I just read of yet another case of a guy who’s about to be executed who is probably innocent. And the thing that always gets me about these cases is that the police and prosecutors really don’t seem to give a damn that they might be letting a guilty guy get away with a crime. They all firmly believe that bad guys should be punished for their crimes, but when it comes down to it, all they really seem to care about is that they got someone for the crime. And now that they’ve got someone, they’ll be damned to let him go.
Here’s one of the villains in this article:
Georgia officials insist that Davis' failed 2004 federal court hearing is proof he has had his opportunity in court with the new evidence. "They've had a chance to challenge the conviction," said David Lock, chief assistant district attorney in Chatham County, where Savannah is located.
And if you read the article, you’d know that he’s most certainly lying. Because the reason the federal court dismissed his case was because of a law pushed by Newt Gingrich in the 90’s which denied federal courts the ability to hear these cases. It wasn’t that they heard the new evidence and dismissed it. It was because the law forbid them from even considering it.
And this guy most certainly knows that, but doesn’t give a damn. And sure, I’d prefer that he be concerned over the fact that he might be aiding in the murder of an innocent man. But you’d think he’d at least be angered that they might not have caught the guilty guy; who is possibly still on the loose and dangerous. But no. He’s got his guy, and that’s all he cares about.
Filling a Hole
But it’s not just this guy. It seems that once police and prosecutors decide that they’ve got the right guy, they refuse to look at anything that might exonerate that person. And that includes fighting requests to have DNA evidence examined on old convictions. They just don’t want to hear it. It’s like watching Perry Mason and the prosecutor refuses to drop the case after the guilty person confessed. I’m sure Perry kept a gun in his briefcase for just such an occurrence. And yes, that’d be my favorite episode.
But again, even if they don’t care about hurting innocent people, they should at least consider the fact that they’re allowing guilty people to roam free. But I guess these people don’t work like that. Fighting crime is like filling holes. Fill the hole with someone who sorta fits, and move on to the next hole. And if the square peg doesn’t fit into the round hole, just keep hitting.
And I can understand that. When people’s lives are in your hands, it’s probably easier to not consider them as real people. It’s just another job. And it’s got to hurt to truly contemplate that you might be ruining the lives of hundreds of people; so it’s just better to pretend that it’s not happening.
Oddly enough, after I wrote this, I happened to read Wikipedia on Henry Lee Lucas, the Texas “serial killer” who once confessed to over 3,000 murders, many of which he couldn’t possibly have committed. Apparently, after they forced him to confess to crimes he might have committed, police started using Lucas as a clearinghouse for all their cold cases, as a way of getting them off the books. At least two bright police officers actually got him to confess to invented crimes as a means of testing him. Yet his handlers refused to consider that he was lying, or that their role in coercing him to confess may have been a bit problematic.
Eventually, the Lucas thing became such an embarrassment that he became the only guy that then-Governor Bush saved from the death penalty. Hell, that’s almost as big of an honor as getting 3,000 murders attributed to him. I wonder if he got a framed copy of Bush’s commutation letter.
The Job
But this was just an extreme example of what we keep seeing again and again. Our law enforcers really aren’t that concerned with enforcing the law. Sure, they’d like to get the right guy. And they sure want to believe they got the right guy. But when it comes down to it, they just want somebody. And anyone convenient will do. And once they’ve gone through all the time and trouble of catching someone, by god, they want that someone to stay caught.
Criminal defense attorneys often take a lot of flak for defending obviously guilty people, but that’s their job. They’re hired to give someone a good defense, and for as much as that’s a rotten thing, that’s just how our system works. Everyone deserves a good defense; even the scumbags.
But prosecutors do the same damn thing, and most people don’t seem to mind. Just as a defense attorney’s job is to defend their client, a prosecutor’s job is to prosecute that client. But at a certain level, the prosecutor also needs to back away from the case and really decide if he’s got the right guy, and I don’t think they do that enough. They get caught into the trap of wanting to win a case because they want to win, and aren’t really thinking of the consequences.
As with too many of us, our jobs become some sort of abstract thing that is achieved for its own merits. Waiters who think their job is to be tipped and teachers who think their job is to enforce rules and be obeyed. As an accountant, I do that same thing. Amounts of money that I personally would find thrilling to have and devastating to lose have no real meaning to me when I’m punching away at these numbers. But it is real money and this stuff has real consequence, and I have to make an effort to remember that. My job isn’t some abstract thing involving numbers. This is real stuff that affects real people.
And with prosecutors and police, it’s all the more real. This shouldn’t be about closing files and filling holes. This should be about separating the good guys from the bad. And sure, they’ll never get everything right. But they’ve got to try. And it doesn’t end once they decide to prosecute, or even when they get that conviction. They’re never really off the hook.
And I can certainly understand why they wouldn’t want to think about that. But that doesn’t let them off the hook. Their job isn’t prosecuting people and closing cases. Their job is to serve justice. And when they close a case by locking up the wrong guy, they’ve committed two offenses against justice: Injuring an innocent man and allowing a dangerous one to roam free. It might help them sleep better at night, but it only endangers the rest of us.
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Friday, July 13, 2007
Why Bush Sucks
Carpetbagger has a post on Bush’s response to a good question on Bush’s use of blaming “al Qaeda” for the attacks in Iraq.
As Bush said:
Al Qaeda in Iraq has sworn allegiance to Osama bin Laden. And the guys who had perpetuated the attacks on America — obviously, the guys on the airplane are dead, and the commanders, many of those are either dead or in captivity, like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. But the people in Iraq, al Qaeda in Iraq, has sworn allegiance to Osama bin Laden. And we need to take al Qaeda in Iraq seriously, just like we need to take al Qaeda anywhere in the world seriously.
To which Carpetbagger says “Bush has to know how misleading this is.”
But the thing is, I’m not so sure he does. Because I know a few people like Bush, and they really do believe absolutely insane crap that they should have no business believing. Things that are provably false, which have been explained to them repeatedly, yet they continue to believe it.
Even passively, they take these insane falsehoods as proven fact. Not because someone tricked them into believing it, but because they want to believe it. In fact, they need to believe it, in order for their lives to make sense. They’ll even misinterpret what they’re told and insist that what they heard is what you said. And even if you’re able to convince them they’re wrong, their brains will quickly lapse back into believing what they wanted to believe in the first place.
For example, nobody wants to believe that they’re a bad person (excepting, perhaps, Dick Cheney). But they also don’t like doing the things that are required of good people. So instead, they rationalize that the bad things they’re doing aren’t bad. It’s ok to allow poor people to starve and suffer and die early deaths, because they somehow deserve it. Because what you have is what you deserve to have. And that’s also why people who were born wealthy will convince themselves that they were “self-made” and earned it all; even as their inherited fortunes solely dwindle away due to their incompetence.
And the basic problem is that they really don’t have that sense of truth that the rest of us have. It’s not a character defect or poor parenting. It’s just how their brains work. Not that this is necessarily unique to them. We’re all familiar with the tricks our brains play to make sense of things that don’t make sense. Optical illusions and whatnot, which work when our brains connect things that aren’t really connected.
But of course, the real problem is that they believe crap in the first place and refuse to rethink any of that crap. They’re selfish people who can’t think about people who aren’t on their team. And you’re only on “their” team as long as your interests coincide with theirs. But because they can’t see themselves as being bad people, their brains continue to rationalize these things by demonizing anyone on the other team. Sure, they don’t want other people to suffer, but dammit if those people didn’t do something to deserve it. And it doesn’t matter what that something is. They’ll believe whatever they need to.
And I’m convinced that Bush is like that. He believes what he wants to believe, which is whatever he needs to believe to keep going. In this case, he needs to believe that staying in Iraq is the best thing to do, and he’ll believe and say anything to make that happen. I had more to write, but it’s 3:30 in the morning. I really need to start writing earlier.
As Bush said:
Al Qaeda in Iraq has sworn allegiance to Osama bin Laden. And the guys who had perpetuated the attacks on America — obviously, the guys on the airplane are dead, and the commanders, many of those are either dead or in captivity, like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. But the people in Iraq, al Qaeda in Iraq, has sworn allegiance to Osama bin Laden. And we need to take al Qaeda in Iraq seriously, just like we need to take al Qaeda anywhere in the world seriously.
To which Carpetbagger says “Bush has to know how misleading this is.”
But the thing is, I’m not so sure he does. Because I know a few people like Bush, and they really do believe absolutely insane crap that they should have no business believing. Things that are provably false, which have been explained to them repeatedly, yet they continue to believe it.
Even passively, they take these insane falsehoods as proven fact. Not because someone tricked them into believing it, but because they want to believe it. In fact, they need to believe it, in order for their lives to make sense. They’ll even misinterpret what they’re told and insist that what they heard is what you said. And even if you’re able to convince them they’re wrong, their brains will quickly lapse back into believing what they wanted to believe in the first place.
For example, nobody wants to believe that they’re a bad person (excepting, perhaps, Dick Cheney). But they also don’t like doing the things that are required of good people. So instead, they rationalize that the bad things they’re doing aren’t bad. It’s ok to allow poor people to starve and suffer and die early deaths, because they somehow deserve it. Because what you have is what you deserve to have. And that’s also why people who were born wealthy will convince themselves that they were “self-made” and earned it all; even as their inherited fortunes solely dwindle away due to their incompetence.
And the basic problem is that they really don’t have that sense of truth that the rest of us have. It’s not a character defect or poor parenting. It’s just how their brains work. Not that this is necessarily unique to them. We’re all familiar with the tricks our brains play to make sense of things that don’t make sense. Optical illusions and whatnot, which work when our brains connect things that aren’t really connected.
But of course, the real problem is that they believe crap in the first place and refuse to rethink any of that crap. They’re selfish people who can’t think about people who aren’t on their team. And you’re only on “their” team as long as your interests coincide with theirs. But because they can’t see themselves as being bad people, their brains continue to rationalize these things by demonizing anyone on the other team. Sure, they don’t want other people to suffer, but dammit if those people didn’t do something to deserve it. And it doesn’t matter what that something is. They’ll believe whatever they need to.
And I’m convinced that Bush is like that. He believes what he wants to believe, which is whatever he needs to believe to keep going. In this case, he needs to believe that staying in Iraq is the best thing to do, and he’ll believe and say anything to make that happen. I had more to write, but it’s 3:30 in the morning. I really need to start writing earlier.
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
The One True Liberal
This isn't anything new, but I just wanted to reaffirm the fact that no liberal can accurately consider themselves to be true liberals unless they openly state their continued allegiance to me and send me money. That isn't to say that these false liberals aren't capable of aiding the liberal cause, but only that they represent no true liberal ideal and are just wasting their time. And if you've got a problem with that, tough shit. You're the bozo screwing around while the true liberals are working our best to please our liberal god, Karl Marx. So get with the program and stop being such a putz, or you can just burn in Capitalist Hell!
If the Pope can do it, why can't I?
If the Pope can do it, why can't I?
Alcohol 4 Jesus
Why doesn't anyone tell me about this stuff? The Supreme Court ruled against the Bong Hits 4 Jesus dude??? What the hell? That's entirely ridiculous, and I say that as someone named "Doctor Biobrain". I knew the wingnuts on the Supreme Court had no standards, but...my god, this is insane. Thanks a fucking lot, Washington Punditry. Roberts and Alito are great guys. This is awesome. We've got complete freaks in charge of the highest court in the land and there's nothing we can do about it.
The first time I heard of this case, I put it in the no-brainer category. I couldn't even believe it had gone to trial, let alone all the way to the Supreme Court. I'm a bit torn on the whole free speech in schools thing, mostly believing that kids have it, though I can understand the opposing side. But on a public street for a non-school event? That's just retarded. So retarded, in fact, that I'm now stuck to resorting to excessive exclamation points !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.
And we're stuck with these freaks for how long? Until they die? Who was the ad wizard who came up with that one? And jesus christ I hope the remaining leftists on the court are taking their multivitamins and wheat bran. Sure, it's unlikely that the Senate Dems would allow another fruitcake through, but I'd rather not take any chances.
Oh, and I hope nobody will mind me giving a big FUCK YOU to Ralph "Dipshit" Nader for doing more than any single individual to bring this about. Even Bush and Rove needed a team of marketing zombies to perform their job, and it was entirely understandable why they did what they did. But Nader? He was supposedly on our team. Hell, I even voted for him, knowing that my Texas vote wouldn't cost Gore anything. But Nader didn't give a damn about my vote. He just wanted to screw the Democrats. And now we're all screwed.
Consistent Messages
And talking about idiots, I read this quote from the school district's superintendent:
"My concern is that [the court's ruling] could compromise our ability to send a consistent message against the use of illegal drugs."
Huh? Schools are now expecting the students to send messages that are consistent with the school's message? What universe is this person from? I could understand if this was a school employee with the bong hit message. But a student? And what exactly has been the school's stance on bong hits and Jesus? It's been awhile since I was in high school, but I don't remember the subject ever coming up. But perhaps that's just me showing my age.
I did like Justice Stevens argument on this:
Admittedly, some high school students (including those who use drugs) are dumb. Most students, however, do not shed their brains at the schoolhouse gate, and most students know dumb advocacy when they see it. The notion that the message on this banner would actually persuade either the average student or even the dumbest one to change his or her behavior is most implausible
Indeed. But perhaps the wingnuts on the Supreme Court have a little more insight into how influential dumb advocacy can be.
And just to show that it wasn't for vain, I'll repost the banner here:
And can there be any doubt that this banner encouraged far, far more pot smoking because it became a famous court case? Though I suppose it was all done by people who were going to smoke some anyway. But isn't that always the case?
The first time I heard of this case, I put it in the no-brainer category. I couldn't even believe it had gone to trial, let alone all the way to the Supreme Court. I'm a bit torn on the whole free speech in schools thing, mostly believing that kids have it, though I can understand the opposing side. But on a public street for a non-school event? That's just retarded. So retarded, in fact, that I'm now stuck to resorting to excessive exclamation points !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.
And we're stuck with these freaks for how long? Until they die? Who was the ad wizard who came up with that one? And jesus christ I hope the remaining leftists on the court are taking their multivitamins and wheat bran. Sure, it's unlikely that the Senate Dems would allow another fruitcake through, but I'd rather not take any chances.
Oh, and I hope nobody will mind me giving a big FUCK YOU to Ralph "Dipshit" Nader for doing more than any single individual to bring this about. Even Bush and Rove needed a team of marketing zombies to perform their job, and it was entirely understandable why they did what they did. But Nader? He was supposedly on our team. Hell, I even voted for him, knowing that my Texas vote wouldn't cost Gore anything. But Nader didn't give a damn about my vote. He just wanted to screw the Democrats. And now we're all screwed.
Consistent Messages
And talking about idiots, I read this quote from the school district's superintendent:
"My concern is that [the court's ruling] could compromise our ability to send a consistent message against the use of illegal drugs."
Huh? Schools are now expecting the students to send messages that are consistent with the school's message? What universe is this person from? I could understand if this was a school employee with the bong hit message. But a student? And what exactly has been the school's stance on bong hits and Jesus? It's been awhile since I was in high school, but I don't remember the subject ever coming up. But perhaps that's just me showing my age.
I did like Justice Stevens argument on this:
Admittedly, some high school students (including those who use drugs) are dumb. Most students, however, do not shed their brains at the schoolhouse gate, and most students know dumb advocacy when they see it. The notion that the message on this banner would actually persuade either the average student or even the dumbest one to change his or her behavior is most implausible
Indeed. But perhaps the wingnuts on the Supreme Court have a little more insight into how influential dumb advocacy can be.
And just to show that it wasn't for vain, I'll repost the banner here:
And can there be any doubt that this banner encouraged far, far more pot smoking because it became a famous court case? Though I suppose it was all done by people who were going to smoke some anyway. But isn't that always the case?
Sunday, July 08, 2007
Thursday, July 05, 2007
Another Carnival Victory!
What can I say, Biobrain did it again. That’s right. Yet another big carnival win, this time for the appropriately named Carnival of Truth. Yes, I am the best.
Wednesday, July 04, 2007
The War on the Fourth
Well, it’s Fourth of July again, and what can I say. I’m sorry. I have yet again let you down in our eternal quest to end the Fourth of July forever. For as important as killing Christmas is in our goal to banish goodness from the world, obliterating this abominable date from our calendar is clearly the bigger fish. The Fourth of July stands for freedom and liberty and for the independence of mankind. Yet there will still be apple pies eaten today and fireworks fired. It’s enough to make me vomit.
And so I take today’s continued celebration of this day to be a giant wake-up call. I didn’t do enough. Sure, my series of 364-Day calendars have been big sellers in some liberal enclaves, as have my America-bashing history textbooks. But there’s only so many ways to describe Washington and Jefferson as Homosexual Islamocommies before you begin to wonder if it’s really getting through.
So that’s why I’ve decided to take this to the next level: Boycotts. I’m making a list of all the stores which sell Fourth of July paraphernalia in order to stage boycotts of them come next Fourth of July. List in hand, I’ll be sending letters in early June to each of these vendors, warning them to not sell anything even remotely connected with the Fourth of July on that dreaded date. That includes fireworks, hamburger meat, watermelons, beer, and of course, apples for apple pies. By the time I’m done, there won’t be a store open on the XXX of July.
But I need your help. I need each and every member of my loyal readership to immediately start searching out these offenders. Look in every nook and cranny of the world of merchandising. Leave no store unturned. I want names, addresses, and phone numbers. And don’t take their word for it. Insist on seeing all their merchandise. And don’t be afraid to raise your voice. Vague threats are a good way of letting people know you’re serious.
And the best part of all: At the end of the day we’re staging a huge firework burning. That’s right. I’m gathering together all the fireworks I can find, tossing them in a big pile, covering them with gasoline, and lighting those suckers up. That’ll show the little SOB’s.
HAPPY XXX of JULY EVERYONE!!!
And so I take today’s continued celebration of this day to be a giant wake-up call. I didn’t do enough. Sure, my series of 364-Day calendars have been big sellers in some liberal enclaves, as have my America-bashing history textbooks. But there’s only so many ways to describe Washington and Jefferson as Homosexual Islamocommies before you begin to wonder if it’s really getting through.
So that’s why I’ve decided to take this to the next level: Boycotts. I’m making a list of all the stores which sell Fourth of July paraphernalia in order to stage boycotts of them come next Fourth of July. List in hand, I’ll be sending letters in early June to each of these vendors, warning them to not sell anything even remotely connected with the Fourth of July on that dreaded date. That includes fireworks, hamburger meat, watermelons, beer, and of course, apples for apple pies. By the time I’m done, there won’t be a store open on the XXX of July.
But I need your help. I need each and every member of my loyal readership to immediately start searching out these offenders. Look in every nook and cranny of the world of merchandising. Leave no store unturned. I want names, addresses, and phone numbers. And don’t take their word for it. Insist on seeing all their merchandise. And don’t be afraid to raise your voice. Vague threats are a good way of letting people know you’re serious.
And the best part of all: At the end of the day we’re staging a huge firework burning. That’s right. I’m gathering together all the fireworks I can find, tossing them in a big pile, covering them with gasoline, and lighting those suckers up. That’ll show the little SOB’s.
HAPPY XXX of JULY EVERYONE!!!
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
Mea Culpa Time
Ok. It happened. I was wrong about something. Something big. That’s right. I got my Scooter Libby pardon prediction entirely wrong. Here it is: No pardon for Libby. That’s right, I misunderestimated Bush yet again. As I said in March, “with everything else falling apart for the Bushies right now, they won’t possibly risk a pardon.” Oops.
Needless to say, I had the arithmetic completely backwards on that one. Because with Bush’s poll numbers so low, they figured they can’t go down any more. And prison is so unseemly. So the Bushies did an old-school lobbying push on the DC Establishment and hit all the right notes. And with their buddies in line, they figured they had nothing to lose by getting rid of the prison time.
But of course, all this was yet another rationalization from Uncle Dick. And if Cheney needed the decision to go the other way, he would have convinced them of that too. Funny how that works out. The facts always seem to align themselves with whatever Cheney needs to have happen. I guess some people are just lucky that way.
But unfortunately for Dick, he’s had to rely on the “We Can’t Go Any Lower” rationalization too many times. Because that’s all he’s got. He can’t argue from a position of strength, because he doesn’t have any. So he’s now down to telling Bush about the future Americans who will recognize his greatness, because there are so few alive able to do so with a straight face.
Losing the Base
But even worse: The Can’t Go Any Lower argument is entirely false. Bush can always go down further. Believe it or not, even Republicans have their breaking points, and this is just going to be another heap of straw dropping on that poor elephant’s back. I’m not at all suggesting that Bush will drop below the 20’s just because of this, but I wouldn’t be surprised to see the lower poll outliers become even more constant from this.
Sure, the Bushies will be claiming this as yet another sweeping victory for their team. And hell, they might even believe it this time. But this isn’t going away and is yet another indefensible act no one wants to defend. And the last people wanting to defend them are Bush’s already beleaguered allies in Congress. While Bush’s political retirement is inevitable, many of his defenders would prefer to not tie themselves so closely to Bush’s fate. While it’s quite unlikely that Bush will be forced to uncommute Libby’s sentence, he has made himself even more radioactive from his actions.
If nothing else, just read this sample of fiery rhetoric issued from various mainstream Dems. The Bushies have given even right-leaning Dems like Hillary a leftie-rousing club to beat Republicans with. For as much as habeas corpus and Iraq are dangerzones to any “serious” presidential candidate, this Libby thing can be a lot of fun; even for a moderate.
Oh, and as a side note: At this point, there is no one who wants to support Bush. People support Bush because they have to support Bush. Even Bush wouldn’t support Bush, if he wasn’t Bush. Who would? No one. I am quite confident that if people were to objectively answer if they would support a president like Bush, his approval would be no higher than zero percent. And possibly lower.
Fingers do the Thinking
And just to be sure, I actually started doubting my prediction while I was writing the last paragraph of that post. As I wrote: These guys are like the mob and protect their own. Stay loyal and they’ll take care of you. And if you don’t stay loyal…they’ll take care of you. With these guys, loyalty isn’t a choice; but it sure does pay.
Now I’ve got a confession for you people: I often don’t think this stuff out before I write it. I usually will read a news story or blog post, think an opening line or two, and just start typing away as fast as possible. I usually have no idea what I’m going to write until I write it and often learn new stuff as I type. That’s how I do my thing. I let my mind wander and it goes wherever it wants. Some people call it luck, but I call it genius.
And so when I wrote that last paragraph, I began to wonder how that wouldn’t mean that they’d pardon him. But I was so proud of my contrarian prediction, I decided to stick with it. It just sounded right, even if it didn’t quite mesh in my head. And now I know that my fingers were smarter than my brain and I should have just gone with the direction they were pushing in; though this does not mean that I’ll soon be Doctor Biofinger. That just sounds gross.
And in any case, the rest of the prediction was obviously spot-on. Whether or not Libby served jailtime, he was going to be taken care of. And it’s just a matter of time until he’s the elder statesmen called in to save George P. Bush’s butt from that “misguided” invasion of France. And all the DC Establishment will shout a hardy hurray that a grown-up such as Scooter has come to fix everything.
Oh, and I was also totally wrong about Digby being a dude. Oops.
Needless to say, I had the arithmetic completely backwards on that one. Because with Bush’s poll numbers so low, they figured they can’t go down any more. And prison is so unseemly. So the Bushies did an old-school lobbying push on the DC Establishment and hit all the right notes. And with their buddies in line, they figured they had nothing to lose by getting rid of the prison time.
But of course, all this was yet another rationalization from Uncle Dick. And if Cheney needed the decision to go the other way, he would have convinced them of that too. Funny how that works out. The facts always seem to align themselves with whatever Cheney needs to have happen. I guess some people are just lucky that way.
But unfortunately for Dick, he’s had to rely on the “We Can’t Go Any Lower” rationalization too many times. Because that’s all he’s got. He can’t argue from a position of strength, because he doesn’t have any. So he’s now down to telling Bush about the future Americans who will recognize his greatness, because there are so few alive able to do so with a straight face.
Losing the Base
But even worse: The Can’t Go Any Lower argument is entirely false. Bush can always go down further. Believe it or not, even Republicans have their breaking points, and this is just going to be another heap of straw dropping on that poor elephant’s back. I’m not at all suggesting that Bush will drop below the 20’s just because of this, but I wouldn’t be surprised to see the lower poll outliers become even more constant from this.
Sure, the Bushies will be claiming this as yet another sweeping victory for their team. And hell, they might even believe it this time. But this isn’t going away and is yet another indefensible act no one wants to defend. And the last people wanting to defend them are Bush’s already beleaguered allies in Congress. While Bush’s political retirement is inevitable, many of his defenders would prefer to not tie themselves so closely to Bush’s fate. While it’s quite unlikely that Bush will be forced to uncommute Libby’s sentence, he has made himself even more radioactive from his actions.
If nothing else, just read this sample of fiery rhetoric issued from various mainstream Dems. The Bushies have given even right-leaning Dems like Hillary a leftie-rousing club to beat Republicans with. For as much as habeas corpus and Iraq are dangerzones to any “serious” presidential candidate, this Libby thing can be a lot of fun; even for a moderate.
Oh, and as a side note: At this point, there is no one who wants to support Bush. People support Bush because they have to support Bush. Even Bush wouldn’t support Bush, if he wasn’t Bush. Who would? No one. I am quite confident that if people were to objectively answer if they would support a president like Bush, his approval would be no higher than zero percent. And possibly lower.
Fingers do the Thinking
And just to be sure, I actually started doubting my prediction while I was writing the last paragraph of that post. As I wrote: These guys are like the mob and protect their own. Stay loyal and they’ll take care of you. And if you don’t stay loyal…they’ll take care of you. With these guys, loyalty isn’t a choice; but it sure does pay.
Now I’ve got a confession for you people: I often don’t think this stuff out before I write it. I usually will read a news story or blog post, think an opening line or two, and just start typing away as fast as possible. I usually have no idea what I’m going to write until I write it and often learn new stuff as I type. That’s how I do my thing. I let my mind wander and it goes wherever it wants. Some people call it luck, but I call it genius.
And so when I wrote that last paragraph, I began to wonder how that wouldn’t mean that they’d pardon him. But I was so proud of my contrarian prediction, I decided to stick with it. It just sounded right, even if it didn’t quite mesh in my head. And now I know that my fingers were smarter than my brain and I should have just gone with the direction they were pushing in; though this does not mean that I’ll soon be Doctor Biofinger. That just sounds gross.
And in any case, the rest of the prediction was obviously spot-on. Whether or not Libby served jailtime, he was going to be taken care of. And it’s just a matter of time until he’s the elder statesmen called in to save George P. Bush’s butt from that “misguided” invasion of France. And all the DC Establishment will shout a hardy hurray that a grown-up such as Scooter has come to fix everything.
Oh, and I was also totally wrong about Digby being a dude. Oops.
Friday, June 29, 2007
Thursday, June 28, 2007
The Enlightened Ones
Some “enlightened” Christians (a term not used derogatorily) are of the opinion that once you go to Heaven, you are completely stripped of your bodily self, to the point that you no longer care about your former family and friends and have absolutely no personality characteristics linking you to your old self. It’s as if once you leave your body behind, you’re just an anonymous soul that goes to Heaven and does…I don’t know. I guess, crazy anonymous soul stuff, like standing around looking like a bright light. And praying, or something. Nobody’s ever really clarified that for me.
I’ve gotten this theory repeatedly whenever I ask Christians about whether or not my Christian parents would be sad if they knew I was in Hell. I was of the opinion that if my parents made it into Heaven and I didn’t, they’d be really sad and it really wouldn’t be Heaven for them. Or so I’d hope. And the same goes for everyone. Were the Heaven & Hell system to work the way many people believe it does, it’s unlikely that anyone in Heaven wouldn’t have at least one or two dear friends or family members suffering in Hell for eternity. And that just doesn’t seem right.
But when I’ve asked Christians about this in the past, many of them seem to believe that this is no big deal. That once you’re in Heaven, you drop all your earthly relationships and so you wouldn’t even care that you can’t remember your children, friends, and whatnot. And I guess that makes sense to me. I have no idea how these people would know any of this, seeing as how nobody’s ever been there. And unless I’m crazy, Christians can’t believe that people come back from Heaven, so this seems like a big guess to me. But whatever. If they’re willing to believe it, I guess that’s their business.
Effectively Dead
But the part that doesn’t make sense is: Why are they cool with this? I mean, what’s the point of living in Heaven for eternity if it’s not us anymore? If we completely lose our identity, memory, etc; aren’t we effectively dead? I mean, if some evil doctor removed your brain and placed the brains of another person in your head, would it still be you? Would you be cool with that, knowing that it isn’t you anymore? Of course not. If some other dude was walking around in your body, you’d be pissed.
And so how is this any different with our souls? If my soul doesn’t have my memories, then it’s not me. It might as well be something else walking around in my soul. Our personalities are nothing more than our memories combined with our earthly genetics and chemicals. So if you deny us our bodies and our memories, we are nothing. We don’t exist. So what’s the point of that?
And what would be the point of Hell? If Hitler’s soul has no memory of who he was or what he did, is it really Hitler? Does God get some special kick knowing that these dudes have no idea why they’re suffering? But is it really Hitler suffering? Or is it yet another empty soul, unaware of its former self? And if my soul doesn’t have my identity, what the hell do I care what happens to it? Sure, it was my soul. But it’s not me. Without my memories and body, it’s no different than anyone else’s soul. If our souls really are anonymous, then I’ll just pretend that my soul went to Heaven. What difference does it make? According to these people, they’re all the same.
Punishing the Soul
And speaking of points: What’s the point of this whole earthly place, if we’re just going to lose all our experiences once we leave? Is our universe just a disposable test, which will someday be entirely forgotten once God is finished with it? Does God really need to put us through all this suffering, simply to find out if he wants to let us hang out with him for eternity? And after it’s all over, we’re not going to remember any of this? He created all this, just for a loyalty test? I find that unlikely. Could anyone really believe that God is allowing children to die and women to be raped, for no other purpose than to test our ability to love him? Really??
And honestly, if we’re sinners, we’re sinners because of our bodies and experiences. So how does it make any sense that those are the two attributes of us that won’t be getting the reward or punishment? Or are our souls somehow responsible for how we act, independently of our body and memory? If that’s the case, then that’s how God made us. And if he can make us with rotten souls, then he should just cut-out the middleman and just put us bad apples directly in Hell. That sure would prevent a lot of needless suffering and agony.
But I think that people’s personalities are based entirely on their memories and bodies, so I see no reason why the soul needs to be punished for anything. Punish Hitler’s body. Screw with his head for the things he did. That makes sense, though I refuse to understand how eternity is the proper length for any punishment. But come on, leave his poor soul out of this. I haven’t the faintest idea of what a soul could possibly be, beyond our life experiences; but if there is one, I refuse to see how it’s anything but an innocent victim in all this.
Stop-Gap Theories
Overall, I’ve got to give the memory-less soul theory a big D-minus on the sensible theory scale. It goes hand-in-hand with the theory that God doesn’t send people to Hell, but rather people send themselves there by rejecting God. And that the only punishment in Hell is that you exist without God. Sure, these sound like intellectual improvements over the traditional Fire & Brimstone version of life, but even a cursory exploration of these theories leaves us far more confused than if we hadn’t bothered thinking of them at all.
But these really aren’t supposed to be sensible theories. They’re supposed to be enlightened ones. You know, the ones your “enlightened” Christian philosophy professor feeds you, in order to quell the growing dissent between your new knowledge of higher ethics and the childish vision of the sulfury pit of Hell. Hell is an absurdity to all enlightened people, so this argument is designed to reassure newly enlightened Christians by giving them a less absurd Hell to believe in.
But this enlightened vision of Hell is even more absurd, for many of the reasons I mentioned above. But you’re not supposed to think about that. You’re just supposed to accept the new line of reasoning because it’s better than the alternative. But the truth is right there for anyone to see: There is no Hell. It’s just a dumb idea used to scare the rubes, but it really doesn’t make any sense.
Blessed be the Sinners
If we assume a kind and loving god, we cannot accept a cruel and judgmental god. If I’m expected to have the wisdom to understand my children’s mistakes, then any loving creator would surely understand mine. And of all people, he’s got the least right to complain. He made us. He created this world. He knew that some people would be born with bad parents. He knew that some people would be given bad experiences. He knew what those experiences would do to them. And he let it happen anyway. He knew what he was getting into. God is no victim in this.
So he owes it to the sinners most of all. Whether they were born with a bad soul, bad genes, or bad experiences; none of this was their fault. God was responsible for all of it. Sure, they had freewill. But what did they use to make their decisions? The soul, genes, and experiences that God was ultimately responsible for. And if a dumb schlub like me has figured this out, then there’s no way that our Almighty Lord hasn’t figured it out yet. People wouldn’t do bad things if they truly understood the consequences of what they were doing. And if they don’t understand, then God just wasn’t doing his job.
So he can’t punish these people. Nor can he allow them to banish themselves to Hell, as these enlightened Christians believe. He would understand why they made these mistakes. He would forgive them. Not because they asked. But because they were too ignorant to know how to ask. This shouldn’t be about finding Jesus as the savior. This is about an omniscient being showing how truly omniscient he is. I am expected to unconditionally love my children, even if they reject me. It is absurd to expect any less of God.
Mortal Threats
But the obvious truth is that this has nothing to do with God at all. This is about impotent humans trying to scare people into obedience. That’s where Hell comes from. All-powerful beings don’t need to rely upon anonymous threats of eternal damnation to get obedience. Humans do. And the reason why no two Christians have the same idea of Heaven is because they’re just thinking of the place they’d like to be. This isn’t about God and the afterlife. This is about humans, coping with what we were given in this life.
And maybe there’s a god. And maybe he wants us to obey his rules while we’re temporarily here on earth. But I’m quite confident that he’d certainly understand if we didn’t. And if he didn’t understand and really intended to allow me to be punished for all of eternity, then I fail to understand why anyone would want to love him in the first place.
But I’m willing to grant people their enlightened god. Just as long as we go all the way with it. Eternal damnation might be a fun threat to toss at those who disagree with us, but it sure isn’t very enlightened. Intellectual honesty requires more.
I’ve gotten this theory repeatedly whenever I ask Christians about whether or not my Christian parents would be sad if they knew I was in Hell. I was of the opinion that if my parents made it into Heaven and I didn’t, they’d be really sad and it really wouldn’t be Heaven for them. Or so I’d hope. And the same goes for everyone. Were the Heaven & Hell system to work the way many people believe it does, it’s unlikely that anyone in Heaven wouldn’t have at least one or two dear friends or family members suffering in Hell for eternity. And that just doesn’t seem right.
But when I’ve asked Christians about this in the past, many of them seem to believe that this is no big deal. That once you’re in Heaven, you drop all your earthly relationships and so you wouldn’t even care that you can’t remember your children, friends, and whatnot. And I guess that makes sense to me. I have no idea how these people would know any of this, seeing as how nobody’s ever been there. And unless I’m crazy, Christians can’t believe that people come back from Heaven, so this seems like a big guess to me. But whatever. If they’re willing to believe it, I guess that’s their business.
Effectively Dead
But the part that doesn’t make sense is: Why are they cool with this? I mean, what’s the point of living in Heaven for eternity if it’s not us anymore? If we completely lose our identity, memory, etc; aren’t we effectively dead? I mean, if some evil doctor removed your brain and placed the brains of another person in your head, would it still be you? Would you be cool with that, knowing that it isn’t you anymore? Of course not. If some other dude was walking around in your body, you’d be pissed.
And so how is this any different with our souls? If my soul doesn’t have my memories, then it’s not me. It might as well be something else walking around in my soul. Our personalities are nothing more than our memories combined with our earthly genetics and chemicals. So if you deny us our bodies and our memories, we are nothing. We don’t exist. So what’s the point of that?
And what would be the point of Hell? If Hitler’s soul has no memory of who he was or what he did, is it really Hitler? Does God get some special kick knowing that these dudes have no idea why they’re suffering? But is it really Hitler suffering? Or is it yet another empty soul, unaware of its former self? And if my soul doesn’t have my identity, what the hell do I care what happens to it? Sure, it was my soul. But it’s not me. Without my memories and body, it’s no different than anyone else’s soul. If our souls really are anonymous, then I’ll just pretend that my soul went to Heaven. What difference does it make? According to these people, they’re all the same.
Punishing the Soul
And speaking of points: What’s the point of this whole earthly place, if we’re just going to lose all our experiences once we leave? Is our universe just a disposable test, which will someday be entirely forgotten once God is finished with it? Does God really need to put us through all this suffering, simply to find out if he wants to let us hang out with him for eternity? And after it’s all over, we’re not going to remember any of this? He created all this, just for a loyalty test? I find that unlikely. Could anyone really believe that God is allowing children to die and women to be raped, for no other purpose than to test our ability to love him? Really??
And honestly, if we’re sinners, we’re sinners because of our bodies and experiences. So how does it make any sense that those are the two attributes of us that won’t be getting the reward or punishment? Or are our souls somehow responsible for how we act, independently of our body and memory? If that’s the case, then that’s how God made us. And if he can make us with rotten souls, then he should just cut-out the middleman and just put us bad apples directly in Hell. That sure would prevent a lot of needless suffering and agony.
But I think that people’s personalities are based entirely on their memories and bodies, so I see no reason why the soul needs to be punished for anything. Punish Hitler’s body. Screw with his head for the things he did. That makes sense, though I refuse to understand how eternity is the proper length for any punishment. But come on, leave his poor soul out of this. I haven’t the faintest idea of what a soul could possibly be, beyond our life experiences; but if there is one, I refuse to see how it’s anything but an innocent victim in all this.
Stop-Gap Theories
Overall, I’ve got to give the memory-less soul theory a big D-minus on the sensible theory scale. It goes hand-in-hand with the theory that God doesn’t send people to Hell, but rather people send themselves there by rejecting God. And that the only punishment in Hell is that you exist without God. Sure, these sound like intellectual improvements over the traditional Fire & Brimstone version of life, but even a cursory exploration of these theories leaves us far more confused than if we hadn’t bothered thinking of them at all.
But these really aren’t supposed to be sensible theories. They’re supposed to be enlightened ones. You know, the ones your “enlightened” Christian philosophy professor feeds you, in order to quell the growing dissent between your new knowledge of higher ethics and the childish vision of the sulfury pit of Hell. Hell is an absurdity to all enlightened people, so this argument is designed to reassure newly enlightened Christians by giving them a less absurd Hell to believe in.
But this enlightened vision of Hell is even more absurd, for many of the reasons I mentioned above. But you’re not supposed to think about that. You’re just supposed to accept the new line of reasoning because it’s better than the alternative. But the truth is right there for anyone to see: There is no Hell. It’s just a dumb idea used to scare the rubes, but it really doesn’t make any sense.
Blessed be the Sinners
If we assume a kind and loving god, we cannot accept a cruel and judgmental god. If I’m expected to have the wisdom to understand my children’s mistakes, then any loving creator would surely understand mine. And of all people, he’s got the least right to complain. He made us. He created this world. He knew that some people would be born with bad parents. He knew that some people would be given bad experiences. He knew what those experiences would do to them. And he let it happen anyway. He knew what he was getting into. God is no victim in this.
So he owes it to the sinners most of all. Whether they were born with a bad soul, bad genes, or bad experiences; none of this was their fault. God was responsible for all of it. Sure, they had freewill. But what did they use to make their decisions? The soul, genes, and experiences that God was ultimately responsible for. And if a dumb schlub like me has figured this out, then there’s no way that our Almighty Lord hasn’t figured it out yet. People wouldn’t do bad things if they truly understood the consequences of what they were doing. And if they don’t understand, then God just wasn’t doing his job.
So he can’t punish these people. Nor can he allow them to banish themselves to Hell, as these enlightened Christians believe. He would understand why they made these mistakes. He would forgive them. Not because they asked. But because they were too ignorant to know how to ask. This shouldn’t be about finding Jesus as the savior. This is about an omniscient being showing how truly omniscient he is. I am expected to unconditionally love my children, even if they reject me. It is absurd to expect any less of God.
Mortal Threats
But the obvious truth is that this has nothing to do with God at all. This is about impotent humans trying to scare people into obedience. That’s where Hell comes from. All-powerful beings don’t need to rely upon anonymous threats of eternal damnation to get obedience. Humans do. And the reason why no two Christians have the same idea of Heaven is because they’re just thinking of the place they’d like to be. This isn’t about God and the afterlife. This is about humans, coping with what we were given in this life.
And maybe there’s a god. And maybe he wants us to obey his rules while we’re temporarily here on earth. But I’m quite confident that he’d certainly understand if we didn’t. And if he didn’t understand and really intended to allow me to be punished for all of eternity, then I fail to understand why anyone would want to love him in the first place.
But I’m willing to grant people their enlightened god. Just as long as we go all the way with it. Eternal damnation might be a fun threat to toss at those who disagree with us, but it sure isn’t very enlightened. Intellectual honesty requires more.
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Negroes in Heaven
This is probably a stupid question, but shouldn’t Christian racists strive to keep black and Hispanic people from going to Heaven? Or are they happy with helping minorities find salvation? I’m in no way suggesting that most Christians are racist or anything. But of the Christians who happen to be racist, shouldn’t this be a real concern for them? That they’ll have spent all their lives keeping brown-skinned people out of their neighborhoods, pools, schools, and workplaces; just to find themselves stuck for all of eternity next to some darkie trying to play the blues on a harp.
Has that just never occurred to them? Or do they just assume that minorities can’t get into Heaven? Or do they think Heaven is segregated? And holy shit, what if they’re right? What if you got to Heaven and it was segregated by race. Wouldn’t you freak? Would you try to protest, or would you just go with it? And what if it turned out to be a test, which you failed by not protesting; and end up going to Hell? Wouldn’t that suck?
But back to the racists. I’m having trouble wrapping my head around this one. I’m sure they must have thought about it. They probably sit around their shitty little bars, drinking their shitty little beers, and having a good old laugh about whatever it is that they think the colored people have coming to them in the afterlife. But what could it be? Do they really think all the brown-skinned people go to Hell? Or might they believe that we’re all the same on the inside, and be perfectly happy hanging with the homies, once the skin comes off?
And what about from the other side? Can racists get into Heaven? And if so, how cool are the minorities in Heaven with all this? Do the racists have to give up their racist ways, or could they still be openly racist in Heaven? I’m sure there are quite a few racists who would not be cool with an integrated Heaven. Would God send them to Hell if they tried to create a Whites Only section of Heaven? And do you think Satan could possibly lure them down to Hell, were he to promise them it was segregated?
And finally, if racial inequality was rampant in Hell, would the Civil Rights leaders in Heaven stage protests and try to force God to end the racism? Presumably, he has power over the place; being omnipotent and everything. So would MLK expect God to create racial justice in Hell? Or do you think he’d just think that was all part of the punishment?
You have ten minutes to answer these questions. Good luck.
Has that just never occurred to them? Or do they just assume that minorities can’t get into Heaven? Or do they think Heaven is segregated? And holy shit, what if they’re right? What if you got to Heaven and it was segregated by race. Wouldn’t you freak? Would you try to protest, or would you just go with it? And what if it turned out to be a test, which you failed by not protesting; and end up going to Hell? Wouldn’t that suck?
But back to the racists. I’m having trouble wrapping my head around this one. I’m sure they must have thought about it. They probably sit around their shitty little bars, drinking their shitty little beers, and having a good old laugh about whatever it is that they think the colored people have coming to them in the afterlife. But what could it be? Do they really think all the brown-skinned people go to Hell? Or might they believe that we’re all the same on the inside, and be perfectly happy hanging with the homies, once the skin comes off?
And what about from the other side? Can racists get into Heaven? And if so, how cool are the minorities in Heaven with all this? Do the racists have to give up their racist ways, or could they still be openly racist in Heaven? I’m sure there are quite a few racists who would not be cool with an integrated Heaven. Would God send them to Hell if they tried to create a Whites Only section of Heaven? And do you think Satan could possibly lure them down to Hell, were he to promise them it was segregated?
And finally, if racial inequality was rampant in Hell, would the Civil Rights leaders in Heaven stage protests and try to force God to end the racism? Presumably, he has power over the place; being omnipotent and everything. So would MLK expect God to create racial justice in Hell? Or do you think he’d just think that was all part of the punishment?
You have ten minutes to answer these questions. Good luck.
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
A Few Notes on Dick Cheney
Imagine that Dick Cheney really did have a respectable understanding of how the world actually worked. Combined with his penchant for manipulating the levers of power, would America be in excellent shape right now? Or are Cheney’s bullying ways completely incompatible with a true understanding of the world? Because from everything we’ve seen, all of his actions seem to coincide exactly with whatever it took for him to get more bullying powers; even if those powers were detrimental to his goals.
For example, torture doesn’t work. It just doesn’t. And even if you call it something else, it still doesn’t work. And we know the methods that work better: You treat them like humans and get them to want to talk about their plans. Act like they’re divulging nothing of importance and just get them to open up. That’s easier said than done, of course. But we have the know-how. We have experts in getting people to talk.
So why didn’t Cheney go with that approach? If he had any concern for getting terrorists to talk, why didn’t he bully Bush into expanding our niceguy interrogating techniques? Is it possible he hasn’t heard of them? Of course not. Is there no one in Washington who could have corrected him on that? Impossible. So the only conclusion is that Cheney really does prefer torture. Who knows. Perhaps he snapped after 9/11 and really just wants to torture Muslims for revenge. I honestly believe that the already feeble-minded Bush snapped after 9/11 and still hasn’t recovered. Maybe Dick suffered the same malady. But I don’t think so. I think he just likes to bully people.
Power for Power
Because I believe that part of the reason he wanted a strong torture policy was because he was denied it. Not necessarily that he ever wanted it used, but he wanted the bullying technique as a way of strengthening the hand of the presidency. To quietly assert that he had these powers and didn’t need the consent of the other two branches of government or the American people. This wasn’t about torturing people, per se. He took the rights because he wanted to assert his authority to do so. And in the short term, it worked.
Same goes for illegal wiretaps and everything else. It wasn’t just the bullying techniques that he wanted. He wanted them simply because grabbing them was all part of his bullying power politics. He could have had a working interrogation policy, but he preferred the illegal one instead. Because his ultimate aim wasn’t to torture people, wiretap conversations, or any of that stuff. His ultimate aim was to thoroughly establish the presidency as being above the law in every respect.
But in fact, the use of these powers has surely undermined Cheney’s power far more than had he used traditional means. Think of all the GOP marketing energy wasted trying to defend against Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, warrantless wiretaps, Cheney’s secrecy, and all these other issues. Sure, it can be argued that the GOP didn’t lose on any of these issues. But they did nothing to help the GOP and they kept the Republicans on the defensive. And for what gain? Can anyone honestly claim that information garnered from these abusive practices was significantly better than the traditional methods? Did they learn anything that significantly helped Cheney or the GOP? I doubt it.
And so for as much as Dick was wanting these powers solely to assert his right to have them, their actual use has only served to undermine his power. And at this point, his “legal” arguments in defense of them are turning him into a laughingstock. If Jay Leno hasn’t already been making jokes about Cheney’s feeble arguments, he soon will. And the more Cheney turns into a punchline, the less he’ll be able to BS his way into power. And in that regard, Cheney’s powergrab has inevitably undermined his ability to grab more power.
Dick’s Plans
And what exactly did Cheney have in mind after 2008? Could he really have been comfortable leaving the presidency with dictatorial powers and simply retiring to Wyoming? Everyone’s always insisted that he wouldn’t be president, but I just find that hard to believe. I’m sure he’d prefer to stay in the fourth branch netherworld of the Vice Presidency, but I’m sure even he has a strong enough grasp of reality to realize the unsustainability of that. As much as I wouldn’t mind a Giuliani-Cheney ticket in 2008, I don’t really see that happening.
So is it really impossible to imagine that he had plans to take the top spot himself? Say if Bush died in a nuclear strike on Washington, and Cheney finished the remaining term as Big Daddy Dick, reassuring the public with his bullshit manner of why times are too perilous to change presidential horses midstream. And if anyone has instituted policies making such an event possible, it would be Dick Cheney.
Oh, and one final note on this: I’m not sure if others have noticed this yet, but if one thing is clear about these Washington Post articles on Cheney, Rove got totally duped. I’ve argued that before, that Cheney was screwing up Rove’s game. But it’s all the more obvious now. Rove was Bush’s political brain, but Cheney was the policy brain, which has surely undermined everything Rove was trying to do. They both saw how policy issues should be used for political gain. Cheney just took it more seriously. And more importantly, he put loyalists in key positions and ensured that everything important got routed through his office. Rove was clearly in way over his head. He should have stuck to rigging elections in Texas and left the bureaucratic infighting to the big boys.
Oh, and here’s a decent post from February where I already covered Dick’s power grab: How Cheney Stole America
For example, torture doesn’t work. It just doesn’t. And even if you call it something else, it still doesn’t work. And we know the methods that work better: You treat them like humans and get them to want to talk about their plans. Act like they’re divulging nothing of importance and just get them to open up. That’s easier said than done, of course. But we have the know-how. We have experts in getting people to talk.
So why didn’t Cheney go with that approach? If he had any concern for getting terrorists to talk, why didn’t he bully Bush into expanding our niceguy interrogating techniques? Is it possible he hasn’t heard of them? Of course not. Is there no one in Washington who could have corrected him on that? Impossible. So the only conclusion is that Cheney really does prefer torture. Who knows. Perhaps he snapped after 9/11 and really just wants to torture Muslims for revenge. I honestly believe that the already feeble-minded Bush snapped after 9/11 and still hasn’t recovered. Maybe Dick suffered the same malady. But I don’t think so. I think he just likes to bully people.
Power for Power
Because I believe that part of the reason he wanted a strong torture policy was because he was denied it. Not necessarily that he ever wanted it used, but he wanted the bullying technique as a way of strengthening the hand of the presidency. To quietly assert that he had these powers and didn’t need the consent of the other two branches of government or the American people. This wasn’t about torturing people, per se. He took the rights because he wanted to assert his authority to do so. And in the short term, it worked.
Same goes for illegal wiretaps and everything else. It wasn’t just the bullying techniques that he wanted. He wanted them simply because grabbing them was all part of his bullying power politics. He could have had a working interrogation policy, but he preferred the illegal one instead. Because his ultimate aim wasn’t to torture people, wiretap conversations, or any of that stuff. His ultimate aim was to thoroughly establish the presidency as being above the law in every respect.
But in fact, the use of these powers has surely undermined Cheney’s power far more than had he used traditional means. Think of all the GOP marketing energy wasted trying to defend against Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, warrantless wiretaps, Cheney’s secrecy, and all these other issues. Sure, it can be argued that the GOP didn’t lose on any of these issues. But they did nothing to help the GOP and they kept the Republicans on the defensive. And for what gain? Can anyone honestly claim that information garnered from these abusive practices was significantly better than the traditional methods? Did they learn anything that significantly helped Cheney or the GOP? I doubt it.
And so for as much as Dick was wanting these powers solely to assert his right to have them, their actual use has only served to undermine his power. And at this point, his “legal” arguments in defense of them are turning him into a laughingstock. If Jay Leno hasn’t already been making jokes about Cheney’s feeble arguments, he soon will. And the more Cheney turns into a punchline, the less he’ll be able to BS his way into power. And in that regard, Cheney’s powergrab has inevitably undermined his ability to grab more power.
Dick’s Plans
And what exactly did Cheney have in mind after 2008? Could he really have been comfortable leaving the presidency with dictatorial powers and simply retiring to Wyoming? Everyone’s always insisted that he wouldn’t be president, but I just find that hard to believe. I’m sure he’d prefer to stay in the fourth branch netherworld of the Vice Presidency, but I’m sure even he has a strong enough grasp of reality to realize the unsustainability of that. As much as I wouldn’t mind a Giuliani-Cheney ticket in 2008, I don’t really see that happening.
So is it really impossible to imagine that he had plans to take the top spot himself? Say if Bush died in a nuclear strike on Washington, and Cheney finished the remaining term as Big Daddy Dick, reassuring the public with his bullshit manner of why times are too perilous to change presidential horses midstream. And if anyone has instituted policies making such an event possible, it would be Dick Cheney.
Oh, and one final note on this: I’m not sure if others have noticed this yet, but if one thing is clear about these Washington Post articles on Cheney, Rove got totally duped. I’ve argued that before, that Cheney was screwing up Rove’s game. But it’s all the more obvious now. Rove was Bush’s political brain, but Cheney was the policy brain, which has surely undermined everything Rove was trying to do. They both saw how policy issues should be used for political gain. Cheney just took it more seriously. And more importantly, he put loyalists in key positions and ensured that everything important got routed through his office. Rove was clearly in way over his head. He should have stuck to rigging elections in Texas and left the bureaucratic infighting to the big boys.
Oh, and here’s a decent post from February where I already covered Dick’s power grab: How Cheney Stole America
Monday, June 25, 2007
The Power of Magic
I continue to find it hard to believe, but people in magic. They really do. Even when a straight-forward understanding of an event is readily available, they’d still prefer to believe a magical understanding. Here’s a case in point, in reference to a new positive-thinking DVD called The Secret:
Amanda Jacobellis, 25, believes her life has changed for the better since she watched "The Secret."
Earlier this year, she was trying to turn a building in West Hollywood, Calif., into a makeup salon specializing in eyelash extensions and evoking the glamour of Old Hollywood. Her renovation was only half done, her credit card bills were coming due and her banker couldn't explain why the money for a $50,000 approved loan hadn't arrived in her account.
Sensing her despair, a friend suggested she watch Winfrey's upcoming show on "The Secret." Jacobellis did, and bought the DVD as well.
She spent a night diagramming what she wanted in her life, using a piece of paper and a Sharpie pen: happiness, security, freedom; good relationships with her friends and family; fitness and health goals; less stress — and in one corner, she wrote that she wanted her $50,000 loan by the next day at 3 p.m. She made a call to her banker the next morning: no news. But by 3 o'clock, the mail arrived, containing a letter saying she could call to get the funds transferred into her account.
That’s right. This woman got a $50,000 loan. It didn’t appear in her bank account and her banker couldn’t explain why. So she watched a DVD, wrote some words on a piece of paper, and the next day she received a letter in the mail explaining what she needed to do to get the money transferred to her account. A letter which most surely had been sent before she had done any of the diagramming. Yep, sure sounds like magic to me. And while some wild-eyed cynics might try to suggest that the credit should go to the bankers who helped her; let’s not be silly. This was all because she watched a DVD and wrote some words on a piece of paper. Right.
And what’s so amusing is that this same lady insists that the DVD isn’t just about positive thinking. As she says “I think where people are mistaken when they watch it is they think all they have to do is wish and it's going to happen. That wasn't exactly the case. This is something I had put a lot of energy and time into.”
That’s right. This wasn’t wishful thinking. She had to write stuff down. She had to think deep thoughts about things she wanted. Her own special needs. Like happiness, security, and freedom. That’s hard work, people. That took a lot of energy. She earned that letter.
To be fair, I really don’t think that’s what she meant. I think she just meant that it took a lot of work to do the renovations and get the loan. But then where did the DVD help? Everything that needed to be done had already been done before she followed the DVD’s advice. She couldn’t possibly believe that her positive thinking retroactively got a letter put in the mail that hadn’t yet been sent, could she? But if not that, then what? What the hell does she really think happened?
Mind Magic
And why exactly do people find it reassuring that mind magic can have such a direct impact on our lives? Doesn’t that also mean that curses work, and that our enemies can use mind magic against us? Isn’t it much better to believe in knowable cause-and-effect? Do people really like the idea that they have to censor their own thoughts, lest a negative thought send their finances into instant ruin? Are they really forbidden from thinking negative thoughts? Or is it enough to simply avoid writing them down?
Sure, loan processing often does resemble magic to most laymen, but isn’t it still better to believe that there is some human-known procedure at work, rather than straight-up magic? Because I don’t find that shit reassuring at all. Call me old fashioned, but I like to know why things happen. Even bank loans.
But I guess that really is the point of “The Secret”. This lady doesn’t know how bank loans work. She didn’t understand what was happening and felt hopeless. And this program has not only allowed her to pretend as if she does understand how these things work, but that she has some sort of direct control over things she can’t possibly have control over. And that allows her to feel better about the whole thing and relax.
And while that is certainly a positive thing, it still doesn’t do a damn thing to help her get a loan or anything else. And if anything, it can be quite detrimental. I mean, if a false sense of control is all that is necessary to relax, why not cut out the middleman and just learn to accept the loss of control? Because you can relax whether or not you’re lying to yourself, but if you don’t really have control over something, it’s best to understand that. Positive thinking is its own reward, but so is anticipating problems. I know of a few politicians who need to learn that lesson.
And hell, she’s a 25-year-old starting her own makeup salon on a $50,000 loan. If she thinks that she owes her success to a DVD, she’s really in for a rude awakening. Positive thinking is an important first step for anything, but it’s only one step. You've still got to do everything else.
Amanda Jacobellis, 25, believes her life has changed for the better since she watched "The Secret."
Earlier this year, she was trying to turn a building in West Hollywood, Calif., into a makeup salon specializing in eyelash extensions and evoking the glamour of Old Hollywood. Her renovation was only half done, her credit card bills were coming due and her banker couldn't explain why the money for a $50,000 approved loan hadn't arrived in her account.
Sensing her despair, a friend suggested she watch Winfrey's upcoming show on "The Secret." Jacobellis did, and bought the DVD as well.
She spent a night diagramming what she wanted in her life, using a piece of paper and a Sharpie pen: happiness, security, freedom; good relationships with her friends and family; fitness and health goals; less stress — and in one corner, she wrote that she wanted her $50,000 loan by the next day at 3 p.m. She made a call to her banker the next morning: no news. But by 3 o'clock, the mail arrived, containing a letter saying she could call to get the funds transferred into her account.
That’s right. This woman got a $50,000 loan. It didn’t appear in her bank account and her banker couldn’t explain why. So she watched a DVD, wrote some words on a piece of paper, and the next day she received a letter in the mail explaining what she needed to do to get the money transferred to her account. A letter which most surely had been sent before she had done any of the diagramming. Yep, sure sounds like magic to me. And while some wild-eyed cynics might try to suggest that the credit should go to the bankers who helped her; let’s not be silly. This was all because she watched a DVD and wrote some words on a piece of paper. Right.
And what’s so amusing is that this same lady insists that the DVD isn’t just about positive thinking. As she says “I think where people are mistaken when they watch it is they think all they have to do is wish and it's going to happen. That wasn't exactly the case. This is something I had put a lot of energy and time into.”
That’s right. This wasn’t wishful thinking. She had to write stuff down. She had to think deep thoughts about things she wanted. Her own special needs. Like happiness, security, and freedom. That’s hard work, people. That took a lot of energy. She earned that letter.
To be fair, I really don’t think that’s what she meant. I think she just meant that it took a lot of work to do the renovations and get the loan. But then where did the DVD help? Everything that needed to be done had already been done before she followed the DVD’s advice. She couldn’t possibly believe that her positive thinking retroactively got a letter put in the mail that hadn’t yet been sent, could she? But if not that, then what? What the hell does she really think happened?
Mind Magic
And why exactly do people find it reassuring that mind magic can have such a direct impact on our lives? Doesn’t that also mean that curses work, and that our enemies can use mind magic against us? Isn’t it much better to believe in knowable cause-and-effect? Do people really like the idea that they have to censor their own thoughts, lest a negative thought send their finances into instant ruin? Are they really forbidden from thinking negative thoughts? Or is it enough to simply avoid writing them down?
Sure, loan processing often does resemble magic to most laymen, but isn’t it still better to believe that there is some human-known procedure at work, rather than straight-up magic? Because I don’t find that shit reassuring at all. Call me old fashioned, but I like to know why things happen. Even bank loans.
But I guess that really is the point of “The Secret”. This lady doesn’t know how bank loans work. She didn’t understand what was happening and felt hopeless. And this program has not only allowed her to pretend as if she does understand how these things work, but that she has some sort of direct control over things she can’t possibly have control over. And that allows her to feel better about the whole thing and relax.
And while that is certainly a positive thing, it still doesn’t do a damn thing to help her get a loan or anything else. And if anything, it can be quite detrimental. I mean, if a false sense of control is all that is necessary to relax, why not cut out the middleman and just learn to accept the loss of control? Because you can relax whether or not you’re lying to yourself, but if you don’t really have control over something, it’s best to understand that. Positive thinking is its own reward, but so is anticipating problems. I know of a few politicians who need to learn that lesson.
And hell, she’s a 25-year-old starting her own makeup salon on a $50,000 loan. If she thinks that she owes her success to a DVD, she’s really in for a rude awakening. Positive thinking is an important first step for anything, but it’s only one step. You've still got to do everything else.
Saturday, June 23, 2007
The Fifth Branch of Government
As it turns out, I'm the fifth branch of government. It had something to do with this crazy auto loan I took out in the late 90's. As I'm sure you'll all remember, those were really heady times in the world of finance, and rarely a week went by that I wasn't signing some sort of wackjob promissory note or another. Long story short, I'm in this high stakes poker game in the bunker under Cheney's Hawaiian safehouse, circa Spring 2002, when in comes this chinaman carrying a briefcase which he incorrectly believed to contain Cheney's soul. Both Cheney and I were fully aware of where his soul really was, so I was intrigued to see Dick so keen to obtain the case. Fortunately for me, I happened to know his weak spot and after he cheated the chinaman out of the briefcase, I casually reached over and pulled ol' Dick's pacemaker out of his chest. Man, you should have seen the look on his face. Even in agony, the guy's got gravitas. Then I walked out of there with the briefcase and the heart machine, and even helped myself to one of Lynne's famous beef cookies on my way through the kitchen.
And what was in the briefcase? What else: The newly approved top secret fifth branch of government, with Monica Goodling's signature and everything. Cheney was going to use it to officially "disappear" himself so that he could spend more time with his shadow government, without leaving any possible means for people to stop him. He was to have absolutely all traces of his existence wiped from any official record, and thus become an invincible pseudo-god ruling from an unapproachable netherworld; Wyoming. But I've just been using it to get cheap concert tickets and free meals at Taco Bell. Power has its perks.
And what was in the briefcase? What else: The newly approved top secret fifth branch of government, with Monica Goodling's signature and everything. Cheney was going to use it to officially "disappear" himself so that he could spend more time with his shadow government, without leaving any possible means for people to stop him. He was to have absolutely all traces of his existence wiped from any official record, and thus become an invincible pseudo-god ruling from an unapproachable netherworld; Wyoming. But I've just been using it to get cheap concert tickets and free meals at Taco Bell. Power has its perks.
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Charlie Daniels to the Rescue
Why are people so stupid? I just read this wonderful essay Charlie Daniels wrote last year on why he’s against Mexican people immigrating here: Because there are laws against it.
As he says:
I don’t blame anybody in the world for wanting to come to the United States of America, as it is a truly wonderful place. But when the first thing you do when you set foot on American soil is illegal it is flat out wrong and I don’t care how many lala land left heads come out of the woodwork and start trying to give me sensitivity lessons.
And so the obvious solution would be to legalize all immigration, so they could start off on a positive foot. We just open our borders and put Charlie on the Welcome Wagon, to greet all his new buddies. I’m sure he’d be overjoyed.
And I would be loath to not mention this gem:
And what ever happened to the polls guys? I thought you folks were the quintessential finger wetters. Well you sure ain’t paying any attention to the polls this time because somewhere around eighty percent of Americans want something done about this mess, and mess it is and getting bigger everyday.
That’s right, polls guys. You need to pay attention to your polls. Charlie’s done his finger wetting. He knows which way the winds blow. Somewhere around eighty percent of Americans want something done. Though in an odd twist of how democracy works, in the final paragraph, Charlie suggests that our elected officials won’t do anything because they only care about being re-elected. So I guess those eighty percent don’t vote? Or did we perhaps switch to the minority-wins system and nobody told me?
But whatever it is, Charlie has made his point clear: No more immigration laws!
Charlie 2.0
I liked that essay so much that I decided to check in on Charlie’s latest offering: A Nation of Laws or Not? It’s a year later, but Charlie’s pimping the same old message: No more immigration laws. But he’s got some new twists added to it.
For example, he claims that big business wants to bring in more immigrants in order to bring wages down and to move more factories overseas. Now, if they’re already planning to move the factories, why are they bothering with lowering the wages? Wouldn’t the lower wages, in fact, be some incentive for them to keep the factories here? That’s not to say that Big Business wouldn’t want both of these things; but the idea that more immigrants would somehow help move jobs overseas seems somewhat counterintuitive to someone living in reality. But I guess everyone’s entitled to their own set of logic; or lack thereof, as the case may be.
Even better: He rants repeatedly that the reason why politicians want to open immigration is because they want the easy votes. Not only are they counting on grateful Mexicans voting for pro-immigration politicians, but they’re actually planning to establish a new welfare state, so that the new immigrants don’t have to work at all; all in exchange for votes. And I guess that makes sense, if one were twelve. But when we consider that these same politicians are supposedly ignoring 80% of Americans on this issue and Charlie insists that the politicians don’t give a damn about what the voters think; why would they bother courting these new votes?
As Charlie said:
All these greedy politicians want to do is stay in power, the hell with the American economy, the hell with the small businessman and the hell with what most of the people who pay the bills in this country think and want.
Believe it or not, the sentence before this paragraph was warning of the “welfare state” the politicians were going to set-up to woo Mexican voters. But now he’s calling them greedy and insists that they don’t care about the economy or what voters want. Right. And where on earth did he get the impression that small businessmen don’t use illegal labor? In this context, I have no idea what he’s talking about. Awesome.
As he says:
I don’t blame anybody in the world for wanting to come to the United States of America, as it is a truly wonderful place. But when the first thing you do when you set foot on American soil is illegal it is flat out wrong and I don’t care how many lala land left heads come out of the woodwork and start trying to give me sensitivity lessons.
And so the obvious solution would be to legalize all immigration, so they could start off on a positive foot. We just open our borders and put Charlie on the Welcome Wagon, to greet all his new buddies. I’m sure he’d be overjoyed.
And I would be loath to not mention this gem:
And what ever happened to the polls guys? I thought you folks were the quintessential finger wetters. Well you sure ain’t paying any attention to the polls this time because somewhere around eighty percent of Americans want something done about this mess, and mess it is and getting bigger everyday.
That’s right, polls guys. You need to pay attention to your polls. Charlie’s done his finger wetting. He knows which way the winds blow. Somewhere around eighty percent of Americans want something done. Though in an odd twist of how democracy works, in the final paragraph, Charlie suggests that our elected officials won’t do anything because they only care about being re-elected. So I guess those eighty percent don’t vote? Or did we perhaps switch to the minority-wins system and nobody told me?
But whatever it is, Charlie has made his point clear: No more immigration laws!
Charlie 2.0
I liked that essay so much that I decided to check in on Charlie’s latest offering: A Nation of Laws or Not? It’s a year later, but Charlie’s pimping the same old message: No more immigration laws. But he’s got some new twists added to it.
For example, he claims that big business wants to bring in more immigrants in order to bring wages down and to move more factories overseas. Now, if they’re already planning to move the factories, why are they bothering with lowering the wages? Wouldn’t the lower wages, in fact, be some incentive for them to keep the factories here? That’s not to say that Big Business wouldn’t want both of these things; but the idea that more immigrants would somehow help move jobs overseas seems somewhat counterintuitive to someone living in reality. But I guess everyone’s entitled to their own set of logic; or lack thereof, as the case may be.
Even better: He rants repeatedly that the reason why politicians want to open immigration is because they want the easy votes. Not only are they counting on grateful Mexicans voting for pro-immigration politicians, but they’re actually planning to establish a new welfare state, so that the new immigrants don’t have to work at all; all in exchange for votes. And I guess that makes sense, if one were twelve. But when we consider that these same politicians are supposedly ignoring 80% of Americans on this issue and Charlie insists that the politicians don’t give a damn about what the voters think; why would they bother courting these new votes?
As Charlie said:
All these greedy politicians want to do is stay in power, the hell with the American economy, the hell with the small businessman and the hell with what most of the people who pay the bills in this country think and want.
Believe it or not, the sentence before this paragraph was warning of the “welfare state” the politicians were going to set-up to woo Mexican voters. But now he’s calling them greedy and insists that they don’t care about the economy or what voters want. Right. And where on earth did he get the impression that small businessmen don’t use illegal labor? In this context, I have no idea what he’s talking about. Awesome.
Sunday, June 17, 2007
Gravel for President
Woweewow, I don't know much about Former Senator Mike Gravel, but I know what I like. I just saw a clip of him at a recent Democratic Presidential debate, and from what I heard, he's the guy for me. And I'm fairly certain that the only reason this guy is scoffed at is because the media and DC establishment are convinced that he should be scoffed at. But his stuff was pretty solid. I'd need to learn more about him before I'd officially endorse him for president, but he clearly looked better than any of the other leading contenders. I don't think I disagreed with a word he said.
My favorite line: You know what's worse than a soldier dying in vain? Is more soldiers dying in vain.
That's absolutely correct.
Here's the clip I'm talking about:
Your response to this post must be made in nine words or less. Begin.
My favorite line: You know what's worse than a soldier dying in vain? Is more soldiers dying in vain.
That's absolutely correct.
Here's the clip I'm talking about:
Your response to this post must be made in nine words or less. Begin.
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
Carnival of the Liberals #40
Alright Carnival readers, you’re in for a real treat. Rather than continue in the tradition of allowing some halfwit lib with the obligatory reading comprehension problem to muck-up yet another carnival, the hosts of Carnival of the Liberals have decided to once again turn over their lovely little wankfest to the hands of a real adult. That’s right. Doctor Snedley’s back, to once again restore dignity, honor, and respect to this pissant spectacle you jerkoffs call a carnival.
As a change from the typically incoherent “I’m Ok, You’re Ok” feelgood BS selections, I’m going to expand my power as Carnival Czar to go ahead and pick one clear winner. And the winner is…
Gavin R. Putland of /etc/cron.whenever for his magnificent opus The Corporate Solution to Rape. As Gavin conclusively proves, the free-market system out-performs intrusive government intervention at every turn. While the typical lib reaction is to treat “rape” as yet another law enforcement issue, Mr. Putland clearly demonstrates how even these darker areas of relationship disputes can have a much more positive resolution. In fact, Putland’s argument sounded so great, even I haven’t the vaguest clue as to what he was talking about. But his general point seemed to confirm everything I’ve wanted to hear, so I know it’s got to be true.
Congrats, Gavin! You’re the Carnival of the Liberals’ first ever solo winner.
As for the other nine entries, it was much more difficult. So I narrowed things down first by removing all of the ad hominem rant-filled hate-fests so typical of these liberal echo chambers. Sure, sure, everyone has a right to an opinion. But the instance I even suspected some jerkwad was badmouthing our Commander-in-Chief, I knew it was time to forward the post to the DHS and move on. I’m quite positive each of these traitors is now fully aware of the grave error they perpetrated upon humanity. I’ve always found that orange jumpsuits have a funny persuasiveness about them that is simply undeniable.
And after removing these blackguards and terrorist-sympathizers, I was only left with a meager nine posts which can most politely be described as being not entirely devoid of rationality and morality. So here they are, in no particular order.
The Best of the Worst
Barry Leiba at the aptly named Staring at Empty Pages has a problem with American democracy in his post The Primary Problem. Apparently, there’s some problem with having the sensible people of Iowa tell the zombie-like liberal masses of New York and California who they can nominate for the presidential election. He even went so far as to suggest that people can handle more than two nominees in a given election. Whatever. Try telling that to Bush v. Gore. Just two choices and we still needed the men in black to save the day.
C at C-Blog inadvertently puts the lie to the liberals’ fictitious claim that their efforts to destroy everything good, holy, and American has something to do with improving life in his post The Endlessness of Efforts to End the 'Net as We Know It. In this case, C gnashes his teeth at the obvious genius of getting rid of our tiresome personal harddrives and keeping all data on a centralized computer run by some unknown corporation with possibly hidden motives and abilities. What could possibly go wrong?
PZ Myers, the “biologist” and “professor” at the God-hating blog Pharyngula dares to tell a real-life neurosurgeon something about how the brain works in the absurdist rant Egnor’s Machine is Uninhabited by Any Ghost. Right. As they say, those who can’t teach, teach biology.
THIS ENTRY HAS BEEN ERADICATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NATIONAL SECURITY ACT OF 1947 (50 U.S.C. 401A(4g)).
(Ed. Note: Looks like another lib traitor has gone down the memory hole. And then there were eight...)
Greg Laden at his eponymous blog writes in Pennsylvania School Board Woes on why Leftist Propaganda should continue to be forced down the throats of America’s innocent. And with the immoral likes of Maya Angelou still being pimped to our children, it’s once again proven that literature is the Devil’s best friend. What’s next? Mandatory Marx readings to fetuses before each abortion? Simply disgusting!
Coturnix at A Blog Around the Clock uses Do Serbs Really Want to Join the EU? to prove yet again why the devil is always in the details. Because it’s a lot easier to bash America when you pretend to burrow deeply into nonsensical minutiae regarding the vast hordes of non-Americans in non-American places; in this case Serbia or Balka or some weird land I have no plans to visit. What a joke! Had God wanted us to care about non-Americans, he would surely have made them American.
Greta Christina at Greta Christina’s Blog has the audacity to suggest in Even if It's Wrong: Barack Obama, Religious Faith, and Same-Sex Marriage that morals are bad or some such thing. And why are morals bad? From all I could decipher, it has something to do with religious people using their faith in God to stifle Greta’s intent to destroy everything worthwhile and decent in this world. I betcha she hates ice cream too.
Jeremy Adam Smith at Daddy Dialectic writes in Equality vs Equality some sort of delusional fantasy that feminism isn’t a complete failure. Sure, thousands of years of clean-living (and god-fearing) history have taught us the proper role for us all to engage in. But, whatever. Let’s toss all that to the wind and try something new. What’s the worst that can happen; besides the end of humanity. But I guess that’s what it’s really all about anyway, isn’t it?
And just in case you people are still reeling from the large dose of truth-telling the people in the real world experience every day outside the liberal echo chamber, I’ve saved the last selection for a true wankfest. It’s liberal blogger Blue Steel from Pollyticks.com interviewing your very own Leo Lincourt, founder and permanent controller of your very own Carnival of the Liberals, speaking of this very Carnival. It’s a six thousand word screed devoted to the highest forms of wankery regarding liberals, carnivals, blogs, and all kinds of other stuff I couldn’t bother reading. Needless to say, it was literally dripping with anti-American venom. You'll love it.
Next week, CotL will be back to its regularly scheduled wankery, from some communistic conspiracy known only as The World Wide Webers. I'm sure my friends at the DHS can't wait for that one. Iraq ain't the only flypaper out there. Oh, and for all you libs out there who foolishly submitted posts which were not selected, don't worry. You're all losers in my book.
There, that should satisfy the little SOB’s.
As a change from the typically incoherent “I’m Ok, You’re Ok” feelgood BS selections, I’m going to expand my power as Carnival Czar to go ahead and pick one clear winner. And the winner is…
Gavin R. Putland of /etc/cron.whenever for his magnificent opus The Corporate Solution to Rape. As Gavin conclusively proves, the free-market system out-performs intrusive government intervention at every turn. While the typical lib reaction is to treat “rape” as yet another law enforcement issue, Mr. Putland clearly demonstrates how even these darker areas of relationship disputes can have a much more positive resolution. In fact, Putland’s argument sounded so great, even I haven’t the vaguest clue as to what he was talking about. But his general point seemed to confirm everything I’ve wanted to hear, so I know it’s got to be true.
Congrats, Gavin! You’re the Carnival of the Liberals’ first ever solo winner.
As for the other nine entries, it was much more difficult. So I narrowed things down first by removing all of the ad hominem rant-filled hate-fests so typical of these liberal echo chambers. Sure, sure, everyone has a right to an opinion. But the instance I even suspected some jerkwad was badmouthing our Commander-in-Chief, I knew it was time to forward the post to the DHS and move on. I’m quite positive each of these traitors is now fully aware of the grave error they perpetrated upon humanity. I’ve always found that orange jumpsuits have a funny persuasiveness about them that is simply undeniable.
And after removing these blackguards and terrorist-sympathizers, I was only left with a meager nine posts which can most politely be described as being not entirely devoid of rationality and morality. So here they are, in no particular order.
The Best of the Worst
Barry Leiba at the aptly named Staring at Empty Pages has a problem with American democracy in his post The Primary Problem. Apparently, there’s some problem with having the sensible people of Iowa tell the zombie-like liberal masses of New York and California who they can nominate for the presidential election. He even went so far as to suggest that people can handle more than two nominees in a given election. Whatever. Try telling that to Bush v. Gore. Just two choices and we still needed the men in black to save the day.
C at C-Blog inadvertently puts the lie to the liberals’ fictitious claim that their efforts to destroy everything good, holy, and American has something to do with improving life in his post The Endlessness of Efforts to End the 'Net as We Know It. In this case, C gnashes his teeth at the obvious genius of getting rid of our tiresome personal harddrives and keeping all data on a centralized computer run by some unknown corporation with possibly hidden motives and abilities. What could possibly go wrong?
PZ Myers, the “biologist” and “professor” at the God-hating blog Pharyngula dares to tell a real-life neurosurgeon something about how the brain works in the absurdist rant Egnor’s Machine is Uninhabited by Any Ghost. Right. As they say, those who can’t teach, teach biology.
THIS ENTRY HAS BEEN ERADICATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NATIONAL SECURITY ACT OF 1947 (50 U.S.C. 401A(4g)).
(Ed. Note: Looks like another lib traitor has gone down the memory hole. And then there were eight...)
Greg Laden at his eponymous blog writes in Pennsylvania School Board Woes on why Leftist Propaganda should continue to be forced down the throats of America’s innocent. And with the immoral likes of Maya Angelou still being pimped to our children, it’s once again proven that literature is the Devil’s best friend. What’s next? Mandatory Marx readings to fetuses before each abortion? Simply disgusting!
Coturnix at A Blog Around the Clock uses Do Serbs Really Want to Join the EU? to prove yet again why the devil is always in the details. Because it’s a lot easier to bash America when you pretend to burrow deeply into nonsensical minutiae regarding the vast hordes of non-Americans in non-American places; in this case Serbia or Balka or some weird land I have no plans to visit. What a joke! Had God wanted us to care about non-Americans, he would surely have made them American.
Greta Christina at Greta Christina’s Blog has the audacity to suggest in Even if It's Wrong: Barack Obama, Religious Faith, and Same-Sex Marriage that morals are bad or some such thing. And why are morals bad? From all I could decipher, it has something to do with religious people using their faith in God to stifle Greta’s intent to destroy everything worthwhile and decent in this world. I betcha she hates ice cream too.
Jeremy Adam Smith at Daddy Dialectic writes in Equality vs Equality some sort of delusional fantasy that feminism isn’t a complete failure. Sure, thousands of years of clean-living (and god-fearing) history have taught us the proper role for us all to engage in. But, whatever. Let’s toss all that to the wind and try something new. What’s the worst that can happen; besides the end of humanity. But I guess that’s what it’s really all about anyway, isn’t it?
And just in case you people are still reeling from the large dose of truth-telling the people in the real world experience every day outside the liberal echo chamber, I’ve saved the last selection for a true wankfest. It’s liberal blogger Blue Steel from Pollyticks.com interviewing your very own Leo Lincourt, founder and permanent controller of your very own Carnival of the Liberals, speaking of this very Carnival. It’s a six thousand word screed devoted to the highest forms of wankery regarding liberals, carnivals, blogs, and all kinds of other stuff I couldn’t bother reading. Needless to say, it was literally dripping with anti-American venom. You'll love it.
Next week, CotL will be back to its regularly scheduled wankery, from some communistic conspiracy known only as The World Wide Webers. I'm sure my friends at the DHS can't wait for that one. Iraq ain't the only flypaper out there. Oh, and for all you libs out there who foolishly submitted posts which were not selected, don't worry. You're all losers in my book.
There, that should satisfy the little SOB’s.
Monday, June 04, 2007
American Badasses
President Vladimir Putin said Russia would go back to its Cold War stance of aiming its missiles at Europe if Washington went ahead with a plan to build a missile defence shield near Russia's borders.
Holy fucking shit, what a dumbass. Doesn’t he know that we’re American badasses who could totally blow his ass out of the water at any given moment? We’ve got all the cards in our hands and his petty bluffs and communistic blowhardery will get him nowhere. Good thing for him that we’re busy dealing with the real existential threat of one of those terrorist bastards getting their dirty Muslim hands on a suitcase nuke, or he’d really be sorry. This Putin guy just doesn’t seem to understand what real power is. All the more reason why we need this missile defense system in place.
Holy fucking shit, what a dumbass. Doesn’t he know that we’re American badasses who could totally blow his ass out of the water at any given moment? We’ve got all the cards in our hands and his petty bluffs and communistic blowhardery will get him nowhere. Good thing for him that we’re busy dealing with the real existential threat of one of those terrorist bastards getting their dirty Muslim hands on a suitcase nuke, or he’d really be sorry. This Putin guy just doesn’t seem to understand what real power is. All the more reason why we need this missile defense system in place.
Friday, June 01, 2007
Stupid Question
So if fundamentalist Christians believe that all animals and dinosaurs were peaceful herbivores in the Garden of Eden, then why aren't they all vegetarians? Shouldn't they at least strive for some of that idealism? I know, stupid question.
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Liberal Call for Submissions
Guest Post by Doctor Snedley, Personal Assistant to Doctor Biobrain
Greetings libtards, and welcome to the call for submissions for yet another episode of the Carnival of the Liberals, the only blog carnival devoted to the unintentional mockery of all things liberal by the inflammatory fascists themselves. I’m Doctor Snedley, the personal assistant and true brain for the infamous liberal drunkard Doctor Biobrain. And what better time is there for me to host than the one year anniversary of the highest of all high holy liberal holidays. That’s right, I’m hosting the 06/06/07 Carnival of the Liberals, and there ain’t a damn thing you Satan worshipers can do about it. So suck it.
As for submission suggestions, I hold little hope you’ll be able to stay on task for this one, what with all your habitual pot smoking and rampant pedophilia, but I’ll give it a go. In honor of your high holy holiday, I’d like religious posts. But not just any religious posts. I’d like something that finally gets around to explaining why you people insist on screwing up your afterlifes in the same manner you’re screwing up your earthly ones.
And if that’s too much for you, here are a few suggested topics you can discuss:
Why do I hate myself so much that I reject my only lord and savior?
Why I won’t punch Darwin in the face when I see him in Hell.
What part of all-powerful do I not understand?
In Hell, is sunscreen enough?
Jesus hates me because…
You get the idea. Of course, I will accept other entries, though preference will naturally go to the very few who are willing to delve a little more deeply into liberal dogma and eventually reject every lie they’ve been spewing since 9/11. And don’t forget proper punctuation. I’m a big stickler for that kind of thing, but that just goes without saying. Good luck and god’s speed. You’ll need it.
Greetings libtards, and welcome to the call for submissions for yet another episode of the Carnival of the Liberals, the only blog carnival devoted to the unintentional mockery of all things liberal by the inflammatory fascists themselves. I’m Doctor Snedley, the personal assistant and true brain for the infamous liberal drunkard Doctor Biobrain. And what better time is there for me to host than the one year anniversary of the highest of all high holy liberal holidays. That’s right, I’m hosting the 06/06/07 Carnival of the Liberals, and there ain’t a damn thing you Satan worshipers can do about it. So suck it.
As for submission suggestions, I hold little hope you’ll be able to stay on task for this one, what with all your habitual pot smoking and rampant pedophilia, but I’ll give it a go. In honor of your high holy holiday, I’d like religious posts. But not just any religious posts. I’d like something that finally gets around to explaining why you people insist on screwing up your afterlifes in the same manner you’re screwing up your earthly ones.
And if that’s too much for you, here are a few suggested topics you can discuss:
Why do I hate myself so much that I reject my only lord and savior?
Why I won’t punch Darwin in the face when I see him in Hell.
What part of all-powerful do I not understand?
In Hell, is sunscreen enough?
Jesus hates me because…
You get the idea. Of course, I will accept other entries, though preference will naturally go to the very few who are willing to delve a little more deeply into liberal dogma and eventually reject every lie they’ve been spewing since 9/11. And don’t forget proper punctuation. I’m a big stickler for that kind of thing, but that just goes without saying. Good luck and god’s speed. You’ll need it.
Friday, May 25, 2007
MSM Obstructionism
WTF?? My brain has yet again exploded, having read this in an opening paragraph from the AP:
For years, the idea of increasing the minimum wage from $5.15 an hour has been stalled by partisan bickering between Republicans and Democrats.
Um, no. The minimum wage increase was not stalled by partisan bickering. It was stalled by the Republicans and only the Republicans. The Democrats wanted to raise it and the Republicans stopped that from happening. It’s that simple. I know that the Republicans’ stalling tactics often took the guise of partisan bickering, but this is just stupid.
But this isn’t even the typical case of reporters trying to seem even-handed. Sure, there’s probably some of that at play here, but I think there’s more to this than that. I think this is the MSM’s love of blaming “partisan bickering” for all the problems. If only the two sides could just get along and solve all our problems together.
But no. In this case, the legislation was stalled solely because the Republicans wanted it stalled. Sure, they came up with their excuses. But it wasn’t that the bill wasn’t perfect enough for them. It was that it did anything at all. They just wanted a obstructionist poison-pill and that’s what they got for years.
And hell, if the MSM really wanted this issue to be solved, they’d stop with this incessant attack on “partisan bickering” and actually tell people who was to blame for the problem. But that’s just the point: They don’t actually want anything solved. They just want to blame "partisans" for our problems, in order to convince themselves of their own unbiased holiness. To make their laissez-faire cynicism appear to be solution-oriented and objective. So for as much as they attack "partisans" of all stripes for obstructing our legislative needs, much of the blame lies with no one but themselves.
For years, the idea of increasing the minimum wage from $5.15 an hour has been stalled by partisan bickering between Republicans and Democrats.
Um, no. The minimum wage increase was not stalled by partisan bickering. It was stalled by the Republicans and only the Republicans. The Democrats wanted to raise it and the Republicans stopped that from happening. It’s that simple. I know that the Republicans’ stalling tactics often took the guise of partisan bickering, but this is just stupid.
But this isn’t even the typical case of reporters trying to seem even-handed. Sure, there’s probably some of that at play here, but I think there’s more to this than that. I think this is the MSM’s love of blaming “partisan bickering” for all the problems. If only the two sides could just get along and solve all our problems together.
But no. In this case, the legislation was stalled solely because the Republicans wanted it stalled. Sure, they came up with their excuses. But it wasn’t that the bill wasn’t perfect enough for them. It was that it did anything at all. They just wanted a obstructionist poison-pill and that’s what they got for years.
And hell, if the MSM really wanted this issue to be solved, they’d stop with this incessant attack on “partisan bickering” and actually tell people who was to blame for the problem. But that’s just the point: They don’t actually want anything solved. They just want to blame "partisans" for our problems, in order to convince themselves of their own unbiased holiness. To make their laissez-faire cynicism appear to be solution-oriented and objective. So for as much as they attack "partisans" of all stripes for obstructing our legislative needs, much of the blame lies with no one but themselves.
Timeline Questions
If I told you that the Dem's “compromise” on the non-timeline Iraq spending bill made me want to cry, would you think I was a pussy? Or would you just be offended that I had used that word in that context? What if I told you that it made me want to shoot someone in the face? Would that help?
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Declassified Intel: The Bushies Still Suck
Sometimes I just don’t know what to think anymore. Like take the latest story of the Bush Admin declassifying select intel to help themselves politically. I’m not sure why that alone isn’t a bigger story than the lame intel they actually declassified, but if the Bushies are still good at one thing, it’s bluffing the newspeople into not knowing right from wrong. After all, why would they want something written in a news story if it was a bad thing for them to admit to?
But even the intel itself doesn’t make sense. In case you hadn’t read it yet, apparently, in 2005 Bin Laden sent a dude to Iraq to tell Zarqawi to form terrorist sleeper cells to attack inside the US, and this is proof that Iraq is an important staging ground for Al Qaeda to wage attacks on the US, which is why we can never leave Iraq.
Huh?? What the hell sense does that even make? All I can imagine is that Osama’s been watching Cheney on Meet the Press and somehow has bought into the idea that Iraq is a really great place to stage attacks from. Perhaps he’s even using Cheney’s same maps, which place Iraq where Canada is or something, I don’t know. But I fail to see how Iraq is a particularly good place to stage attacks on the US from.
I mean, first off, it’s fucking far away; which is has traditionally been considered a big negative when staging attacks; with military strategists tending to prefer closeness instead. Though I suppose it’s possible the Bushies have yet to declassify the intel that now tells us that Al Qaeda has teleporters or perhaps magic dragons that allow them to overcome that complication.
And then secondly, Iraq is chock full of American soldiers, which serve both as obvious targets and dreaded obstacles. In fact, of all the places where you might want to recruit terrorist sleeper cells able to attack inside the US, I’d have to say that Iraq might be one of the worst places; second only to Gitmo.
And one of the best places? Inside the US. I hate to give away that big secret, in case Bin Laden hasn’t already figured that one out, but I kind of think he already has. That he just puts out his message of anti-American hatred, easily justified in anti-American minds by our imbecilic invasion of Iraq; and there you go. After that, these sleeper cells form on their own and stage their own small scale attacks to scare the bejesus out of us.
And again, maybe I just gave away some secret, but I sort of suspect that I haven’t. That these are no-brainers that even the cunningly dangerous, yet simple-minded terrorists have realized. And that one thing they wouldn’t do is to send a dude to Iraq to tell Zarqawi to do something that would be fairly difficult for him to do. In fact, if I had to make a guess, I’d say that this intel may have been gained using our famed “non-torture” techniques which are more likely to get false confessions than real ones, and that the victims just said what they thought their interrogators wanted to hear.
That sounds far more likely than what we’re being told. But if the intel is right and this really is Bin Laden’s idea of strategy, then perhaps that might explain why we haven’t been attacked yet. It’s not that they haven’t been trying. It’s that they’re as fully dumb as Cheney needs them to be to continue to hoist his own lame-brained ideas upon us.
But I sort of doubt that this is the case, and that the real reason we haven’t been attacked is because our enemy isn’t nearly as all-powerful as we’ve been led to believe. They don’t have teleporters or magic dragons, but rather are stuck using the same set of realities that afflict all of us. And that means that Iraq isn’t a particularly crucial staging ground for Al Qaeda attacks on America and that, once again, the Bush Administration has shown itself to be entirely full of shit. Or says the now declassified documents that my personal intelligence agency has given me.
But even the intel itself doesn’t make sense. In case you hadn’t read it yet, apparently, in 2005 Bin Laden sent a dude to Iraq to tell Zarqawi to form terrorist sleeper cells to attack inside the US, and this is proof that Iraq is an important staging ground for Al Qaeda to wage attacks on the US, which is why we can never leave Iraq.
Huh?? What the hell sense does that even make? All I can imagine is that Osama’s been watching Cheney on Meet the Press and somehow has bought into the idea that Iraq is a really great place to stage attacks from. Perhaps he’s even using Cheney’s same maps, which place Iraq where Canada is or something, I don’t know. But I fail to see how Iraq is a particularly good place to stage attacks on the US from.
I mean, first off, it’s fucking far away; which is has traditionally been considered a big negative when staging attacks; with military strategists tending to prefer closeness instead. Though I suppose it’s possible the Bushies have yet to declassify the intel that now tells us that Al Qaeda has teleporters or perhaps magic dragons that allow them to overcome that complication.
And then secondly, Iraq is chock full of American soldiers, which serve both as obvious targets and dreaded obstacles. In fact, of all the places where you might want to recruit terrorist sleeper cells able to attack inside the US, I’d have to say that Iraq might be one of the worst places; second only to Gitmo.
And one of the best places? Inside the US. I hate to give away that big secret, in case Bin Laden hasn’t already figured that one out, but I kind of think he already has. That he just puts out his message of anti-American hatred, easily justified in anti-American minds by our imbecilic invasion of Iraq; and there you go. After that, these sleeper cells form on their own and stage their own small scale attacks to scare the bejesus out of us.
And again, maybe I just gave away some secret, but I sort of suspect that I haven’t. That these are no-brainers that even the cunningly dangerous, yet simple-minded terrorists have realized. And that one thing they wouldn’t do is to send a dude to Iraq to tell Zarqawi to do something that would be fairly difficult for him to do. In fact, if I had to make a guess, I’d say that this intel may have been gained using our famed “non-torture” techniques which are more likely to get false confessions than real ones, and that the victims just said what they thought their interrogators wanted to hear.
That sounds far more likely than what we’re being told. But if the intel is right and this really is Bin Laden’s idea of strategy, then perhaps that might explain why we haven’t been attacked yet. It’s not that they haven’t been trying. It’s that they’re as fully dumb as Cheney needs them to be to continue to hoist his own lame-brained ideas upon us.
But I sort of doubt that this is the case, and that the real reason we haven’t been attacked is because our enemy isn’t nearly as all-powerful as we’ve been led to believe. They don’t have teleporters or magic dragons, but rather are stuck using the same set of realities that afflict all of us. And that means that Iraq isn’t a particularly crucial staging ground for Al Qaeda attacks on America and that, once again, the Bush Administration has shown itself to be entirely full of shit. Or says the now declassified documents that my personal intelligence agency has given me.
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Too Busy
I'm much too busy to even bother with you. So sorry. What are you going to do about it? Read my Republian opponent blogger? Whatever.
Saturday, May 19, 2007
Being Real
Digby highlights a mindnumblingly silly pseudo-religious wankfest from Tim Russert, the most embarrassing thing about which is that he allowed it to be read by people who weren’t himself. Having read it, I personally feel the immense shame that he’s too oblivious to notice. That’s real sacrifice, folks. And all for you, my loyal readers.
One of the parts that got me was when he was refers to:
The heroic selfless souls on United flight #93.
Now I respect what they did, but let’s not get stupid. They didn’t know they were going to die. They were trying to save their own lives. They had gotten word that the terrorists were going to kill them all and decided to do something about it. And there’s nothing wrong with that, but let’s not pretend this was something it wasn’t. Sure, if there’s an afterlife, I’m sure these people are happy that they were able to prevent more deaths. But they didn’t know they were going to die. They were looking out for themselves and would surely have landed the plane safely if they could have. That’s why the terrorists crashed it.
And I think the reason why people like Russert won’t say that is because that makes the passengers look like failures, or cheapens their actions. But that’s entirely backwards. It cheapens their actions to turn them into something they weren’t. To turn their deeds into some sort of heroic caricature which makes their real actions look somewhat petty. As well as making the passengers of the other 9/11 planes out to be selfish bastards of some sort, for not having risked their lives to save others.
And really, this has nothing to do with the people on that plane. This has to do with dipshit Russert and his inability to find purpose in his life. He’s paid millions for a job that could be better performed by a tape recorder and a kindly Labrador. And so he’s got to find some bigger purpose for it all. No longer is he a rich tool being used by Cheney & Co. No sir. He’s doing God’s work. He’s honoring the selfless memory of heroes he can only dream he could be. Sure, he does his part by not honking at people and by asking softball questions to the people responsible for destroying our country. But if only he could do more…
But he can. He can notice other people. Real people. People who sacrifice. People who do heroic things. And by doing so, it’s like he’s doing heroic things. It’s like he’s a real person. And by doing so, it’s like he’s actually earning all those millions that these real people could only dream they could earn. And by honoring them as he does, it’s like they too are earning it all.
So it all makes sense. He collects the stories and the money and makes sense of it all for them. Because they’re all such real people that they can’t even appreciate the realness of everything they do. They need a dork like Russert to allow them to comprehend how special they really are. Hell, if anything, they owe him bigtime. And I’m sure he’ll never let them forget it; hence the wankfest Russert displayed for us today. He’s writing it for them; the people too real to be allowed to ask Dick Cheney questions. And in return, they’ll allow him to hear their stories and not honk his horn, and most of all, to feel like he really deserves all the stuff that he never possibly could. And for a soulless hack like Russert, that’s the greatest thing of all.
One of the parts that got me was when he was refers to:
The heroic selfless souls on United flight #93.
Now I respect what they did, but let’s not get stupid. They didn’t know they were going to die. They were trying to save their own lives. They had gotten word that the terrorists were going to kill them all and decided to do something about it. And there’s nothing wrong with that, but let’s not pretend this was something it wasn’t. Sure, if there’s an afterlife, I’m sure these people are happy that they were able to prevent more deaths. But they didn’t know they were going to die. They were looking out for themselves and would surely have landed the plane safely if they could have. That’s why the terrorists crashed it.
And I think the reason why people like Russert won’t say that is because that makes the passengers look like failures, or cheapens their actions. But that’s entirely backwards. It cheapens their actions to turn them into something they weren’t. To turn their deeds into some sort of heroic caricature which makes their real actions look somewhat petty. As well as making the passengers of the other 9/11 planes out to be selfish bastards of some sort, for not having risked their lives to save others.
And really, this has nothing to do with the people on that plane. This has to do with dipshit Russert and his inability to find purpose in his life. He’s paid millions for a job that could be better performed by a tape recorder and a kindly Labrador. And so he’s got to find some bigger purpose for it all. No longer is he a rich tool being used by Cheney & Co. No sir. He’s doing God’s work. He’s honoring the selfless memory of heroes he can only dream he could be. Sure, he does his part by not honking at people and by asking softball questions to the people responsible for destroying our country. But if only he could do more…
But he can. He can notice other people. Real people. People who sacrifice. People who do heroic things. And by doing so, it’s like he’s doing heroic things. It’s like he’s a real person. And by doing so, it’s like he’s actually earning all those millions that these real people could only dream they could earn. And by honoring them as he does, it’s like they too are earning it all.
So it all makes sense. He collects the stories and the money and makes sense of it all for them. Because they’re all such real people that they can’t even appreciate the realness of everything they do. They need a dork like Russert to allow them to comprehend how special they really are. Hell, if anything, they owe him bigtime. And I’m sure he’ll never let them forget it; hence the wankfest Russert displayed for us today. He’s writing it for them; the people too real to be allowed to ask Dick Cheney questions. And in return, they’ll allow him to hear their stories and not honk his horn, and most of all, to feel like he really deserves all the stuff that he never possibly could. And for a soulless hack like Russert, that’s the greatest thing of all.
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Blaming the Base
In my last post, I mentioned conservative blogger Bill T, who had left a fairly indecipherable comment on an earlier post which suggested that all Republicans were to blame for the Republican corruption scandal. Bill responded by suggesting that if this is the case, then all Dems are responsible for Bill Clinton’s scandals. Specifically, he referred to Clinton allegedly selling missile technology to our dreaded enemy China (who as we all know is such a dire threat that they’re one of our biggest trading partners); as well as blaming corporate corruption and AQ Kahn on Clinton. Because as we all know, everything that happened during Clinton’s years were Clinton’s fault.
Of course, even if we were to grant Bill these three items, this hardly stacks up to the various scandals perpetrated by various Republicans. I mean, even Bush’s illegal actions alone can’t compare with Clinton’s meager offenses, and that’s not to include all of Congressmen who were forced to resign due to various scandals. Really, it’s not even close.
But I think the problem for Bill and many other conservatives is that they refuse to acknowledge these scandals. They insist that these scandals are invented or, at a minimum, are no worse than what Dems did. And that’s exactly the problem. They’ve already excused all of the activities. They don’t think it counts. And that’s exactly my point. That, in theory, conservatives denounce Republican corruption. But in practice, they just can’t see any. It doesn’t really exist. Or at a minimum, is no worse than what the Dems were doing.
And that’s exactly their problem and why they are culpable for the misdeeds that their politicians have done. To guys like Bill, any accusation that Bush has done anything illegal will automatically end the debate. It's not that they'd ever defend Republican wrongdoing. It's that they never allow themselves to see it. Somehow, it's always someone else's fault.
I wrote a response to Bill to post after that comment, but it got too long and it’s so late right now that I’ll just post it in its entirety. None of this is new to my regular readers, and had Bill read my other material on this, he might have saved himself the trouble. But I wrote it, so I’ll just post it here instead. Bill wrote that Republicans say negative things about other Republicans “all the time.” So I wrote:
The Republicans do not say negative things about other Republicans. Congressmen like Duke Cunningham, Mark Foley, and Tom Delay are defended until the day that they are forced to step down; and even then their scandals are somehow to be blamed on Democrats. This defense comes from throughout the entire Republican Party, from the politicians at the top, the radio-tv talkers in the middle, and the base at the bottom. Each one of them will be the first to tell you that they don't support corruption or wrongdoing, but then will go on to insist that the Republican in question has done no wrongdoing. Or that the wrongdoing doesn't warrant the punishment. In essence, they strongly disapprove of wrongdoing in general, but never seem to see any specific wrongdoing until after the conviction. And even then, there's always a Democrat who was clearly more deserving of punishment.
And it's this See No Evil approach that has green-lighted the entire way for Republican corruption. You list three disputable charges against Clinton, only one of which could be directly attached to him; while the list against corrupt Republican Congressmen is quite long. As is the list of Bush Admin wrongdoing. How do you consider these to be comparable? I mean, blaming Clinton for a bad corporate culture, compared with illegal wiretaps and the suspension of basic human freedoms? Compared with Congressmen being bribed with houses and yachts and hookers? Is there really some comparison here?
The GOP is corrupt to its very core, and it's because of people like you. Because every time a Republican is accused of something, they know that you'll be right there to deny the significance of the charges and will find a Democrat to blame for it. Sure, you rally against corruption in theory. But the Republicans have totally screwed you over, yet you continue to defend them. And that's why you're part of the problem.
So this isn't about blaming Democrats because they didn't attack Clinton for things after the fact. This is because the Republicans knew beforehand that people like Limbaugh, O'Reilly, and you would defend them against almost anything. And it's still the case. Sorry to go "nihilist" on you, but Bush has got to be the worst president in modern history. Yet he can continue to count on the support of 30% of the population. Not because they like him. But because they know that their fate is tied to his, and to attack him is to attack their own actions. So they continue to defend a man who has betrayed almost everything they thought they stood for.
And that's why they're to blame for it. Not because of what they did after wrongdoing was uncovered, but because the wrong-doers knew beforehand that they'd never be blamed by you people. Bush does wrong because he knows that he’ll always have your support. And he still does. You may disapprove of what he does, but he’ll never completely lose you. And that’s why he doesn’t worry about it. He’ll always have you.
As a final note, while I haven’t read all of Bill’s blogposts (he started in early May), of the many I read, I read none that covered any Republican scandals or wrongdoing. While he rails against the “faith-based science” of Global Warming and some issue involving John Edwards and a hedgefund, he mentions Alberto Gonzales exactly zero times; while his only post mentioning corruption was a local story. For as much noise as he made regarding the not ignoring Republican corruption, he sure does do a good job of ignoring it.
Of course, even if we were to grant Bill these three items, this hardly stacks up to the various scandals perpetrated by various Republicans. I mean, even Bush’s illegal actions alone can’t compare with Clinton’s meager offenses, and that’s not to include all of Congressmen who were forced to resign due to various scandals. Really, it’s not even close.
But I think the problem for Bill and many other conservatives is that they refuse to acknowledge these scandals. They insist that these scandals are invented or, at a minimum, are no worse than what Dems did. And that’s exactly the problem. They’ve already excused all of the activities. They don’t think it counts. And that’s exactly my point. That, in theory, conservatives denounce Republican corruption. But in practice, they just can’t see any. It doesn’t really exist. Or at a minimum, is no worse than what the Dems were doing.
And that’s exactly their problem and why they are culpable for the misdeeds that their politicians have done. To guys like Bill, any accusation that Bush has done anything illegal will automatically end the debate. It's not that they'd ever defend Republican wrongdoing. It's that they never allow themselves to see it. Somehow, it's always someone else's fault.
I wrote a response to Bill to post after that comment, but it got too long and it’s so late right now that I’ll just post it in its entirety. None of this is new to my regular readers, and had Bill read my other material on this, he might have saved himself the trouble. But I wrote it, so I’ll just post it here instead. Bill wrote that Republicans say negative things about other Republicans “all the time.” So I wrote:
The Republicans do not say negative things about other Republicans. Congressmen like Duke Cunningham, Mark Foley, and Tom Delay are defended until the day that they are forced to step down; and even then their scandals are somehow to be blamed on Democrats. This defense comes from throughout the entire Republican Party, from the politicians at the top, the radio-tv talkers in the middle, and the base at the bottom. Each one of them will be the first to tell you that they don't support corruption or wrongdoing, but then will go on to insist that the Republican in question has done no wrongdoing. Or that the wrongdoing doesn't warrant the punishment. In essence, they strongly disapprove of wrongdoing in general, but never seem to see any specific wrongdoing until after the conviction. And even then, there's always a Democrat who was clearly more deserving of punishment.
And it's this See No Evil approach that has green-lighted the entire way for Republican corruption. You list three disputable charges against Clinton, only one of which could be directly attached to him; while the list against corrupt Republican Congressmen is quite long. As is the list of Bush Admin wrongdoing. How do you consider these to be comparable? I mean, blaming Clinton for a bad corporate culture, compared with illegal wiretaps and the suspension of basic human freedoms? Compared with Congressmen being bribed with houses and yachts and hookers? Is there really some comparison here?
The GOP is corrupt to its very core, and it's because of people like you. Because every time a Republican is accused of something, they know that you'll be right there to deny the significance of the charges and will find a Democrat to blame for it. Sure, you rally against corruption in theory. But the Republicans have totally screwed you over, yet you continue to defend them. And that's why you're part of the problem.
So this isn't about blaming Democrats because they didn't attack Clinton for things after the fact. This is because the Republicans knew beforehand that people like Limbaugh, O'Reilly, and you would defend them against almost anything. And it's still the case. Sorry to go "nihilist" on you, but Bush has got to be the worst president in modern history. Yet he can continue to count on the support of 30% of the population. Not because they like him. But because they know that their fate is tied to his, and to attack him is to attack their own actions. So they continue to defend a man who has betrayed almost everything they thought they stood for.
And that's why they're to blame for it. Not because of what they did after wrongdoing was uncovered, but because the wrong-doers knew beforehand that they'd never be blamed by you people. Bush does wrong because he knows that he’ll always have your support. And he still does. You may disapprove of what he does, but he’ll never completely lose you. And that’s why he doesn’t worry about it. He’ll always have you.
As a final note, while I haven’t read all of Bill’s blogposts (he started in early May), of the many I read, I read none that covered any Republican scandals or wrongdoing. While he rails against the “faith-based science” of Global Warming and some issue involving John Edwards and a hedgefund, he mentions Alberto Gonzales exactly zero times; while his only post mentioning corruption was a local story. For as much noise as he made regarding the not ignoring Republican corruption, he sure does do a good job of ignoring it.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Revising the Reagan Legacy
I’d like to welcome new conservative blogger Bill T from The Bill T Blog to the blogosphere. Not because I like his writing or anything, but merely because he was kind enough to post a comment on my last post; and I’m always a total whore for that kind of thing. And sure, it was somewhat incomprehensible as he seemed to have failed to make an actual point of any kind, but I’ll take what I can get.
I decided to go to Mr. T’s blog to find out more about him, hoping that this might allow me to decipher his comment, and found that his latest post had been related to what I had just posted about, which is probably why he found me. It was titled Is Frank Rich Right About Reagan, and seemed to be saying that Rich was insulting Reagan by suggesting that none of the current GOP nominee aspirants are Reagan-material. Because apparently, it’s an insult to suggest that Reagan’s legacy is over…or something like that. But for as much as he spoke of Reagan's greatness and the great gnashing of liberal teeth it caused, he never actually got around to telling us exactly what that legacy was.
At this point, I’ll just repost the comment I left, as I’ve been too lazy to actually write new blog material:
Wow, for someone who wrote so much about Reagan, you really didn't seem to say a damn thing about the guy. Like how he raised taxes more times than he lowered them. Or how he did little to address the huge deficits he helped create. And how he eventually became quite pragmatic when it came to the Soviets, and how he admitted that he was wrong about them being evil; all to the horror of many of the hardline conservatives running the Whitehouse right now. And let's not forget how he allowed illegal weapons to be sold to Iran or how he repeatedly failed to retaliate against terrorist attacks. I could go on.
In the end, it seems as if you're basking in the glory of a false Reagan. The idea of Reagan seems far more important to you than the actual guy. And should it be remembered that Clinton is often considered more popular than Reagan, both during their presidencies and afterwards? Don't get me wrong, I always liked Reagan and think he was a swell guy (I was a Republican back then). But he's hardly the hardline conservative you guys are now pretending he was.
And to answer your question: No, Romney, Giuliani, and McCain will not be the next Reagan. Those guys are a bunch of deceitful punks and the GOP's future is dark indeed. You can pretend all you want that it's still morning in America, but you're obviously living in a fictional past. But I guess that's really the strongest connection to the Reagan Legacy.
After this, me and Mr. T had quite a bit of back and forth on several of his posts, with me entirely stomping upon his arguments, while he continued to deflect mine with cheap labels and dismissive insinuations. You can click through to read it if you want, though there’s nothing there that I haven’t said before. Here was another of our rousing debates, this time on Bob Geldof, Al Gore, and why liberals shouldn't try to save the world and should just drop out of politics...or something like that.
But the main point remains: The right really doesn’t give a damn about Reagan, beyond their ability to exploit him for their current woes. Bill T said as much, which I found entirely weird; but it was nice to get a bit of honesty out of these people. I had more to write, but I’ve really got to go to bed and it wouldn’t be anything I haven’t written before. Maybe I’ll write more tomorrow.
Oddly enough, I really kind of liked reading T’s blog. Sure, I disagreed with just about everything he said and really didn’t like how he couldn’t address any of my points, but besides that, I really did get sort of obsessed with it; to the point that I almost forgot to post this post. I’m telling you, one of these days I’m going to convert me a conservative, and then all you naysaying fuckers will be sorry. It can be done, I’m sure of it.
I decided to go to Mr. T’s blog to find out more about him, hoping that this might allow me to decipher his comment, and found that his latest post had been related to what I had just posted about, which is probably why he found me. It was titled Is Frank Rich Right About Reagan, and seemed to be saying that Rich was insulting Reagan by suggesting that none of the current GOP nominee aspirants are Reagan-material. Because apparently, it’s an insult to suggest that Reagan’s legacy is over…or something like that. But for as much as he spoke of Reagan's greatness and the great gnashing of liberal teeth it caused, he never actually got around to telling us exactly what that legacy was.
At this point, I’ll just repost the comment I left, as I’ve been too lazy to actually write new blog material:
Wow, for someone who wrote so much about Reagan, you really didn't seem to say a damn thing about the guy. Like how he raised taxes more times than he lowered them. Or how he did little to address the huge deficits he helped create. And how he eventually became quite pragmatic when it came to the Soviets, and how he admitted that he was wrong about them being evil; all to the horror of many of the hardline conservatives running the Whitehouse right now. And let's not forget how he allowed illegal weapons to be sold to Iran or how he repeatedly failed to retaliate against terrorist attacks. I could go on.
In the end, it seems as if you're basking in the glory of a false Reagan. The idea of Reagan seems far more important to you than the actual guy. And should it be remembered that Clinton is often considered more popular than Reagan, both during their presidencies and afterwards? Don't get me wrong, I always liked Reagan and think he was a swell guy (I was a Republican back then). But he's hardly the hardline conservative you guys are now pretending he was.
And to answer your question: No, Romney, Giuliani, and McCain will not be the next Reagan. Those guys are a bunch of deceitful punks and the GOP's future is dark indeed. You can pretend all you want that it's still morning in America, but you're obviously living in a fictional past. But I guess that's really the strongest connection to the Reagan Legacy.
After this, me and Mr. T had quite a bit of back and forth on several of his posts, with me entirely stomping upon his arguments, while he continued to deflect mine with cheap labels and dismissive insinuations. You can click through to read it if you want, though there’s nothing there that I haven’t said before. Here was another of our rousing debates, this time on Bob Geldof, Al Gore, and why liberals shouldn't try to save the world and should just drop out of politics...or something like that.
But the main point remains: The right really doesn’t give a damn about Reagan, beyond their ability to exploit him for their current woes. Bill T said as much, which I found entirely weird; but it was nice to get a bit of honesty out of these people. I had more to write, but I’ve really got to go to bed and it wouldn’t be anything I haven’t written before. Maybe I’ll write more tomorrow.
Oddly enough, I really kind of liked reading T’s blog. Sure, I disagreed with just about everything he said and really didn’t like how he couldn’t address any of my points, but besides that, I really did get sort of obsessed with it; to the point that I almost forgot to post this post. I’m telling you, one of these days I’m going to convert me a conservative, and then all you naysaying fuckers will be sorry. It can be done, I’m sure of it.
Monday, May 14, 2007
Corrupt to the Core
Carpetbagger quotes NY Times' Frank Rich: And finally, Frank Rich seems to believe corruption has ruined the Republican brand: “Wrongdoing of this magnitude does not happen by accident, but it is not necessarily instigated by a Watergate-style criminal conspiracy. When corruption is this pervasive, it can also be a byproduct of a governing philosophy. That’s the case here. That Bush-Rove style of governance, the common denominator of all the administration scandals, is the Frankenstein creature that stalks the G.O.P. as it faces 2008. It has become the Republican brand and will remain so, even after this president goes, until courageous Republicans disown it and eradicate it.”
But this really isn't right. Because Bush, Rove, and the rest of them couldn't have done this on their own. They did it because all of the Republicans allowed them to do it. And even now, a majority of Republicans are continuing to allow it. Basically, it comes down to the deal with the devil they made to never badmouth their fellow Republicans. I think that's their blessed Reagan Commandment, that forbids them from ever catching Republican wrongdoing.
And it's something that will never be eradicated. After all, it's all they've got. Being Republican means shutting up and working for the team. And as long as someone is loyal to the team, the team has to stay loyal to them. It's a promise. And so it should be no surprise that they do so much bad stuff. Unconditional love will do that. This didn't come from Bush or Rove. This is something they've all agreed upon. And if they didn't do it, they couldn't succeed. Because it's all about working for the team and following orders. And when the chief order givers are corrupt, then all of them will be corrupt. This wasn't a fluke. This is how they survive. And it's something that will continue to happen again and again.
But this really isn't right. Because Bush, Rove, and the rest of them couldn't have done this on their own. They did it because all of the Republicans allowed them to do it. And even now, a majority of Republicans are continuing to allow it. Basically, it comes down to the deal with the devil they made to never badmouth their fellow Republicans. I think that's their blessed Reagan Commandment, that forbids them from ever catching Republican wrongdoing.
And it's something that will never be eradicated. After all, it's all they've got. Being Republican means shutting up and working for the team. And as long as someone is loyal to the team, the team has to stay loyal to them. It's a promise. And so it should be no surprise that they do so much bad stuff. Unconditional love will do that. This didn't come from Bush or Rove. This is something they've all agreed upon. And if they didn't do it, they couldn't succeed. Because it's all about working for the team and following orders. And when the chief order givers are corrupt, then all of them will be corrupt. This wasn't a fluke. This is how they survive. And it's something that will continue to happen again and again.
Sunday, May 13, 2007
Religious Differences
It’s never said enough, but the Republican takeover of religion really has had a weird effect on religious people. Because the Republicans don’t really give a damn about religion and just use it entirely to gain easy votes. And so they pump-out empty feelgood rhetoric designed to apply to all Christians regardless of what they actually believe. Sure, history has shown us that there are some fairly large divisions between the various Christian sects, but to Republicans, it’s all just one big happy voter block.
And that’s become such a common concept of Christians that it has now become noteworthy when heavily religious people say bigoted things about the other Christian religions. But why should that be? These religious divisions have caused severe strife for hundreds of years. Hell, our country wouldn’t be what it is today, were it not for Christian-on-Christian persecution. But because the GOP has worked so hard to depict the battle as Christians vs. Atheist Liberals, these divisions suddenly seem weird.
And I was thinking about this while reading Carpetbagger’s latest update from The God Machine. Here’s a summary of the three stories:
1. Christian Preacher thinks a vote for Mormon Romney is a vote for Satan.
2. Jewish Navy veteran in VA hospital constantly harassed by Christian Chaplains.
3. The Vatican altered Pope Ratzinger’s comments regarding the excommunication of pro-choice politicians to make him look less irrelevant.
But there should be nothing surprising about this, especially not the first two. Republican rhetoric aside, Christian extremists often don’t like other Christians. And many of the more fundamentalist Christians don’t consider Mormons to be Christian at all. They consider it to be a weird corruption of Christianity, and as such, they don’t like it one bit.
As for the second guy, if Christian evangelicals are correct, then the worst thing someone could do to a Jew is to allow him to remain a Jew. By harassing him all the time and denying him a kosher meal, they were just doing him a favor and to say otherwise is anti-Christian bigotry. Who knows, they may have saved him a trip to Hell. But then again, I suppose having to listen to Christian evangelicals while trapped in a hospital might easily be considered a form of Hell, so perhaps he got screwed-over in any case.
As for the third item, I really don’t understand the logic of this issue. Sure, I can understand a Catholic politician getting in trouble for having an abortion. But how could it possibly be immoral for a politician to allow non-Catholics to disobey Catholic beliefs? I was raised Catholic and went to Sunday School for much too long, but I don’t remember anyone saying that Catholics had to force non-Catholics to obey the Pope. That’s just a no-brainer.
Perhaps Ratzinger really wants non-Catholics to think that Catholic politicians take their orders from Rome, but I somehow don’t think that will do him a whole lot of good in the voting booth. And frankly, if a Catholic politician really does think they need to obey the Pope over their own constituents, then we really can’t have them in office. That’s downright undemocratic. That’s not to say I have a problem with voting for religious people, as I absolutely don’t. But at the end of the day, I need to know that I’m voting for someone who represents my interests. That’s just how this is supposed to work.
And so it’s really no surprise that the Vatican backed down from Ratzinger’s remarks. Because they’re pretty dumb and outdated. Who really gives a rat’s ass about excommunication? That kind of thing made sense back when the Pope was the only action in town. But these days, there are more religions than you can shake a stick at. And perhaps the Pope would like it if all the Catholic politicians switched to a less intrusive religion, but I doubt it. As for myself, I’d welcome excommunication. That way, I’d have a better excuse for ducking church whenever I visit my folks.
That’s not to say that they should start permitting Catholic politicians to start breaking all the important rules, but as I said, this is a pretty dumb one. Sure, you can oppose abortion. But when you start forcing Catholic politicians to use a country’s government to enforce Church doctrine, you’ve gone too far. But that’s not just for the Catholics, but for all religious people. It’s supposed to be about obeying God’s Will and that’s as far as it should go. As soon as you start using the government to enforce religion, you’ve completely tossed-out the Freewill aspect of belief and ruined God’s whole game. And that’s got to be the surest way to piss him off.
And that’s become such a common concept of Christians that it has now become noteworthy when heavily religious people say bigoted things about the other Christian religions. But why should that be? These religious divisions have caused severe strife for hundreds of years. Hell, our country wouldn’t be what it is today, were it not for Christian-on-Christian persecution. But because the GOP has worked so hard to depict the battle as Christians vs. Atheist Liberals, these divisions suddenly seem weird.
And I was thinking about this while reading Carpetbagger’s latest update from The God Machine. Here’s a summary of the three stories:
1. Christian Preacher thinks a vote for Mormon Romney is a vote for Satan.
2. Jewish Navy veteran in VA hospital constantly harassed by Christian Chaplains.
3. The Vatican altered Pope Ratzinger’s comments regarding the excommunication of pro-choice politicians to make him look less irrelevant.
But there should be nothing surprising about this, especially not the first two. Republican rhetoric aside, Christian extremists often don’t like other Christians. And many of the more fundamentalist Christians don’t consider Mormons to be Christian at all. They consider it to be a weird corruption of Christianity, and as such, they don’t like it one bit.
As for the second guy, if Christian evangelicals are correct, then the worst thing someone could do to a Jew is to allow him to remain a Jew. By harassing him all the time and denying him a kosher meal, they were just doing him a favor and to say otherwise is anti-Christian bigotry. Who knows, they may have saved him a trip to Hell. But then again, I suppose having to listen to Christian evangelicals while trapped in a hospital might easily be considered a form of Hell, so perhaps he got screwed-over in any case.
As for the third item, I really don’t understand the logic of this issue. Sure, I can understand a Catholic politician getting in trouble for having an abortion. But how could it possibly be immoral for a politician to allow non-Catholics to disobey Catholic beliefs? I was raised Catholic and went to Sunday School for much too long, but I don’t remember anyone saying that Catholics had to force non-Catholics to obey the Pope. That’s just a no-brainer.
Perhaps Ratzinger really wants non-Catholics to think that Catholic politicians take their orders from Rome, but I somehow don’t think that will do him a whole lot of good in the voting booth. And frankly, if a Catholic politician really does think they need to obey the Pope over their own constituents, then we really can’t have them in office. That’s downright undemocratic. That’s not to say I have a problem with voting for religious people, as I absolutely don’t. But at the end of the day, I need to know that I’m voting for someone who represents my interests. That’s just how this is supposed to work.
And so it’s really no surprise that the Vatican backed down from Ratzinger’s remarks. Because they’re pretty dumb and outdated. Who really gives a rat’s ass about excommunication? That kind of thing made sense back when the Pope was the only action in town. But these days, there are more religions than you can shake a stick at. And perhaps the Pope would like it if all the Catholic politicians switched to a less intrusive religion, but I doubt it. As for myself, I’d welcome excommunication. That way, I’d have a better excuse for ducking church whenever I visit my folks.
That’s not to say that they should start permitting Catholic politicians to start breaking all the important rules, but as I said, this is a pretty dumb one. Sure, you can oppose abortion. But when you start forcing Catholic politicians to use a country’s government to enforce Church doctrine, you’ve gone too far. But that’s not just for the Catholics, but for all religious people. It’s supposed to be about obeying God’s Will and that’s as far as it should go. As soon as you start using the government to enforce religion, you’ve completely tossed-out the Freewill aspect of belief and ruined God’s whole game. And that’s got to be the surest way to piss him off.
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
Punkass Republicans
It’s got to suck to be a Republican. I mean, besides all the obvious reasons, they’ve got this fantastic worldview, but just can’t seem to find any facts to back it up. How frustrating.
In this case, I’m speaking of the newly-formed Tech Republican website, which is apparently based upon the idea that the GOP’s top-notch marketing campaign just isn’t doing enough to sell their pitch online. I mean sure, slick marketing is really the only thing that’s been keeping Republicans afloat for the past decade, and that their recent doom can be entirely attributed to the fact that marketing just isn’t good enough when you really suck. But apparently, I’m wrong. It seems there were 82,000 Republicans who actively read politics online who would have swung the election in their favor last November, if only there was some online source to tell them about it…or something like that.
And what is another way that Tech Republican plans to reach-out to the younger crowds? Punk Rock music. Sure, you might be thinking that punk rock music has been dead for quite awhile, and really wasn’t that great to begin with. But you’d be wrong. And if you thought that Punk Rock music was anathema to Republicans, you’d also be wrong. Because Tech Republican says so.
As evidence of that, they cite two websites GOPunk.com and Conservative Punk. That's right. Two. And sure, GOPunk.com consists only of one idiotic page and Conservative Punk has only posted forty-eight columns since it started in 2003, with only one this year, an abysmal record that makes me look like a real workhorse. But that’s not the point. The point is that someone put up two websites that indicate that punk people might be Republican, and that’s a trend if I’ve ever seen one. One website could be a freak occurrence. But two? That’s the real deal, my friend.
And here’s the big one that got me started:
And, as a Republican, I'm proud to have John Cummings in our Party. You may know John as Johnny Ramone, of one of the best bands of all time, the Ramones. The Ramones are largely regarded as being the first punk rock band and they happen to be Republicans.
And what's more pathetic? That Mr. Tech didn't seem to know that Johnny Ramone died? That he seemed unaware that one of his favorite bands wasn't really Republican? Or that he's likely to stop listening to them now that he knows? While the decision is tough, I'll go with that last one. Because it's the worst. He likes the Ramones because he thinks they're Republican and has been misintrepreting their lyrics this whole time. What a dope.
But the most pathetic part: Here he is trying to prove a point about punk rockers digging Republicans, and can only cite two pathetic websites, a dead rocker, and a false fact. Typical.
I had more to say about this, but fuck it. I'm just going to rock out instead. 1-2-3-4!
In this case, I’m speaking of the newly-formed Tech Republican website, which is apparently based upon the idea that the GOP’s top-notch marketing campaign just isn’t doing enough to sell their pitch online. I mean sure, slick marketing is really the only thing that’s been keeping Republicans afloat for the past decade, and that their recent doom can be entirely attributed to the fact that marketing just isn’t good enough when you really suck. But apparently, I’m wrong. It seems there were 82,000 Republicans who actively read politics online who would have swung the election in their favor last November, if only there was some online source to tell them about it…or something like that.
And what is another way that Tech Republican plans to reach-out to the younger crowds? Punk Rock music. Sure, you might be thinking that punk rock music has been dead for quite awhile, and really wasn’t that great to begin with. But you’d be wrong. And if you thought that Punk Rock music was anathema to Republicans, you’d also be wrong. Because Tech Republican says so.
As evidence of that, they cite two websites GOPunk.com and Conservative Punk. That's right. Two. And sure, GOPunk.com consists only of one idiotic page and Conservative Punk has only posted forty-eight columns since it started in 2003, with only one this year, an abysmal record that makes me look like a real workhorse. But that’s not the point. The point is that someone put up two websites that indicate that punk people might be Republican, and that’s a trend if I’ve ever seen one. One website could be a freak occurrence. But two? That’s the real deal, my friend.
And here’s the big one that got me started:
And, as a Republican, I'm proud to have John Cummings in our Party. You may know John as Johnny Ramone, of one of the best bands of all time, the Ramones. The Ramones are largely regarded as being the first punk rock band and they happen to be Republicans.
And what's more pathetic? That Mr. Tech didn't seem to know that Johnny Ramone died? That he seemed unaware that one of his favorite bands wasn't really Republican? Or that he's likely to stop listening to them now that he knows? While the decision is tough, I'll go with that last one. Because it's the worst. He likes the Ramones because he thinks they're Republican and has been misintrepreting their lyrics this whole time. What a dope.
But the most pathetic part: Here he is trying to prove a point about punk rockers digging Republicans, and can only cite two pathetic websites, a dead rocker, and a false fact. Typical.
I had more to say about this, but fuck it. I'm just going to rock out instead. 1-2-3-4!
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
OMG!
My head explodes:
The petition, which had more than 900 signatures by Tuesday morning, urges the California actor-turned-governor to pardon [Paris] Hilton because she provides "beauty and excitement to (most of) our otherwise mundane lives."
I suppose anyone willing to sign their name to such an insulting petition probably does need the beauty and excitement that Paris provides. It went on to suggest that Paris deserves a pardon because Nixon got one. Celebrity news makes me want to smoke crack.
The petition, which had more than 900 signatures by Tuesday morning, urges the California actor-turned-governor to pardon [Paris] Hilton because she provides "beauty and excitement to (most of) our otherwise mundane lives."
I suppose anyone willing to sign their name to such an insulting petition probably does need the beauty and excitement that Paris provides. It went on to suggest that Paris deserves a pardon because Nixon got one. Celebrity news makes me want to smoke crack.
Sunday, May 06, 2007
Running on Empty
Holy shit, have I nothing to write about. My plans seem to be working perfectly and I should be coroneted within the week. Besides that and the Bush-Cheney double suicide, I don’t have much going on and can’t think of anything I need to write. Count this as an open thread.
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
Commufascists Unite: Part I
Awhile back, I wrote a really long post contrasting Vietnam to Iraq and whatnot, but never finished it and it just sat there. Well, I don’t feel like writing anything new, so I’ll do some huge edits to that one and divide it into shorter ones and post them individually. And you’ll accept it because that’s all I’m giving you. Here goes:
My internet connection was disrupted this past weekend, and I couldn’t access any of my much needed news. So I decided to go “old school” and actually use a book as my source material. You know, the kind with paper. Very quaint, having to gently hold the old paperback while transcribing long passages. No cut-and-paste for me. I felt so Amish.
So I turned to my favorite book on Vietnam (and the only one I’ve ever read) titled: Vietnam – History, Documents, and Opinions on a Major World Crisis. It’s a collection of essays, speeches, papers, and other works on the Vietnam War which was published in 1965 and gives more than enough info to have predicted where the war would end up (ie, in the crapper).
Satellite Japan
We’ll start off with a selection from Tricky Dick and his fear for Japan, in a section titled: Fear of Impending French Defeat: “Remarks Attributed to” Vice-President Richard Nixon, from the April 17, 1954 New York Times:
Negotiations with the Communists to divide the territory would result in Communist domination of a vital new area. Communist intransigence in Korea perhaps will teach the French and the British the futility of negotiation and bring them over to the plan of “united action” proposed by Secretary of State Dulles …
It should be emphasized that if Indochina went Communist, Red pressures would increase on Malaya, Thailand, and Indonesia and other Asian nations. The main target of the Communists in Indochina, as it was in Korea, is Japan. Conquest of areas so vital to Japan’s economy would reduce Japan to an economic satellite of the Soviet Union.
Gee, and how did that turn-out, Dick?
And just to give context, when he says “negotiations with the communists to divide the territory,” he’s referring to the idea that we shouldn’t divide Vietnam into a North and South; which is exactly what happened in July of that year (though it was only supposed to be a temporary provision, until national elections could someday be held).
Because he didn’t even think they should have any of Vietnam, despite the fact that the Communists were considered the popular choice by much of the country. No, he just thought we should impose our “democratic” will onto the whole place. How kind of him. Conservatives always were in love with the benevolent dictator (a phrase used repeatedly by a pro-war supporter in an essay in that book). Just as long as they control the dictator. But as they keep finding, even that guy will keep screwing things up for them.
And in the end, not only did the Communists get to keep the north half of Vietnam, they got the whole damn thing. And just as Nixon predicted, the Communists quickly bowled-over Malaya, Thailand, and Indonesia; before turning Japan into an economic satellite of the Soviet Union. How prescient.
But wait. That didn’t happen. Even after we lost Vietnam twenty years later, having twice shown the world exactly how ineffective we were at waging land wars in Asia, none of this came true. Those were just scary fantasies dreamed up to justify an unjustifiable war. They didn’t care if it was true. They just needed some excuse to keep blowing shit up. Some things never change.
And ironically enough, it’s likely that Dick’s dislike of a partitioned Vietnam came from his fear that Vietnam might become another Korea, which had ended unsatisfactorily less than a year before he made these comments. And let me just say that the rightwing insistence on going double-or-nothing after each defeat will continue to drive me bonkers. Again, some things never change. I guess that’s why they call them conservatives.
My internet connection was disrupted this past weekend, and I couldn’t access any of my much needed news. So I decided to go “old school” and actually use a book as my source material. You know, the kind with paper. Very quaint, having to gently hold the old paperback while transcribing long passages. No cut-and-paste for me. I felt so Amish.
So I turned to my favorite book on Vietnam (and the only one I’ve ever read) titled: Vietnam – History, Documents, and Opinions on a Major World Crisis. It’s a collection of essays, speeches, papers, and other works on the Vietnam War which was published in 1965 and gives more than enough info to have predicted where the war would end up (ie, in the crapper).
Satellite Japan
We’ll start off with a selection from Tricky Dick and his fear for Japan, in a section titled: Fear of Impending French Defeat: “Remarks Attributed to” Vice-President Richard Nixon, from the April 17, 1954 New York Times:
Negotiations with the Communists to divide the territory would result in Communist domination of a vital new area. Communist intransigence in Korea perhaps will teach the French and the British the futility of negotiation and bring them over to the plan of “united action” proposed by Secretary of State Dulles …
It should be emphasized that if Indochina went Communist, Red pressures would increase on Malaya, Thailand, and Indonesia and other Asian nations. The main target of the Communists in Indochina, as it was in Korea, is Japan. Conquest of areas so vital to Japan’s economy would reduce Japan to an economic satellite of the Soviet Union.
Gee, and how did that turn-out, Dick?
And just to give context, when he says “negotiations with the communists to divide the territory,” he’s referring to the idea that we shouldn’t divide Vietnam into a North and South; which is exactly what happened in July of that year (though it was only supposed to be a temporary provision, until national elections could someday be held).
Because he didn’t even think they should have any of Vietnam, despite the fact that the Communists were considered the popular choice by much of the country. No, he just thought we should impose our “democratic” will onto the whole place. How kind of him. Conservatives always were in love with the benevolent dictator (a phrase used repeatedly by a pro-war supporter in an essay in that book). Just as long as they control the dictator. But as they keep finding, even that guy will keep screwing things up for them.
And in the end, not only did the Communists get to keep the north half of Vietnam, they got the whole damn thing. And just as Nixon predicted, the Communists quickly bowled-over Malaya, Thailand, and Indonesia; before turning Japan into an economic satellite of the Soviet Union. How prescient.
But wait. That didn’t happen. Even after we lost Vietnam twenty years later, having twice shown the world exactly how ineffective we were at waging land wars in Asia, none of this came true. Those were just scary fantasies dreamed up to justify an unjustifiable war. They didn’t care if it was true. They just needed some excuse to keep blowing shit up. Some things never change.
And ironically enough, it’s likely that Dick’s dislike of a partitioned Vietnam came from his fear that Vietnam might become another Korea, which had ended unsatisfactorily less than a year before he made these comments. And let me just say that the rightwing insistence on going double-or-nothing after each defeat will continue to drive me bonkers. Again, some things never change. I guess that’s why they call them conservatives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
