of idiots in blogs somewhere saying nasty things when Reagan died, and then go shut the hell up. Damned straight we're angry. We're angry you morons forced an immature little bully on us, and angry you forced a vicious, destructive, pointless war on us, and angry you've made us less safe, not more, and gotten literally uncountable numbers of people killed doing it, and angry as hell you've been treating us like traitors and hysterics for being pissed off about it. You're a nasty little boy who pulls the wings off of flies and laughs when they buzz helplessly around in the dirt, just like your bullying president. Molly knew that from the start. That's why you're glad she's dead, because she knew that and she never stopped saying it. And all of her anger was nothing to what you people have done to us, all of us, as a planet. My biggest regret is she will never get the chance to see Bush impeached, and jailed, like the war criminal he is. And I'm going to work even harder to make sure that happens, because you, and all of the rest of you pricks who are saying evil things about her today, deserve to be dragged out into the light and shown for what you are and what you've done. You've hurt Molly's country, and my country, and our entire world, and if we have to pin it all to your foreheads to make sure you can't do it again in another twenty years, we'll do just that.

I never met Molly. But I miss her so damned bad it aches. And I didn't want to know what the bastards were saying about her, because it hurts. But, you know, I'm glad I know. Because it made me angry, and I'm going to use that anger to help restore the country she loved.

Not funny ha-ha

2007-01-31T05:26:00.000-08:00

Isn't it funny that the crapweasel right wing's description of the Scooter Libby trial, "lying about a crime that did not take place," can actually be more factually applied to Bill Clinton's impeachment?

As someone once said on Democratic Underground, "Can't we find a woman to give Bush a blowjob, so we can impeach him?"

Related post: Blowjobs and broomsticks

Now and then

2007-01-29T15:08:00.000-08:00

NOW...

CHENEY: [If the U.S. had not invaded Iraq,] Saddam Hussein would still be in power. He would, at this point, be engaged in a nuclear arms race with Ahmadinejad, his blood enemy next door in Iran --

BLITZER: But he was being contained as we all know --

CHENEY: He was not being contained. He was not being contained, Wolf.

THEN...

"Saddam Hussein has not developed any significant capacity with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors."

-Secretary of State Colin Powell, Feb. 24, 2001

"We are able to keep [Saddam's] arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."

-National Security Advisor Condi Rice, July 29, 2001

Molly Ivins

2007-01-29T11:27:00.000-08:00

Molly Ivins' breast cancer is apparently "back with a vengeance," and she's in the hospital. This is sad, sad news. The world will be a much poorer place without her in it. I wish her and her family the best.

Why Air America struggles

2007-01-28T20:19:00.000-08:00

I don't know if Air America is struggling or dying or doing fantastic. Depends on who you ask, like everything these days. But I do know that it hasn't been the bang-up success that its initial founders thought it would be.

I think the answer is twofold: one from the negative side, and one from the positive side. They're really just two sides of the same coin.

The positive: I don't think people on the left have to be coddled and reassured of their opinions every moment of every day, like people on the right. Righties seem to need constant assurance that yes, they are of course right about everything, and damn those traitorous bastards who are cheeky enough to think otherwise. On the left, largely, I think people have come to their positions over time, through actually thinking about them. Right-wing ideology, to me, seems to be more the product of indoctrination and imposition. That's not to say that some on the left can't be just as rigid and doctrinaire as any Michelle Malkin or Dean Esmay. But overall, I think the idea holds.

The negative: People on the left are so beaten down by the dominant right-wing ideology in this country that even they flinch when confronted with people and ideas that the right finds abhorrent. It's practically stylish in my Commie bubble called Madison to be openly scornful of Michael Moore, for example, even though he's one of the few pop culture figures who have forcefully rebelled against the horrors of the neocon worldview. Lefties can be so conciliatory that they won't support people on their own side if they are too "strident." Let's just get along, be nice and smile, and maybe everyone will hold hands and buy each other a Coke.

To which I say: HELL NO. That time has passed. Fight back. Get in their face. Stand up for what you believe in, goddamn it. Get a bloody nose, and give two back. We didn't start this fight, but we better damn well win it.

Democracy Now!

2007-01-24T09:18:00.000-08:00

One of the most successful PR campaigns in the history of humanity has been to change the U.S. war in Iraq from a response to a perceived threat into a heroic campaign to spread democracy.

Now that the non-existent threat of Iraq (remember the 45-minute launch of drone planes?) has been justly thrown into the dustbin, the crapweasel right-wing has successfully managed to completely change the subject. They will deny utterly that the "threat" was the reason for the war, and point to various mentions of "freedom" and "democracy" sprinkled through Bush speeches and official documents as proof that FREEDOM and DEMOCRACY were the reasons for the war all along. You like democracy, don't you, punk? Don't you like freedom, you Commie bastard? Purple fingers, bitches!

Too bad this justification is just as fake as the last one.

What's magic and brilliant about this new construct is that it allows us to blame the Iraqis for not being grateful enough that we invaded their nation, killed hundreds of thousands of their friends and family, and destroyed their infrastructure. Bush even explicitly mentioned this "debt of gratitude" in his last up-against-the-wall Iraq speech.

All I can say is, those Iranians better be ready with the flowers and candy.

Visceral

2007-01-24T07:52:00.000-08:00

This image was prominently displayed in a comment thread on FreeRepublic about the President's State of the Union speech.

Words fail me.

Very bad day

2007-01-22T21:07:00.000-08:00

If you're President Bush, and the day before your State of the Union speech, with your approval ratings at an all-time low and still sinking, and the former Republican chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, John Warner, publicly comes out against your "surge" plan in Iraq...

...you must be having a Very Bad Day.

Andy Griffith Hates America

2007-01-20T13:25:00.001-08:00

(from August Pollak by way of Oliver Willis)

Feingold 4 Ever

2007-01-19T13:13:00.000-08:00

From Glenn Greenwald, who has been covering the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the warrantless wiretapping by the Bush administration:

Feingold began by pointing out that the administration, including Gonzales, has many times accused opponents of the "Terrorist Surveillance Program" -- meaning those who insisted that eavesdropping take place within the law, within the FISA framework -- of "opposing eavesdropping on terrorists" (I can find 20 examples in 5 minutes of that).

Feingold's first question - "do you know of any one in the country who opposed eavesdropping on terrorists?"

Gonzales: Sure - if you look at blogs today, there is a lot of concern about all types of eavesdropping, who don't want us eavesdropping at all.

Feingold: Do you know anyone in government who ever took that position?

Gonzales: No, but that is not what I said.

Feingold: It is a disgrace and disservice to your office and the President to have accused people on this Committee of opposing eavesdropping on terrorists.

Gonzales: I didn't have you in mind or anyone on the Committee when I referred to people who oppose eavesdropping on terrorists. Perish the thought.

Feingold: Oh, well it's nice that you didn't have us "in your mind" when making those accusations, but given that you and the President were running around the country accusing people of opposing eavesdropping on terrorists in the middle of an election, the fact that you didn't have Congressional Democrats in "mind" isn't significant. Your intent was to make people think that anyone who opposed the "TSP" did not want to eavesdrop on terrorists, even though that was false. No Democrats oppose eavesdropping on terrorists.

Gonzales: I wasn't referring to Democrats.

So, apparently, all those speeches Bush officials and their supporters have spent the last year giving accusing people of opposing eavesdropping on terrorists, and all the television commercials making the same accusations throughout the months leading up to the election, were not about Democrats at all, but were about random bloggers who are against all eavesdropping. Where? Maybe on Smirking Chimp and Democratic Underground. That is who they meant when they were talking about opposing eavesdropping on Osama bin Laden. They didn't mean Democrats in Congress. The entire campaign and all of those accusations were directed only to the bloggers who don't want them eavesdropping at all.

I confess to finding that exchange deeply revolting though satisfying at the same time. Can't they just all yield all of their time to Feingold?

Damn I wish that man was running for President.

Sex sex sex

2007-01-16T08:53:00.000-08:00

Unintentionally hilarious FreeRepublic quote of the week, on a thread denouncing the idea of ending "don't ask, don't tell":

"I am amazed at the 24/7 obsession that these people have with sexual activity."

Mind you, this is a site that has a permanent category called "Homosexualagenda."

Memo to all the gay-hating troglodytes on FreeRepublic:

I'm not the one defining myself by my sexuality. I'm not the one obsessed with sex. I'm not the one calling people names based on who they love.

You are.

Mind-blowingly stupid right wing media moment of the week

2007-01-02T18:18:00.000-08:00

Bill O'Reilly's latest fascination is having a "body language expert" on each week to "analyze" newsmakers and give us "insights." Insights like that Rosie O'Donnell really doesn't like Donald Trump - not one bit.

Tonight, she was asked to watch video of (wait for it) Saddam's execution.

She proclaimed that just before the hanging Saddam "experienced anxiety."

Anti-gay Freeper jaw-dropper of the week

2007-01-02T12:14:00.000-08:00

"We are going in the wrong direction. We should extend the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy to the civilian sector as well."

-during a discussion of lifting the ban on gays serving in the U.S. military

Just wondering

2007-01-02T08:02:00.000-08:00

Gerald Ford seems to be being praised mainly for his wonderful decision to pardon Richard "I am not a crook!" Nixon at the close of Watergate.

I wonder, though, if Nixon had been tried and convicted, whether we might have been spared imperial presidencies such as that of George W. Bush. Maybe these men might not have thought that they were above the law, that they were invincible.

Maybe.

Death porn

2006-12-30T02:55:00.000-08:00

The crapweasel right-wing weblogs are masturbating furiously over Saddam's hanging. Sort of reminds me of how furiously they masturbated when we killed Saddam's sons.

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.

Bonus Freeper rant on Mary Cheney

2006-12-18T09:48:00.000-08:00

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.

Mirror, mirror

2006-12-18T07:49:00.000-08:00

La Shawn Barber, everyone's favorite black conservative evangelical blogger, has always taken her self-absorption to spectacular levels. Most of her posts are about her. Not her opinions, or her analysis of the issues, but *her* - her wonderful success, what accolades she's receiving, the famous people she hobnobs with, and the tribulations of being such a famous online figure. I sometimes wonder how the woman types, since she spends so much time patting herself on the back. Images on her site are 90 percent of, you guessed it, her face.

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.

Just a thought

2006-12-14T10:51:00.000-08:00

Why do people who natter on endlessly about the "gay agenda" so often use a variation of the phrase, "having it crammed down my throat"?

Draw your own conclusions.

Bonus video: Ray Comfort enjoys a banana.
(Thanks to Lisa, who I hope will write her own weblog one day.)

Freepers weigh in on Mary Cheney's pregnancy

2006-12-08T11:21:00.000-08:00

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.

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.

Wait, I'm confused. Mary Cheney wants us all to skip underwear and ride in limos?

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.

Quotes on the Iraq Study Group

2006-12-08T06:51:00.000-08:00

"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."
-Gambling addict and moral scold Bill Bennett, on National Review Online's "The Corner" weblog

Memo to Bill Bennett: Look in the mirror, dude.

This is not my beautiful house!

2006-12-07T06:44:00.000-08:00

First, the Democrats take the House and the Senate.

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.

I hear Saddam's not busy

2006-11-28T18:16:00.000-08:00

"Clearly the Iraqi people are not embracing freedom, so imposing order through a military strongman might be the only way."

-Bill O'Reilly tonight, channeling Bill Maher in his call for installing a new military dictatorship in Iraq

Head-smacking quote of the day

2006-11-28T08:04:00.000-08:00

"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

Borat

2006-11-18T13:21:00.001-08:00

It's official: no one has a sense of humor anymore.

It's a fucking funny movie, people. Get. over. yourselves.

Rats

2006-11-13T07:26:00.000-08:00

One of my first posts on my old site dealt with the (then) new phenomenon of right-wingers calling them "government schools" instead of "public schools." I believe this was to evoke "government cheese" and the idea that people aren't too thrilled with government, even though they like things that are public.

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.

Error! Error!

2006-11-04T20:01:00.000-08:00

Well Dean Esmay, who has tried to masquerade as being pro-gay despite being an HIV denialist and never speaking of gay people without simultaneously crowing about "backlash" now reveals his true feelings: being gay is either a result of trauma or biological error.

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.

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.

See? That wasn't so difficult, now was it?

Wanna know why I'm a liberal?

2006-10-29T09:37:00.000-08:00

Michael J. Fox and Rush Limbaugh.

That's why I'm a liberal.

Fucking sick of everything

2006-10-26T16:10:00.000-07:00

"There's only one party in America today, with two wings: the conservative wing, known as Democrats, and the reactionary wing, known as Republicans."

-Gore Vidal

That about covers it

2006-10-20T12:41:00.000-07:00

John Cole of Balloon Juice sums up the conservative crapweasel attitude about homosexuality:

“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.

Reflections on the situation in Iraq, courtesy of FreeRepublic

2006-10-19T10:21:00.000-07:00

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"....

Mind-blowing delusional quote of the day

2006-10-18T17:39:00.000-07:00

On the recent outings of closeted gay Republicans:

"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.

Not rocket surgery

2006-10-18T07:58:00.000-07:00

Bill O'Reilly last night was all up in arms because some school district was going to celebrate Gay and Lesbian History Month. So he has this dour "gay activist" on (who started out by proclaiming that he was a Republican) to respond to his indignation. The guy timidly said something about other "History Month" celebrations that try to highlight the accomplishments of people traditionally left out of the history books.

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.

We're all fucked

2006-10-17T17:52:00.000-07:00

As of today, here's the deal.

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.

No one ever listens to my predictions

2006-10-16T10:46:00.000-07:00

The 2008 Republican nominee for President will be a scary hard-righter like Rick Santorum, Tom Tancredo, or someone worse we haven't heard of yet. And he will win.

Crapweasel logic

2006-10-16T09:28:00.000-07:00

Science is the new religion. Those leftists deny God's truth, so they need to worship something else. It's just a bunch of claptrap - why should we believe these so-called "scientists" anyway? What do they know? All this talk about "global warming" - hey, there was snow on my car yesterday morning, and it's only mid-October!

By the way, *my* religion is right.

Spoke too soon

2006-10-12T12:50:00.000-07:00

"He's entitled to a defense of some sort, and a trial of some sort."

-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.

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."

Sickening Quote of the Day (Hour? Minute?)

2006-10-12T11:17:00.000-07:00

"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

Heard around

2006-10-10T11:44:00.000-07:00

Right-wing crapweasels should thank their lucky stars every day for Bill Clinton. For without Clinton, they would still be trying to blame everything on Carter.

Rock bottom, then 50 feet of crap

2006-10-04T19:10:00.000-07:00

This week I've learned that it's scientifically impossible for the Republicans to hit rock bottom. There is no bottom for them. I used to joke, ruefully, that the President could reach into Dakota Fanning's chest on national TV, pull out her still-beating heart, and then eat it, and suffer no ill effects. But now with the crapweasel right-wingers trying to find ways to defend child predators and blame the victims, it's clear that they have no values, no standards - no center.

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.

Lying crapweasels still get under my skin

2006-10-01T10:34:00.000-07:00

Well I see that some people over at a certain lying crapweasel weblog are stirring up the Terri Schiavo pot again, claiming that some new therapy could have saved the vegetative Terri. No matter that the claim is absolutely untrue - that's never stopped them before. After all, they claimed, with absolutely no evidence, to be sure that Michael Schiavo killed his wife by somehow (they don't know how) causing her original injury.

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.

Blue fingers

2006-09-27T10:47:00.000-07:00

A commenter on the Washington Monthly, responding to new polls which appear to indicate that the Iraqi public wants the U.S. military to leave their country, proposed something that really resonated with me: why not let the Iraqis themselves vote on our presence there? All the rightwing crapweasels were celebrating the blue-fingered Iraqi populace in the past - why not make them put their money where their fingers are? Why shouldn't the Iraqis have more say in our activities in their country than we do? Whose country is it, anyway?

Learned helplessness

2006-09-24T20:42:00.000-07:00

I've figured out one of the main reasons I just don't have the strength to write about this stuff much anymore: I've come to the upsetting conclusion that we're just getting the government that we deserve. If we don't have the decency and common sense to stop this shit - to, as my mother says, sit down with ourselves and say 'no more' - then maybe we don't deserve to have it end.

"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"

Bush is the rock

2006-09-19T17:12:00.000-07:00

How is it possible that Matt Groening has covered every conceivable topic during the run of "The Simpsons"? And with considerable wit and insight, to boot.

---------------------------------
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.

HOMER: Uh-huh.

LISA: It's just a stupid rock.

HOMER: Uh-huh.

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.

There are weapons that are simply thoughts

2006-09-12T10:03:00.000-07:00

I was going to just link to this, the latest example of Keith Olbermann's brilliance and courage. But I thought it deserved to be reprinted here, because he says what I don't have the strength to right now:

This hole in the ground
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.

You have.

May this country forgive you.

9/11

2006-09-09T16:45:00.000-07:00

Conservatives are of course ecstatic that CNN is re-running all its actual coverage of 9/11 on the fifth anniversary Monday.

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.

All ranted out

2006-09-05T12:26:00.000-07:00

I'm thinking seriously about shutting down this site. Nothing left to say, really. Doesn't everyone get to the point where they just don't have any strength left? That's how I feel now. I'm tapped out. No one listens, no one talks without shouting, no one cares. I've bled out.

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.

That sounds about right

2006-08-25T21:17:00.000-07:00

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

Sometimes, even FreeRepublic can surprise you

2006-08-23T13:01:00.000-07:00

"What about shoes? Is it okay if she wears shoes?"

-Free Republic commenter on a Forbes story titled "Don't Marry Career Women," the content of which should be self-evident

UPDATE: But then again, there's this, from the "You would hope it's humor but it's probably not" category:

"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

Nothing

2006-08-21T14:11:00.000-07:00

Nada. Zip. Zero. Null. Zilch.

I'm numb.

Out Driving: A Play in One Act

2006-08-16T11:21:00.000-07:00

George and Howard are in a car, traveling along a twisty mountain road. George is driving.

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.

Finis.

Words mean stuff

2006-08-15T07:27:00.000-07:00

Jon Stewart pointed out on last night's Daily Show that the GOP is trying to get away from its last empty catchphrase, "Stay the course" - probably because everyone realizes now that if you don't know what your course is, it might not be all that advisable to keep on it.

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.)

That's our Ann

2006-08-10T08:06:00.000-07:00

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.

-Ann Coulter

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.

That's our Joe

2006-08-10T06:22:00.000-07:00

"Joe Lieberman has made up his mind. If not nominated, he will run. If not elected, he will serve."

-Samantha Bee, The Daily Show

Collected writings on HolyJoe

2006-08-09T08:54:00.000-07:00

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.

-Rude Pundit

Our new insect overlords

2006-08-09T07:27:00.000-07:00

I saw Joe Lieberman on the Today show this morning, proving his epic level of egomania by promising to run as an independent in the fall. And it occurred to me that when I see Lieberman now, I think of The Simpsons' Kent Brockman, who freaked out when he saw what appeared to be giant ants floating around in the Space Shuttle in "Deep Space Homer":

"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.

It's funny because it's true, Part Deux

2006-08-08T08:58:00.000-07:00

Former Diebold Executive O Dell Declares Lieberman Victory in Connecticut

I don't know how much more of this humor I can take.

Jaw-dropper quote of the week

2006-08-08T07:36:00.000-07:00

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

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.

Another reason to support Ned Lamont

2006-08-07T18:51:00.000-07:00

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

It's funny because it's true

2006-08-03T18:18:00.000-07:00

For a long time now, I've been saying that the Onion's days as a humor magazine are numbered. When you can't tell the difference between reality and an Onion article, is it even funny anymore?

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.

"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?"

Oh. my. god.

Deja vu all over again

2006-08-01T13:57:00.000-07:00

Bringing "Democracy" to the Middle East:
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!

[frenzied poking]

[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]

Finis.

What neoconservatism is really all about

2006-07-31T09:50:00.000-07:00

Glenn Greenwald hits it out of the park, again.

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.

Some things I have no interest in discussing with anyone ever again

2006-07-25T19:48:00.000-07:00

Valerie Plame
WMDs
John Kerry's war service
Howard Dean
Creationism
Church-state separation
Liberalism, Conservatism, Fascism
Michael Moore
"Fahrenheit 9/11"
9/11
Patriotism
Ann Coulter
The "War" on Christmas
Joe Lieberman
Global warming
Liberal weblogs
Hitler
Islam
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.

Useful infographics

2006-07-25T10:35:00.000-07:00

Hey! Now I'm as informative as Fox News!

That wasn't hard.

Crapweasel of the Week

2006-07-21T10:32:00.000-07:00

Apparently, any portrayal of 9/11 that doesn't emphasize rage against Muslims is not good enough for crapweasel right-wingers like John Podhoretz, who wrote this about Oliver Stone's "World Trade Center":

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.

Totally nucking futs

2006-07-17T21:07:00.000-07:00

After the whole "looking forward to the pig" incident in Germany before the G8 summit, why should we be surprised that President Bush decided to give German Chancellor Angela Merkel an impromptu massage? Something like this would probably be considered wildly inappropriate at, say, a school board meeting. But for the leader of the free world, it's just a sign of the carefree fratboy insouciance we all love so much, right?

Gak.

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.

The wingnuts were right!

2006-07-17T08:42:00.000-07:00

I took a look at Joe Wilson's "Who's Who" entry, and I found this:

(Shamelessly stolen from Democratic Underground)

Poison

2006-07-16T17:20:00.000-07:00

A question I've continuously wrestled with is this: at a time when the conservatives control virtually everything in our society, why are they so angry?

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.

Quote of the Week

2006-07-14T12:23:00.000-07:00

"It's true - Al Gore lost his home state in the 2000 election. But George W. Bush lost his home country."

-Al Franken, Air America Radio

Question for my conservative readers (if any)

2006-07-06T10:53:00.000-07:00

What are the limits of Presidential power in a time of war? Give me specifics.

New blog to check out

2006-07-06T07:33:00.000-07:00

I've long encouraged my good friend X Philius to write a weblog of his own. And in some good news for all of us, he's taken my advice. Stop on over to Mbululu when you get a chance - I predict great things.

Fox & Friends: Why do they hate our freedom?

2006-07-01T05:28:00.000-07:00

I've long said that the most rabidly right-wing program on Fox News is the morning show, "Fox & Friends." This week they proved my point in spades, when hosts E.D. Hill and Brian Kilmeade both advanced what is apparently Fox's latest meme: creating an "Office of Censorship" (I'm not making this up) so journalists would be stopped from printing stuff the administration doesn't want them to print.

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.

Why can't they give us liberals who are easier to attack?

2006-06-29T13:46:00.000-07:00

Over at Rosemary Esmay's site is a fascinating "debate" about how, apparently, John Kerry, Cindy Sheehan, Max Cleland, the "Jersey Girls" and a host of other liberal standard-bearers (!) were "given a pass" and made untouchable by their (veteran/victim) status. Of course, that argument is ludicrous. But in a world where George W. Bush is a cowboy and Bill O'Reilly is a populist, nothing's impossible.

This side of the looking glass is a scary place. Send me back, please.

I love words

2006-06-29T08:58:00.000-07:00

Word of the day: supercilious

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?

Answer: Yes.

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.

Free press = Treason

2006-06-28T15:15:00.000-07:00

From Glenn Greenwald again:

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.

Brazil

2006-06-27T12:01:00.000-07:00

My good friend Jason recently convinced me to take another look at Terry Gilliam's dystopian movie "Brazil." I saw it once in college, and it left me feeling so depressed and hopeless that I vowed never to see it again. But it's important to face up to your demons, so I gave it another try.

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?
Sam: What? I suppose you'd rather have terrorists?
Jill: How many terrorists have you met, Sam? Actual terrorists?
Sam (dumbfounded): Actual terrorists?
Jill: Yeah.
Sam: Well, it's only my first day.

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:

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.
Interviewer: How do you account for the fact that the bombing campaign has been going on for thirteen years?
Helpmann: Beginners' luck.

Freaky.

Humor break

2006-06-27T08:48:00.000-07:00

"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."

-Kent Brockman, "Deep Space Homer," The Simpsons

Tipping point

2006-06-27T08:16:00.000-07:00

Glenn Greenwald, outdoing himself yet again, has a fantastic rundown on the "New York Times is a traitor" story currently raging across the airwaves. I certainly couldn't do better.

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.