Blue fingers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"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

Nada. Zip. Zero. Null. Zilch.

I'm numb.

Out Driving: A Play in One Act

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

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

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

"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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.