Libertarians. I can’t stand them. Even worse, I think they serve no useful purpose in our political system and really put a big drag on everything; and yes, that does presume that mainstream Republicans serve a purpose. The libertarian position sounds good, but that’s it. It’s just useless sloganeering and toughguy talk, with no real basis in reality. And there are two basic types of libertarians: Pie-in-the-sky jokers who haven’t thought any of it through passed the toughguy talk, and relatively intelligent Republicans who enjoy bashing libs but hate having to defend their own party. Both categories are dangerous in their own way, though the second is the more dangerous of the two. And both are entirely fake positions that are easy to defend, just as long as they can keep the topic on rhetoric and theory; and away from the thorns of reality.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m fairly libertarian on many issues; almost all of them pertaining to individual rights. I support gun ownership, with reasonable limitations. I support personal liberties and freedom. And I think that people should be allowed to enjoy themselves, just as long as they’re not preventing others from enjoying themselves. And, of course, I’m pro-choice, which should be one of those bigtime libertarian platforms; though too often it isn’t. All of these positions are completely reasonable, and millions who would never call themselves “libertarian” fully believe these things. And to me, this is what libertarianism is really all about: The Rights of Individuals.
And to state this more clearly: I think that liberty isn’t just about doing whatever the hell you want. Taken to its natural extreme, nobody believes that. It’s about us having the freedom to do what we want, without unnecessarily infringing upon other people’s freedom. But overall, freedom and liberty must be equal for all, and that to be called a “libertarian” must mean that we support freedom for everyone. And if one person has a freedom to do something, then everyone else must have that freedom too.
But those who call themselves “libertarians”, particularly of the Republican variety, aren’t in agreement with that. More often than not, they’re mainly in support of business rights. In particular, Big Business. And here’s the thing: More often than not, individual rights are in direct conflict with business rights. I’m not at all sure how libertarians haven’t figured that one out, but it’s so obvious as to be ridiculous. And because Big Business is nothing but a collection of individuals, the libertarian position is often that of granting special rights to certain individuals, over the rights of other individuals; with the distinguishing factor being whether the individual is acting on their own behalf, versus that of their business. And when stated like that, it’s obviously a big absurdity. These libertarians believe that some people have more liberty than other people.
Examples
For example, I can’t see how environmental regulation isn’t a libertarian issue. The air and water that these businesses are polluting is not their air and water. It belongs to all of us. So why do they get to just take it, ruin it, and not expect repercussions? These companies do it because it lowers costs, and that’s fine, I guess. But I don’t see why they’re not expected to clean it up, or to pay for what they’re using. To make it the way it was before they took it. I’m not allowed to go to Mr. Libertarian’s shack and start fucking up his weed-filled yard. So why are businesses allowed to do that to us?
Especially as it’s not just our stuff. They’re fucking us up. They get to dirty our air, our water, and thus, increase our medical expenses and shorten our lives; and I’m not allowed to do anything about it? I’m just supposed to suck it up and act as if this is some natural process? It’s considered some huge burden to expect them to undo damage they did to things they didn’t even own? That’s bullshit. Environmental policy is clearly an issue that should appeal to libertarians; assuming they knew what the hell they were talking about. Because again, we’re talking about some individuals (business owners/managers) being given special rights to take and abuse public resources that belong to all individuals. How is that liberty?
And unions. Why are libertarian-types so angry at unions and the advances that unions gave us? Honestly, are these businesses dealing with us on a one-on-one basis? When I negotiate the terms of my job, it’s my economic and strategic strength against the one guy that I’m negotiating with? No. I’m negotiating with the entire company. A company with resources so vast that I might work there for thirty years without ever seeing the owners of the company; and without ever knowing the extent of their resources. So why is it that I’m not allowed to do the same? Why can’t I group together with the guys I’m working with, and use our vast strength to negotiate my position?
They have no problems with this for corporations. For those who don’t know, corporations are totally a form of socialism, allowing folks to group together their resources so they can do things that they couldn’t do by themselves. And that’s what socialism is all about. Grouping resources together to do things that you can’t do as individuals. And that’s what unions are all about. And so why is it that libertarians totally defend the concept of corporations, while totally attacking the concept of unions? One is based upon economic strength, and the other is based upon labor strength; but essentially, they’re the same idea.
And so when unions help push for better working conditions, they’re not doing anything unholy or wrong. They’re using their strength in numbers in order to get what’s best for them. Similarly, a multi-national corporation uses its economic strength to get what’s best for them. And so rather than this being about rabble-rousers screwing up a natural system; this is about two powers fighting as equals. This isn’t against the laws of Supply & Demand; but just another demonstration of it. By limiting the Supply of workers, unions can better their position. That just makes sense.
And so how is this not a position that libertarian-types should hold dear? How is the freedom of gathering together one’s assets considered anti-freedom? And why is it that Big Business is allowed to do whatever the hell they want, while us “little guys” have to stay little? That’s not freedom. That’s bullshit. Again, they’re giving special rights to certain individuals over the rights of other individuals. How is that liberty?
Of the People, For the People
And finally, there is the issue of government itself. I don’t support the idea that government should get to intrude into my life and tell me how to live, outside of ensuring Life, Liberty, and Happiness to the other citizens. I shouldn’t be allowed to disturb the peace with loud music or murder people; but beyond that, the government shouldn’t tell me how to live. And as far as I can see, they don’t. Libertarian-types always go on and on about intrusive Big Brother government, but I’m just not seeing it. And if anything, it’s the Republicans who are more responsible for the Big Brother stuff. They’re the Law & Order party who wants to tap all our phones and watch over our internets. Not us. I’m not saying that no Democrat supports such things, but this clearly isn’t a liberal push.
And beyond that, I see government as a good thing. I’d rather we not have one, I suppose, but I can’t imagine how we could possibly get away with not having one. Because people will pollute things that aren’t theirs, and businesses will screw with individuals and make them work under bad conditions. To me, that’s what government is all about: Protecting people’s rights against other people’s intrusiveness. We’re all supposed to be equal here, and so some people shouldn’t be given rights that other people don’t have. And that’s one important function of government: Giving us all equal rights. And to me, that’s what liberty is all about.
And when you think about it, what is government but just a collection of individuals? Individuals doing collectively what they could not do for themselves. Just like a corporation or union. Of the people, for the people. That’s government.
And so our regulations are mostly designed to protect individuals against more powerful players. And so as far as the government protects individual rights against that of Big Business and other nefarious players, I see government as being a libertarian issue too. Because it’s largely to ensure personal liberties against the actions of more powerful individuals. Sure, libertarians like to pretend that people should get to do whatever the hell they want to. But that’s just stupid and could never be defended on a realistic basis.
Regulation Example
And hell, even the SEC type stuff is totally necessary. Not as government intrusiveness against the free market system, but to protect the free market system. And I say that as a CPA who actually knows this stuff. I would never consider any of my clients to be crooked or dishonest, but I can tell you as a fact that each and every one of them would do many crooked and dishonest things if they could get away with it (not that I’d ever use those words to describe it to them). And oftentimes, the only thing keeping the numbers legit is to cite the law and to tell them that they’d get in trouble for doing these things. Again, these aren’t fundamentally dishonest people, but they want their financial statements showing huge profits and their tax returns showing huge losses. That’s just a natural inclination for people to have, and so we need something to stop it.
And without SEC and accounting regulations, you’d be a damn fool for ever considering investing in the markets. Any markets. No matter what company it was, or even how familiar you were with that company. You’d be a fool for investing in your own mother’s business, were it not for these regulations. And so the market system would be incredibly inefficient, if not completely dysfunctional, were it not for the regulations. Because it’s just too easy to screw with this shit. No matter how savvy or thorough you are, you can never ascertain that the numbers are truthful, without SEC and other regulations.
And beyond that, even honest people can have differences of opinion. And so it’s important that everyone’s using the same rules, including footnotes stating what the rules are, so you can make the difference of a good company and a bad one. And sure, we have our Enrons. But without these regulations, you’d have to assume that every company was far worse than Enron. Because even with the rules, there are differences of opinions; and without them, it would be impossible to understand a financial statement.
And that’s why the SEC was created. Not because some government bureaucrat wanted to screw with freedom; but because some individuals were ruining the system for other individuals. It was a natural outcome after the stock market manipulations that led to the Great Depression. And even now, those fancy IPO’s that were all the rage during the internet boom of the 90’s were regulated by laws written in the early 30’s. And these laws were completely necessary. Necessary to preserve the market system and allow it to function properly. Because without them, individuals certainly will be crooked about what they’re offering and the Risk Factor of any stock would be far too much. And in such context, a libertarian should only support such a law.
And it goes on and on. Overall, most government rules are designed to protect individuals against bad people. And there’s nothing wrong with that. Laws don’t design themselves out of nothing. In most all cases, laws are reactive, and were created for specific issues. And while we might no longer remember why these laws were created, there most certainly were reasons for them. And most all of these laws were to protect individuals, because they’re the ones who need protecting the most.
So to me, it is the liberals who are the true libertarians. Not some batty cabin-dweller who thinks he has a right to invent his own laws and take any freedoms he wants (and thus, denying others their freedoms). And certainly not the two-faced Republican libertarians who insist that they deserve the title because they once said that Bush’s breath didn’t smell like roses; and who insist that they don’t need to defend their party. If this is just about silly labels, I guess we can let them have it. But if we are talking about the true defenders of liberty and freedom, we have to be talking about liberals.
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
Monday, February 13, 2006
Counter-Production
Following up on Digby’s lead, I went over to TNR’s blogerria “The Plank” and read this nonsense from Jason Zengerle:
This isn't a perfect example, but I bet a version of this phenomenon will play out over the next few days with the Cheney hunting accident. It's an irresistible item to add to the pile of Bush administration screw-ups. But rather than treat this story as what it is--a relatively insignificant but nonetheless juicy little scandal-- liberal bloggers are already overreaching and trying to turn it into something bigger.
….
But when Cheney's victim is released from the ICU, and when the Halliburton connection fails to be significant--and when it turns out Scalia wasn't on the trip--the whole story will suddenly seem a lot smaller than it actually is.
And in the comments section, he adds:
My point about Josh's post was that it's counter-productive to speculate about this stuff.
And in between, he quotes some reasonable stuff from Josh Marshall, as well as a commenter from Kos who may have been less than reasonable. He also cited many other Bush Admin failings that liberals have latched onto. But there’s one thing he failed to mention: Exactly what is so counter-productive about what we’re doing? Why is it wrong for us to put the heat on the Bush Admin? How “big” is this supposed to be; and how can he tell exactly how big we’re making it? Is there some magic formula they teach you in journalism school that tells you how big each scandal should be? Is there a chart at TNR that explains exactly how serious a vice-presidential hunting accident is? Whatever it was, he failed to explain exactly what his point was.
And what is the problem with us talking about it? The wingnuts were totally wrong about Vince Foster, Whitewater, Filegate, Travelgate, and all kinds of other things; and it all eventually led to Clinton’s impeachment. And that was all bullshit. But the bullshit worked for them because it kept everything burning. They kept the pressure on with every little scandal until they could eventually find something that would stick…namely the one illegal thing that Clinton did. Hell, Whitewater at least could have been illegal; but Travelgate was entirely bullshit from the start. It was nothing but yet another expensive investigation for something that couldn’t have been illegal. And yet even now, conservatives remember that as yet another mark against Clinton. And had those other invented scandals not kept the pressure on, it is almost inconceivable that the Lewinski thing would have ever hit.
Now imagine what this kind of treatment could do with real wrong-doing. Not that I’m suggesting that the Cheney shooting was real wrong-doing. In fact, I don’t see anyone seriously suggesting a Vince Foster level reaction. But how exactly is it counter-productive to keep the heat on the Whitehouse? How are we screwing up if Whitehouse reporters are yelling at Scott McClellan? Again, I’m not trying to go overboard here, but neither was Josh Marshall. He asked legitimate questions that Zengerle automatically wants to dismiss out of hand. And for that, we’re accused of being counter-productive. Not just in the Cheney thing; Zengerle is blaming us for Bush not getting nailed for everything else.
But do you want to know what is counter-productive? Elitist journalism-types who automatically dismiss everything that the less elite elements on their side talk about. The guys who automatically assume that these less savory people are wrong and hurt the cause. Dopes who’d actually listen to Mickey Kaus. Guys who automatically downplay every scandal, all because they think the less savory liberals are overplaying their cards again.
Now, I could understand if this guy made some case. But he didn’t. He blames us for “failing to capitalize on what, were it not for their unrealistically inflated expectations, would have been considered a significant scandal.” But he never explains why that’s our fault. He never explains how it’s our expectations that keep letting Bush off the hook. Because to me, this all seems like a failure of the media. I wasn’t the one who gave a pass on Bush’s WMD lies and who let him off the hook when they turned out to not exist. That’s Zengerle’s people doing that. That’s the media. They’re the ones with the attention-spans of a spastic puppy. They’re the ones who keep hopping around from scandal to scandal, disappointed that the proverbial “smoking gun” hasn’t shown itself.
And it makes sense that it’s their fault, as they’re the ones who helped hit Clinton. Rush Limbaugh and his mob couldn’t have taken down Clinton. He was influential, but it was the media that grabbed onto every scandal and wouldn’t let go until the next one came along. They were the ones who kept the heat on constantly. So is this a case of us killing things with our big expectations? Or is this a case of the media getting bored and allowing each scandal to disappear?
And hell, he’s Mr. Bigwig New Republic guy; what the hell is he doing about this stuff? They’re the ones who provided leftwing cover for Bush’s war in Iraq and all kinds of other stuff. They’re the ones who endorsed DINO Lieberman for the Democratic nomination. We’re the ones trying to call attention to the Bush wrong-doing; and they’re the ones who keep calling us “Bush-haters” and providing assists to the Bush Admin.
And even now, we see Zengerle again needing to single-out our side, rather than focusing on theirs. Everything’s our fault, he says. If only we’d keep things on the down-low and play things cool like them, we’d have…we’ll I’m at a loss for what he thinks we’d have. As he can’t possibly suggest that we’ve undermined an impeachment, and Bush is still hovering around a disastrous 40-point approval rating. So I can’t really see where we’ve blown it in his eyes. I agree fully with Digby’s point that it is because of us keeping the pressure on that we’ve gotten this far.
And so I’d have to disagree with the point that Zengerle says he made. I don’t think this is a case of libs always going too far with every case. I think this is a case of the media and elitist liberal pundits who automatically downplay every scandal; always waiting for the “big one” and not realizing that they already had it. And all the while, looking down upon the rabble who continues to blow it for them.
This isn't a perfect example, but I bet a version of this phenomenon will play out over the next few days with the Cheney hunting accident. It's an irresistible item to add to the pile of Bush administration screw-ups. But rather than treat this story as what it is--a relatively insignificant but nonetheless juicy little scandal-- liberal bloggers are already overreaching and trying to turn it into something bigger.
….
But when Cheney's victim is released from the ICU, and when the Halliburton connection fails to be significant--and when it turns out Scalia wasn't on the trip--the whole story will suddenly seem a lot smaller than it actually is.
And in the comments section, he adds:
My point about Josh's post was that it's counter-productive to speculate about this stuff.
And in between, he quotes some reasonable stuff from Josh Marshall, as well as a commenter from Kos who may have been less than reasonable. He also cited many other Bush Admin failings that liberals have latched onto. But there’s one thing he failed to mention: Exactly what is so counter-productive about what we’re doing? Why is it wrong for us to put the heat on the Bush Admin? How “big” is this supposed to be; and how can he tell exactly how big we’re making it? Is there some magic formula they teach you in journalism school that tells you how big each scandal should be? Is there a chart at TNR that explains exactly how serious a vice-presidential hunting accident is? Whatever it was, he failed to explain exactly what his point was.
And what is the problem with us talking about it? The wingnuts were totally wrong about Vince Foster, Whitewater, Filegate, Travelgate, and all kinds of other things; and it all eventually led to Clinton’s impeachment. And that was all bullshit. But the bullshit worked for them because it kept everything burning. They kept the pressure on with every little scandal until they could eventually find something that would stick…namely the one illegal thing that Clinton did. Hell, Whitewater at least could have been illegal; but Travelgate was entirely bullshit from the start. It was nothing but yet another expensive investigation for something that couldn’t have been illegal. And yet even now, conservatives remember that as yet another mark against Clinton. And had those other invented scandals not kept the pressure on, it is almost inconceivable that the Lewinski thing would have ever hit.
Now imagine what this kind of treatment could do with real wrong-doing. Not that I’m suggesting that the Cheney shooting was real wrong-doing. In fact, I don’t see anyone seriously suggesting a Vince Foster level reaction. But how exactly is it counter-productive to keep the heat on the Whitehouse? How are we screwing up if Whitehouse reporters are yelling at Scott McClellan? Again, I’m not trying to go overboard here, but neither was Josh Marshall. He asked legitimate questions that Zengerle automatically wants to dismiss out of hand. And for that, we’re accused of being counter-productive. Not just in the Cheney thing; Zengerle is blaming us for Bush not getting nailed for everything else.
But do you want to know what is counter-productive? Elitist journalism-types who automatically dismiss everything that the less elite elements on their side talk about. The guys who automatically assume that these less savory people are wrong and hurt the cause. Dopes who’d actually listen to Mickey Kaus. Guys who automatically downplay every scandal, all because they think the less savory liberals are overplaying their cards again.
Now, I could understand if this guy made some case. But he didn’t. He blames us for “failing to capitalize on what, were it not for their unrealistically inflated expectations, would have been considered a significant scandal.” But he never explains why that’s our fault. He never explains how it’s our expectations that keep letting Bush off the hook. Because to me, this all seems like a failure of the media. I wasn’t the one who gave a pass on Bush’s WMD lies and who let him off the hook when they turned out to not exist. That’s Zengerle’s people doing that. That’s the media. They’re the ones with the attention-spans of a spastic puppy. They’re the ones who keep hopping around from scandal to scandal, disappointed that the proverbial “smoking gun” hasn’t shown itself.
And it makes sense that it’s their fault, as they’re the ones who helped hit Clinton. Rush Limbaugh and his mob couldn’t have taken down Clinton. He was influential, but it was the media that grabbed onto every scandal and wouldn’t let go until the next one came along. They were the ones who kept the heat on constantly. So is this a case of us killing things with our big expectations? Or is this a case of the media getting bored and allowing each scandal to disappear?
And hell, he’s Mr. Bigwig New Republic guy; what the hell is he doing about this stuff? They’re the ones who provided leftwing cover for Bush’s war in Iraq and all kinds of other stuff. They’re the ones who endorsed DINO Lieberman for the Democratic nomination. We’re the ones trying to call attention to the Bush wrong-doing; and they’re the ones who keep calling us “Bush-haters” and providing assists to the Bush Admin.
And even now, we see Zengerle again needing to single-out our side, rather than focusing on theirs. Everything’s our fault, he says. If only we’d keep things on the down-low and play things cool like them, we’d have…we’ll I’m at a loss for what he thinks we’d have. As he can’t possibly suggest that we’ve undermined an impeachment, and Bush is still hovering around a disastrous 40-point approval rating. So I can’t really see where we’ve blown it in his eyes. I agree fully with Digby’s point that it is because of us keeping the pressure on that we’ve gotten this far.
And so I’d have to disagree with the point that Zengerle says he made. I don’t think this is a case of libs always going too far with every case. I think this is a case of the media and elitist liberal pundits who automatically downplay every scandal; always waiting for the “big one” and not realizing that they already had it. And all the while, looking down upon the rabble who continues to blow it for them.
Wronging the Right
By a show of hands, how many of you haven’t given at least some serious thought that maybe Cheney shot Whittington on purpose? Not that you think it’s true, but to at least have given it some consideration. And while Whittington was apparently a Republican, this article suggests that he was kind of a righteous hard-ass who liked having a reputation for such righteous hard-assery; even sometimes going against his Republican buddies. And if there’s one thing that a righteous hard-ass hates, it’s unrighteous hard-asses like Dick Cheney. And if there’s one thing that an unrighteous hard-ass likes to do, it’s to be unrighteous towards the righteous. And what is more unrighteous than a little unexpected shotgun blast to the face?
Again, I’m not saying anything. I’m just wondering if anyone out there hadn’t spent a little time running this through the old processers.
Again, I’m not saying anything. I’m just wondering if anyone out there hadn’t spent a little time running this through the old processers.
On the Wagon
I would just like to mention that, for personal reasons which I won’t go into, I haven’t gotten drunk in awhile; nor will I, at least until the end of the week. So if it seems like my stuff is kind of sucking, that’s the reason why.
But don’t worry. This has nothing to do with me finding God or anything. It’s simply a medical condition. And I’ll be back to my old fucked-up self by next week, I promise you. Just hang in there, and remember that this is worse for you than it is for me.
But don’t worry. This has nothing to do with me finding God or anything. It’s simply a medical condition. And I’ll be back to my old fucked-up self by next week, I promise you. Just hang in there, and remember that this is worse for you than it is for me.
Flat-Footed Guilt
Guilt. Different people feel guilty about different things. Basically, you feel bad about the things that you care about. One person can feel bad about burping in public, while another takes glee farting on demand. A dieter might feel guilty about eating an Oreo, while a morbidly obese person such as myself will happily eat an entire row. So signs of guilt are a good way of understanding where someone’s priorities are. If you don’t feel guilty about something, then it just isn’t important to you.
And guilt is a powerful thing and can really fuck you up. You can be the smartest guy in the room, but if you feel guilty about something, it can totally throw you off your game and turn you into a complete idiot. You might even have a perfectly good explanation for something, but if you feel guilty about it, your best reasons will sound like horrible lies. And if you don’t feel guilty, you can make the most lamebrained excuses sound perfectly rational. It all just depends on how you feel about it at the time.
And that’s what makes it so interesting to watch the Bush Administration in action. Because they don’t seem to feel guilty about a god damn thing. Bush’s immediate reaction to 9/11 made headlight caught deer look strong and decisive; yet they continue to play-up 9/11 as if it was some sort of victory for them. They continually deceive their strongest supporters, while portraying Bush as the Jesus Christ of straight-shooters. And they can repeat disproven statements on everything from Saddam not complying on WMD’s to absurdities about supply-side economics; all without blinking an eye. Overall, these people will do and say anything and they don’t seem to care at all.
And sure, that’s all part of the spin-machine; but that’s the point. They’re not faking it. They really don’t feel guilty. It doesn’t bother them. They think it’s all part of doing business; and they’re probably right. That’s probably the right way of going about things; especially if your true agenda would piss-off most voters. The Clinton Admin always looked like they were in trouble for everything, and so all kinds of stupid shit stuck to them. But the Bush Admin tries to act completely cool, like it’s no concern to them; and it works. Big screw-ups and horrible deeds just slide off them like water off a duck. Ari Fleischer was way way better at this than the guilt-ridden Scott McClellan; but even Scotty works to give the impression of not being concerned. He’s not really good at it, but he’s good enough.
But there is a time when they clearly act guilty: Whenever their spin-machine gets caught flat-footed. That’s what they care about and that’s the only thing that throws them off their game. Because that really is all they care about. They don’t feel bad about deceiving their supporters; they feel bad if they don’t deceive them. Deep down, all they care about is the spin, and when they fail at this one task, that’s when they kick it into overdrive and start screwing up. They’re best when they’re in their Cool Denial mode, pretending that everything is as it should be; and they’re at their worst when they’re outing CIA agents and in cover-up mode. And that’s how you know when they feel guilty, when it becomes obvious that they’re playing hardball. They always do play hardball, but if us rubes in the cheapseats see it, then they’re not doing it right.
I suspect that that’s why they screwed up with the “sixteen words” thing in the SOTU address and finally admitted that Bush shouldn’t have said it. And they did feel guilty that time. Not because they felt like Bush shouldn’t have said it; but because they didn’t have a good response when they got caught. They were totally flat-footed and freaked-out. And that’s the kind of thing that they feel guilty about and what screws them up. And so they blundered for a few days and then finally did the unthinkable and admitted that it was a mistake; and that really set-off a media frenzy.
And that’s exactly how they’re acting with this whole Cheney shooting thing. Like they realized they screwed up but don’t know what the hell to do about it. They tried the low-key approach, but clearly screwed it up. Because they didn’t look low-key, they looked downright sneaky. And if there’s one thing about the low-key approach, it’s that you don’t look sneaky. But this did. It just looked like they were hiding something. And now they’re trying to gloss-over the fact that they were trying to hide it, and that just makes them look even more guilty.
Because there is no good reason why the Whitehouse won’t answer the media’s questions. McClellan’s trying all his old tricks, but they just don’t make any sense this time. Hell, even if Cheney was drunk (as some commenters have suggested) or had intentionally shot the guy (the most likely scenario), that wouldn’t explain why the Bush Admin screwed this up. Because those things would be easily hidden. But they screwed-up the initial response and then everything they said afterwards just sounded like crap.
And part of the problem is that they always feel like they have to hide everything. And so they tried that now, and got totally blasted for it. We were going to find out eventually, and so they just should have been upfront about it from the start. But after getting caught flat-footed, everything went to hell and they couldn’t get their game back. But it’s not that there was nothing that they could do. It was because they felt bad for having screwed-up the one thing they’re good at: Spin.
And guilt is a powerful thing and can really fuck you up. You can be the smartest guy in the room, but if you feel guilty about something, it can totally throw you off your game and turn you into a complete idiot. You might even have a perfectly good explanation for something, but if you feel guilty about it, your best reasons will sound like horrible lies. And if you don’t feel guilty, you can make the most lamebrained excuses sound perfectly rational. It all just depends on how you feel about it at the time.
And that’s what makes it so interesting to watch the Bush Administration in action. Because they don’t seem to feel guilty about a god damn thing. Bush’s immediate reaction to 9/11 made headlight caught deer look strong and decisive; yet they continue to play-up 9/11 as if it was some sort of victory for them. They continually deceive their strongest supporters, while portraying Bush as the Jesus Christ of straight-shooters. And they can repeat disproven statements on everything from Saddam not complying on WMD’s to absurdities about supply-side economics; all without blinking an eye. Overall, these people will do and say anything and they don’t seem to care at all.
And sure, that’s all part of the spin-machine; but that’s the point. They’re not faking it. They really don’t feel guilty. It doesn’t bother them. They think it’s all part of doing business; and they’re probably right. That’s probably the right way of going about things; especially if your true agenda would piss-off most voters. The Clinton Admin always looked like they were in trouble for everything, and so all kinds of stupid shit stuck to them. But the Bush Admin tries to act completely cool, like it’s no concern to them; and it works. Big screw-ups and horrible deeds just slide off them like water off a duck. Ari Fleischer was way way better at this than the guilt-ridden Scott McClellan; but even Scotty works to give the impression of not being concerned. He’s not really good at it, but he’s good enough.
But there is a time when they clearly act guilty: Whenever their spin-machine gets caught flat-footed. That’s what they care about and that’s the only thing that throws them off their game. Because that really is all they care about. They don’t feel bad about deceiving their supporters; they feel bad if they don’t deceive them. Deep down, all they care about is the spin, and when they fail at this one task, that’s when they kick it into overdrive and start screwing up. They’re best when they’re in their Cool Denial mode, pretending that everything is as it should be; and they’re at their worst when they’re outing CIA agents and in cover-up mode. And that’s how you know when they feel guilty, when it becomes obvious that they’re playing hardball. They always do play hardball, but if us rubes in the cheapseats see it, then they’re not doing it right.
I suspect that that’s why they screwed up with the “sixteen words” thing in the SOTU address and finally admitted that Bush shouldn’t have said it. And they did feel guilty that time. Not because they felt like Bush shouldn’t have said it; but because they didn’t have a good response when they got caught. They were totally flat-footed and freaked-out. And that’s the kind of thing that they feel guilty about and what screws them up. And so they blundered for a few days and then finally did the unthinkable and admitted that it was a mistake; and that really set-off a media frenzy.
And that’s exactly how they’re acting with this whole Cheney shooting thing. Like they realized they screwed up but don’t know what the hell to do about it. They tried the low-key approach, but clearly screwed it up. Because they didn’t look low-key, they looked downright sneaky. And if there’s one thing about the low-key approach, it’s that you don’t look sneaky. But this did. It just looked like they were hiding something. And now they’re trying to gloss-over the fact that they were trying to hide it, and that just makes them look even more guilty.
Because there is no good reason why the Whitehouse won’t answer the media’s questions. McClellan’s trying all his old tricks, but they just don’t make any sense this time. Hell, even if Cheney was drunk (as some commenters have suggested) or had intentionally shot the guy (the most likely scenario), that wouldn’t explain why the Bush Admin screwed this up. Because those things would be easily hidden. But they screwed-up the initial response and then everything they said afterwards just sounded like crap.
And part of the problem is that they always feel like they have to hide everything. And so they tried that now, and got totally blasted for it. We were going to find out eventually, and so they just should have been upfront about it from the start. But after getting caught flat-footed, everything went to hell and they couldn’t get their game back. But it’s not that there was nothing that they could do. It was because they felt bad for having screwed-up the one thing they’re good at: Spin.
Sunday, February 12, 2006
Pragmatic Conservatism
Guest Post by Doctor Snedley, Doctor Biobrain's Personal Assistant
Over at the aptly named Unclaimed Territory, liberal lawyer freak Glenn Greenwald rants about something he calls the "Cult of Bush" suggesting that conservatives have abandoned their conservative ideology in exchange for Bush loyalty. But as is to be expected of an ultra-liberal Bush-hater like Glenn, he is totally and completely incorrect.
Sure, the current-day conservatives completely go against everything that they stood for before, but there's a perfectly good explanation for that: That was then, this is now. The conservative movement is nothing if not pragmatic, and simply because some liberals like Glenn are stuck in a pre-9/11 attitude concerning political ideologies is no concern to us. The conservative movement has moved on, and guys like Greenwald and Sullivan were simply left behind; flailing about like dying salmon.
You see, before 9/11, America's biggest threat was Bill Clinton and his Soviet masters, and so the conservative movement worked to combat that threat at every turn. The exceptions, of course, being Welfare Reform, which clearly worked against his Soviet master's interests, as well as the war in Kosovo; in which we again maneuvered Clinton to go against the Soviet agenda. Conservatives were also able to save the economy from Clinton’s evil clutches; turning his recession into one of America’s strongest growth periods. And we clearly won that battle, as Bill Clinton is no longer President and the Soviet Union has been vanquished.
But post-9/11, everything is different. Now our biggest threat is no longer communism. Now our biggest threat is fundamentalism. And so our arguments have adapted accordingly. No longer opposing government power, which had been used by the communists for decades; we now believe that an infinitely strong government and budget-busting deficits are key to defeating the new threat that America faces. And by doing so, we will surely have the Bush-hating liberal idiots defeated in no time. Oh, and the terrorists too. It'll be a two-fer. We'll get them both.
And so that explains Glenn's confusion as to why the label "conservative" no longer applies to him. Rather than this being a case of a movement without ideology; we see poor dinosaur Greenwald lamenting his impending extinction. While the True Conservatives stay busy striving to prevent the destruction of our great nation, poor Glenn finds himself the proverbial “odd man out”; continuing to dance to a song which has long ceased playing. And all because he insists on imperiling our nation due to his everlasting and irrational hatred of a man named Bush.
Over at the aptly named Unclaimed Territory, liberal lawyer freak Glenn Greenwald rants about something he calls the "Cult of Bush" suggesting that conservatives have abandoned their conservative ideology in exchange for Bush loyalty. But as is to be expected of an ultra-liberal Bush-hater like Glenn, he is totally and completely incorrect.
Sure, the current-day conservatives completely go against everything that they stood for before, but there's a perfectly good explanation for that: That was then, this is now. The conservative movement is nothing if not pragmatic, and simply because some liberals like Glenn are stuck in a pre-9/11 attitude concerning political ideologies is no concern to us. The conservative movement has moved on, and guys like Greenwald and Sullivan were simply left behind; flailing about like dying salmon.
You see, before 9/11, America's biggest threat was Bill Clinton and his Soviet masters, and so the conservative movement worked to combat that threat at every turn. The exceptions, of course, being Welfare Reform, which clearly worked against his Soviet master's interests, as well as the war in Kosovo; in which we again maneuvered Clinton to go against the Soviet agenda. Conservatives were also able to save the economy from Clinton’s evil clutches; turning his recession into one of America’s strongest growth periods. And we clearly won that battle, as Bill Clinton is no longer President and the Soviet Union has been vanquished.
But post-9/11, everything is different. Now our biggest threat is no longer communism. Now our biggest threat is fundamentalism. And so our arguments have adapted accordingly. No longer opposing government power, which had been used by the communists for decades; we now believe that an infinitely strong government and budget-busting deficits are key to defeating the new threat that America faces. And by doing so, we will surely have the Bush-hating liberal idiots defeated in no time. Oh, and the terrorists too. It'll be a two-fer. We'll get them both.
And so that explains Glenn's confusion as to why the label "conservative" no longer applies to him. Rather than this being a case of a movement without ideology; we see poor dinosaur Greenwald lamenting his impending extinction. While the True Conservatives stay busy striving to prevent the destruction of our great nation, poor Glenn finds himself the proverbial “odd man out”; continuing to dance to a song which has long ceased playing. And all because he insists on imperiling our nation due to his everlasting and irrational hatred of a man named Bush.
Saturday, February 11, 2006
Offense v. Reaction
This is a little late, but I’d just like to point out that the whole Muhammad cartoon thing has two separate elements: The Offense and the Reaction. Liberals keep tripping over themselves because they’re combining these together; and whenever anyone tries to suggest that they understand why they’re offended, they act like that might justify the Reaction. But it doesn’t. You can understand why they’re offended while still denouncing their reaction to it.
The offense seems natural, especially after dealing with offended Christians as long as we have. Many Christians are apparently offended by Target saying “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas”. They scream that America is going to “Hell in a handbasket” if we don’t let them use every school’s speaker system to issue an official school prayer each morning. They’re damn outraged if we suggest that the Ten Commandments isn’t the basis of our laws or that there might be something wrong with them proclaiming their god’s supremacy on the walls of our courthouses. And don’t even get them started on popular culture; they just don’t like it.
In other words, they’re offended at the very idea that they don’t get to do whatever the hell they want regarding everything. They consider this to be a “Christian Nation” and believe that every aspect should reflect that. And we’re not talking about reasoned discourse. We’re talking shouting and protests and death threats. (Disclaimer: I am not referring to all Christians; only the ones who do these things.)
So exactly where do they get off with their “free speech” talk and everything? I mean, really. These people see the First Amendment as nothing more than a giant prank played against them; the sole design of which is to undermine them and their god. So how can anyone imagine that they’d happily accept a bunch of cartoons whose sole purpose was to offend them? Even faith-based people would be a little doubtful of that claim, and they’ll believe almost anything. And so it should be entirely understandable that somebody might have gotten a little pissed about this.
And then the Muslim reaction was a separate matter. And yes, that was waaaay overboard, and to even call it that is to underplay its badness. But the thing is, is this really about the cartoons? Or are the cartoons just the spark that ignited something that was already there? It was the same with the Rodney King thing, and most other riots. The thing that set everything off is almost never the main cause. It’s always something that’s been simmering and simmering for a long time, and then something comes together that is so outrageous that it blows the whole thing up. But if it wasn’t Rodney King, it would have been something else. And if it wasn’t the cartoons, it would have been something else. Nobody is angered by just one incident. Whenever someone flashes with anger, the newest thing is just one of a whole laundry list of problems that came before.
And I’m not necessarily saying that the reaction is justified. I honestly don’t know. But I’m not going to condemn it either, because I don’t know. When one or two people blow their cool and start tearing shit up, it’s pretty easy to blame them for it. And when it’s four or five people, you start to think maybe it’s a conspiracy or something. But when thousands of people start tearing shit up at the same time, it’s time to start considering that maybe they’ve got a point. That’s just from a statistics standpoint; a sample-size of thousands might be onto something.
You could try to start a riot in your neighborhood right now, and it’s very unlikely you’d get very far with it; no matter how bad the cartoons in your paper are. They’d have to have already been simmering for awhile before anything could set them off (though the last few years of Garfield has been pretty bad). And so maybe the rioters have a point. I don’t know. I’m not justifying it, but I’m not so ready to denounce it either.
Again, we’re talking about people who don’t have shit and don’t have a representative government and feel like they’re being abused and constantly under attack. And shit, their religion is just no fun. I don’t know much about it, but I’m pretty sure that Islam is low on my list of churches I might join. I hear they don’t drink, and I’ve seen that whole head-cutting thing the Shiites do, which totally grosses me out, and there’s like some long fasting period where they can’t eat during the daytime, and that would surely mess up my metabolism and make me a touch grouchy; and it just sounds pretty lousy to me. I mean, no offense, if that’s your religion; but it’s just not the one for me. I kind of believe that people need to let off a little steam every now and then, or they’re going to be letting off a lot of steam…and smoke…and fire…and everything else. But that’s just me, so I don’t want any of you Muslims out there getting the wrong idea of what I’m saying. All I’m saying is that I feel your pain and yadda yadda, don’t burn down my house.
I should add to all this, I’m the kind of guy who was raised Catholic, but kept forgetting that I couldn’t eat meat on Fridays during Lent. I even like fish and everything, but the whole “no-meat” thing always slipped my mind. And of course I always had to lie to my mom about it afterwards. She’d often ask me about what I ate, and I often wouldn’t even remember at first that I was supposed to say “fish sandwich” (not that I understand how fish isn’t meat). And as long as I’m confessing, I often skipped out on the whole Confession thing, as it always creeped me out having to confess everything to some priest who knew my folks. At the beginning, I used to lie to the priest and invent sins, just to get it over with; and then I just started hiding outside the church to avoid it altogether. Let’s just say the whole religion thing didn’t agree with my lifestyle, and I can totally understand why it makes some people freak-out.
Anyway, where was I? Oh, yeah. But honestly, isn’t this all a tad bit hypocritical coming from Christians who act outraged about “Happy Holidays”? Every president we’ve ever had was Christian and most politicians bend over backwards to show how pro-Christian they are; and yet they STILL complain that they’re under attack and totally disrespected. And they get to control the most powerful nation that ever existed. So should it be any real surprise that a Muslim with a crappy life and no respect gets a little angry…or a lot angry? Sure, Christians aren’t blowing shit up (except the ones who are); but they also don’t have too much to complain about. And yet complain they do. And so maybe if the Muslims felt like they had more control over their lives, they’d feel a little better and wouldn’t explode like they did. And who knows, maybe a little porn might help relieve some of that pressure (though you didn’t hear that from me).
But again, this isn’t about the cartoons. It never is. This is about everything, and the cartoons are nothing more than the catalyst. We can downplay this and pretend like the problem is sensitive Muslims and some silly cartoons; or we can try to do something about it and make their lives better. One suggestion on that, however, would be to not make their lives better by invading their countries. I can’t stress that enough: They don’t like to be invaded. This is, of course, in contrast to most Christians and Jews, who are famous for tolerance and being conquered. But with Muslims, just a bad idea.
The offense seems natural, especially after dealing with offended Christians as long as we have. Many Christians are apparently offended by Target saying “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas”. They scream that America is going to “Hell in a handbasket” if we don’t let them use every school’s speaker system to issue an official school prayer each morning. They’re damn outraged if we suggest that the Ten Commandments isn’t the basis of our laws or that there might be something wrong with them proclaiming their god’s supremacy on the walls of our courthouses. And don’t even get them started on popular culture; they just don’t like it.
In other words, they’re offended at the very idea that they don’t get to do whatever the hell they want regarding everything. They consider this to be a “Christian Nation” and believe that every aspect should reflect that. And we’re not talking about reasoned discourse. We’re talking shouting and protests and death threats. (Disclaimer: I am not referring to all Christians; only the ones who do these things.)
So exactly where do they get off with their “free speech” talk and everything? I mean, really. These people see the First Amendment as nothing more than a giant prank played against them; the sole design of which is to undermine them and their god. So how can anyone imagine that they’d happily accept a bunch of cartoons whose sole purpose was to offend them? Even faith-based people would be a little doubtful of that claim, and they’ll believe almost anything. And so it should be entirely understandable that somebody might have gotten a little pissed about this.
And then the Muslim reaction was a separate matter. And yes, that was waaaay overboard, and to even call it that is to underplay its badness. But the thing is, is this really about the cartoons? Or are the cartoons just the spark that ignited something that was already there? It was the same with the Rodney King thing, and most other riots. The thing that set everything off is almost never the main cause. It’s always something that’s been simmering and simmering for a long time, and then something comes together that is so outrageous that it blows the whole thing up. But if it wasn’t Rodney King, it would have been something else. And if it wasn’t the cartoons, it would have been something else. Nobody is angered by just one incident. Whenever someone flashes with anger, the newest thing is just one of a whole laundry list of problems that came before.
And I’m not necessarily saying that the reaction is justified. I honestly don’t know. But I’m not going to condemn it either, because I don’t know. When one or two people blow their cool and start tearing shit up, it’s pretty easy to blame them for it. And when it’s four or five people, you start to think maybe it’s a conspiracy or something. But when thousands of people start tearing shit up at the same time, it’s time to start considering that maybe they’ve got a point. That’s just from a statistics standpoint; a sample-size of thousands might be onto something.
You could try to start a riot in your neighborhood right now, and it’s very unlikely you’d get very far with it; no matter how bad the cartoons in your paper are. They’d have to have already been simmering for awhile before anything could set them off (though the last few years of Garfield has been pretty bad). And so maybe the rioters have a point. I don’t know. I’m not justifying it, but I’m not so ready to denounce it either.
Again, we’re talking about people who don’t have shit and don’t have a representative government and feel like they’re being abused and constantly under attack. And shit, their religion is just no fun. I don’t know much about it, but I’m pretty sure that Islam is low on my list of churches I might join. I hear they don’t drink, and I’ve seen that whole head-cutting thing the Shiites do, which totally grosses me out, and there’s like some long fasting period where they can’t eat during the daytime, and that would surely mess up my metabolism and make me a touch grouchy; and it just sounds pretty lousy to me. I mean, no offense, if that’s your religion; but it’s just not the one for me. I kind of believe that people need to let off a little steam every now and then, or they’re going to be letting off a lot of steam…and smoke…and fire…and everything else. But that’s just me, so I don’t want any of you Muslims out there getting the wrong idea of what I’m saying. All I’m saying is that I feel your pain and yadda yadda, don’t burn down my house.
I should add to all this, I’m the kind of guy who was raised Catholic, but kept forgetting that I couldn’t eat meat on Fridays during Lent. I even like fish and everything, but the whole “no-meat” thing always slipped my mind. And of course I always had to lie to my mom about it afterwards. She’d often ask me about what I ate, and I often wouldn’t even remember at first that I was supposed to say “fish sandwich” (not that I understand how fish isn’t meat). And as long as I’m confessing, I often skipped out on the whole Confession thing, as it always creeped me out having to confess everything to some priest who knew my folks. At the beginning, I used to lie to the priest and invent sins, just to get it over with; and then I just started hiding outside the church to avoid it altogether. Let’s just say the whole religion thing didn’t agree with my lifestyle, and I can totally understand why it makes some people freak-out.
Anyway, where was I? Oh, yeah. But honestly, isn’t this all a tad bit hypocritical coming from Christians who act outraged about “Happy Holidays”? Every president we’ve ever had was Christian and most politicians bend over backwards to show how pro-Christian they are; and yet they STILL complain that they’re under attack and totally disrespected. And they get to control the most powerful nation that ever existed. So should it be any real surprise that a Muslim with a crappy life and no respect gets a little angry…or a lot angry? Sure, Christians aren’t blowing shit up (except the ones who are); but they also don’t have too much to complain about. And yet complain they do. And so maybe if the Muslims felt like they had more control over their lives, they’d feel a little better and wouldn’t explode like they did. And who knows, maybe a little porn might help relieve some of that pressure (though you didn’t hear that from me).
But again, this isn’t about the cartoons. It never is. This is about everything, and the cartoons are nothing more than the catalyst. We can downplay this and pretend like the problem is sensitive Muslims and some silly cartoons; or we can try to do something about it and make their lives better. One suggestion on that, however, would be to not make their lives better by invading their countries. I can’t stress that enough: They don’t like to be invaded. This is, of course, in contrast to most Christians and Jews, who are famous for tolerance and being conquered. But with Muslims, just a bad idea.
Egregious Bullshit
Speaking of the two Kevins, this later post of his shows us that his other side isn’t far behind. Writing of Paul Pillar’s article referring to the politicization of Iraq intel, Kevin writes:
I continue to think that the issue of Iraq's WMD is a difficult one. As I've noted before, there's no question that the administration manipulated the WMD intelligence. At the same time, though, it also seems clear that they, along with the intelligence community, really did believe Iraq was actively producing chemical and biological weapons. (Not nukes, though. The "mushroom cloud" talk was pretty clearly just for show.)
And I can’t believe that anyone at this late date could make this case. This won’t be new to any longtime readers, but here was the response I wrote at Kevin’s (which I’m sure I’ve written on other occasions):
I don't see how this is a difficult issue at all. As I was saying before the war: The lie isn't about what they believed; it was about their statements of proof. While we might have believed that Saddam had WMD's, we didn't have the proof of it. And that's what the Bush Admin lied about, as they clearly acted as if our evidence was far stronger than it is.
For example: I could argue that Kevin Drum is naked and covered in kinky snake oil. And it's possibly true (though I'd rather not want to know). And maybe I believe it to be true. But I don't have any evidence of it. And so if I state that I have no evidence and that this is an unproven belief, we don't really have a problem (excepting the obvious one regarding Kevin’s perviness). But if I pretend that I do have evidence, then I'm lying; because I have none. But, even if Kevin IS oiled and naked; I'm still lying, because I have no proof of it. And it's not about what I believe, but about what I say I have.
And so that's what this was all about. I find it unlikely that the Bush Admin didn't think there would be some WMD's in Iraq. But they had no good evidence. And so the statements they made about it were lies. Not because they believed the statements to be false, but because they pretended to have evidence that they didn't have. And they were lying, whether or not Iraq had WMD's. Because again, the lie wasn't about what Iraq had; but about the level of proof that we had. And had they been honest and stated that the WMD's intel was guesswork (which it was); they would not have been liars. But they also would have been far less likely to get the war they wanted.
But that was what I wrote before I had actually read Pillar’s article, which says things such as:
On the issue that mattered most, the intelligence community judged that Iraq probably was several years away from developing a nuclear weapon. The October 2002 NIE also judged that Saddam was unlikely to use WMD against the United States unless his regime was placed in mortal danger.
And can anyone seriously suggest that the Bush Admin’s position didn’t directly contradict what Pillar is saying the intel communities’ position was? They were clearly saying the exact opposite, and acted as if the intel pointed towards the need for pre-emptive war; when it actually pointed away from it. And so we see yet more evidence of Bush Admin deception.
Again, had these positions been known, we would have been far less likely to go to war. And that’s the exact reason why these things weren’t talked about. But it doesn’t matter if the Bush Admin believed these things to be true. What matters is that they should have known that they weren’t true; but just didn’t care. And while some faint-hearted types like Drum feel squeamish about using the “L” word; I think that we should have no trouble identifying what this was.
I continue to think that the issue of Iraq's WMD is a difficult one. As I've noted before, there's no question that the administration manipulated the WMD intelligence. At the same time, though, it also seems clear that they, along with the intelligence community, really did believe Iraq was actively producing chemical and biological weapons. (Not nukes, though. The "mushroom cloud" talk was pretty clearly just for show.)
And I can’t believe that anyone at this late date could make this case. This won’t be new to any longtime readers, but here was the response I wrote at Kevin’s (which I’m sure I’ve written on other occasions):
I don't see how this is a difficult issue at all. As I was saying before the war: The lie isn't about what they believed; it was about their statements of proof. While we might have believed that Saddam had WMD's, we didn't have the proof of it. And that's what the Bush Admin lied about, as they clearly acted as if our evidence was far stronger than it is.
For example: I could argue that Kevin Drum is naked and covered in kinky snake oil. And it's possibly true (though I'd rather not want to know). And maybe I believe it to be true. But I don't have any evidence of it. And so if I state that I have no evidence and that this is an unproven belief, we don't really have a problem (excepting the obvious one regarding Kevin’s perviness). But if I pretend that I do have evidence, then I'm lying; because I have none. But, even if Kevin IS oiled and naked; I'm still lying, because I have no proof of it. And it's not about what I believe, but about what I say I have.
And so that's what this was all about. I find it unlikely that the Bush Admin didn't think there would be some WMD's in Iraq. But they had no good evidence. And so the statements they made about it were lies. Not because they believed the statements to be false, but because they pretended to have evidence that they didn't have. And they were lying, whether or not Iraq had WMD's. Because again, the lie wasn't about what Iraq had; but about the level of proof that we had. And had they been honest and stated that the WMD's intel was guesswork (which it was); they would not have been liars. But they also would have been far less likely to get the war they wanted.
But that was what I wrote before I had actually read Pillar’s article, which says things such as:
On the issue that mattered most, the intelligence community judged that Iraq probably was several years away from developing a nuclear weapon. The October 2002 NIE also judged that Saddam was unlikely to use WMD against the United States unless his regime was placed in mortal danger.
And can anyone seriously suggest that the Bush Admin’s position didn’t directly contradict what Pillar is saying the intel communities’ position was? They were clearly saying the exact opposite, and acted as if the intel pointed towards the need for pre-emptive war; when it actually pointed away from it. And so we see yet more evidence of Bush Admin deception.
Again, had these positions been known, we would have been far less likely to go to war. And that’s the exact reason why these things weren’t talked about. But it doesn’t matter if the Bush Admin believed these things to be true. What matters is that they should have known that they weren’t true; but just didn’t care. And while some faint-hearted types like Drum feel squeamish about using the “L” word; I think that we should have no trouble identifying what this was.
Aborting the Gray Areas
I was over at Legal Fiction debating abortion, and happened to stumble upon this post by the normally timorous Kevin Drum: In any case, I'm with Lamott. I don't think nonviable fetuses are human beings. Terminating them doesn't bother me, and it's none of my business anyway. For all I care, women are free to use abortion as their standard method of birth control if they want to. Nor do I really care much if we reduce the abortion rate in America. Safe and legal is good enough for me. I don't think abortion is a morally ambiguous issue, I don't think getting one should be an emotionally traumatic experience, and no, speaking as a husband, I don't think husbands should have any legal say in the matter.And this totally surprised me, as Drum is normally moderate to a fault. But I guess there really are two Drums and the butch Drum came out today.
The only thing I disagree with is his suggestion afterwards that this is a bad position politically. He always sucks at politics and he's wrong here too. Because I think that this is a good political position; both in the short-term and the long-term. I understand that the world isn't "black v. white" but sometimes it really is best to take a strong stand on something; and I think they're kicking our ass in the gray area we want to live in. And you know, fuck it, I'm not so sure there really is a gray area here, besides the one we were always trying to avoid politically. And it just made us sound wishy-washy and weak; while undermining the very case we were trying to save.Sure, I don't want some woman aborting a baby one day before the due date; but I think that's just a stupid scenario that we don't really need to worry about. Sure, it might happen. But we also have women flushing newborns down the toilet and leaving them in the trash. And maybe that wouldn't have happened, had they felt better about abortion back when it was a gobbily-gook nothing bit of cells. Life is a messy place and we're just fooling ourselves if we spend all our time trying to clean up all the gray areas.
And to me, that goes for parental abortion laws too. I’m totally against them. If you’re old enough to be a parent, then you’re old enough to decide not to be one. Or the converse: If someone isn’t old enough to decide to have an abortion; then they certainly aren’t old enough to be a parent. I just don’t see how that doesn’t make sense. My wife and I are relatively mature and responsible adults, and yet parenting is an incredibly difficult task that only seems to get harder each day. This is not something that we should thrust onto people, particularly if we don’t think they’re mature enough to make adult decisions. And again, this is a case where we could be ruining people’s lives; simply because we want to stay in the gray area for political reasons.
Overall, I think it’s often best to take a strong stand; and I see no reason why we shouldn’t take this one. It’s better politics than what we were going for before, and it matches our policy goals better too. I don’t want somebody to opt out of an abortion simply because of conservative peer-pressure; and so this is the position we should take. There is nothing wrong with abortion.
The only thing I disagree with is his suggestion afterwards that this is a bad position politically. He always sucks at politics and he's wrong here too. Because I think that this is a good political position; both in the short-term and the long-term. I understand that the world isn't "black v. white" but sometimes it really is best to take a strong stand on something; and I think they're kicking our ass in the gray area we want to live in. And you know, fuck it, I'm not so sure there really is a gray area here, besides the one we were always trying to avoid politically. And it just made us sound wishy-washy and weak; while undermining the very case we were trying to save.Sure, I don't want some woman aborting a baby one day before the due date; but I think that's just a stupid scenario that we don't really need to worry about. Sure, it might happen. But we also have women flushing newborns down the toilet and leaving them in the trash. And maybe that wouldn't have happened, had they felt better about abortion back when it was a gobbily-gook nothing bit of cells. Life is a messy place and we're just fooling ourselves if we spend all our time trying to clean up all the gray areas.
And to me, that goes for parental abortion laws too. I’m totally against them. If you’re old enough to be a parent, then you’re old enough to decide not to be one. Or the converse: If someone isn’t old enough to decide to have an abortion; then they certainly aren’t old enough to be a parent. I just don’t see how that doesn’t make sense. My wife and I are relatively mature and responsible adults, and yet parenting is an incredibly difficult task that only seems to get harder each day. This is not something that we should thrust onto people, particularly if we don’t think they’re mature enough to make adult decisions. And again, this is a case where we could be ruining people’s lives; simply because we want to stay in the gray area for political reasons.
Overall, I think it’s often best to take a strong stand; and I see no reason why we shouldn’t take this one. It’s better politics than what we were going for before, and it matches our policy goals better too. I don’t want somebody to opt out of an abortion simply because of conservative peer-pressure; and so this is the position we should take. There is nothing wrong with abortion.
Friday, February 10, 2006
Blogging Impotence
I’m all full of piss and vinegar, but honestly can’t find anything I want to blog about. What is wrong with me? Is there blog Viagra? I swear this never happens to me, but I just can’t seem to get my blogging up. Maybe I’ll look through my dozens of unfinished posts for something that doesn’t seem too out of date. I apologize in advance.
Douchebag Deutsch and the Top Democrat
Via Sadly, No! (as the NY Times removed this quote from the original article):
In the interview, Mr. Deutsch said that Dr. Hansen had partisan ties "all the way up to the top of the Democratic Party," and that he was "using those ties and using his media connections to push an agenda, a worst-case-scenario agenda of global warming."
What I want to know is: Who IS at the top of the Democratic Party, and when do I get to punch him in the nose?
Douchebag Deutsch obviously knows, and I might be willing to give him his job back if he could just give us a few hints. Whoever it is really needs to spend a little less time helping out the NASA guys and a little more time helping out his fucking party. I like space and everything, but we really need to get these doofuses out of office and I don’t see what’s so damn hard about it. And whoever’s at the top really needs to figure out what to do about this whole Lieberman thing, as this just ain’t working out for us.
And are these guys possibly ingrained with this level of spin, or is he still getting help from the top? His stuff is obviously too raw to be Rove material, as the “all the way up to the top” line is a bit dorky. But it’s not bad for some punkass Aggie drop-out who’s been exposed as a fraud in the national limelight. Frankly, I’d think that the normal 24-year-old would still be shitting himself after getting busted so badly. No offense to any of you 24-year-olds out there; but yes, that is what I think of you. Hell, even Brownie didn’t do such a great job in the spin department and he even had that whole horse gig under his belt. I’m afraid to say that this probably isn’t the last we’ve heard of Mr. Deutsch.
In the interview, Mr. Deutsch said that Dr. Hansen had partisan ties "all the way up to the top of the Democratic Party," and that he was "using those ties and using his media connections to push an agenda, a worst-case-scenario agenda of global warming."
What I want to know is: Who IS at the top of the Democratic Party, and when do I get to punch him in the nose?
Douchebag Deutsch obviously knows, and I might be willing to give him his job back if he could just give us a few hints. Whoever it is really needs to spend a little less time helping out the NASA guys and a little more time helping out his fucking party. I like space and everything, but we really need to get these doofuses out of office and I don’t see what’s so damn hard about it. And whoever’s at the top really needs to figure out what to do about this whole Lieberman thing, as this just ain’t working out for us.
And are these guys possibly ingrained with this level of spin, or is he still getting help from the top? His stuff is obviously too raw to be Rove material, as the “all the way up to the top” line is a bit dorky. But it’s not bad for some punkass Aggie drop-out who’s been exposed as a fraud in the national limelight. Frankly, I’d think that the normal 24-year-old would still be shitting himself after getting busted so badly. No offense to any of you 24-year-olds out there; but yes, that is what I think of you. Hell, even Brownie didn’t do such a great job in the spin department and he even had that whole horse gig under his belt. I’m afraid to say that this probably isn’t the last we’ve heard of Mr. Deutsch.
Thursday, February 09, 2006
The Republican Protection Racket
Regarding Harry Reid’s supposed involvement in Abramoff scandal’s, Scott Shields at MyDD writes:
For a variety of reasons, some of which I still don't get, the old fashioned media wants very badly for this to be a bipartisan scandal. This is only the latest attempt to make it so.
But I don’t think this is correct. While I do think that the media would prefer this to be bipartisan, I don’t think they’re intentionally forcing it to be so. I think the problem is that they still don’t understand what this is. They still think this is a lobbyist scandal. They think the problem is with lobbyists handing out money to politicians; as if it just ends with the money. But it’s not. It’s a political scandal, with Jack Abramoff as a middle-man handling a Republican slushfund.
But it didn’t have to be Abramoff; he just happened to be the guy they used. But it could have been anyone else they assigned as the bagman. In truth, he wasn’t a lobbyist at all. A real lobbyist is a guy you hire to press politicians for a certain point of view. But he didn’t have to press anyone; he was already the go-to guy. His clients weren’t the businesses handing out the money. His client was the Republican Party, who wanted that money. And the businesses knew that they had to go through him or they’d be cut-off completely.
In mobster terms, Abramoff was just the hired goon who went around collecting the extortion money from the local shopkeepers. And while the mob-types always insist that the money is for “protection”, it was only protection against them stomping you down and putting you out of business. And that’s exactly the shakedown racket that the Republicans were running. This wasn’t about gaining access to the Republicans. This was about not getting shut-out. Businesses weren’t the beneficiaries of Abramoff’s lobbying; they were the victims of a political scam.
But the media still hasn’t gotten that. They’re used to the old system and still think of Jack as a lobbyist who leaned towards Republicans because they were more in-tune with his clients’ needs. But that he also leaned towards Democrats when he needed to. And that’s why they keep focusing on who Jack contacted and who he gave money to. Because that’s all they think this is; yet another case of Big Money corrupting politics. And it just hasn’t occurred to them that the Republican politicians are so corrupt that they’ve corrupted Big Money.
But the media doesn’t get that, and keeps focusing on the money. Not because they’re trying to help the Republicans; but because they’re complete dopes who can’t see the big picture. And I think the problem is that the media has developed a network of eager-beavers with tunnel vision who only see what’s directly in front of them and can only understand what they’re spoonfed. And there’s really nothing new about this. Almost nobody saw the big picture in Watergate, until the whole thing was entirely sketched out for them. And then Woodward & Bernstein looked like geniuses; simply for having recognized the obvious. But the amazement shouldn’t have been that Nixon was discovered; but rather that he could get away with it as long as he did. Had the media done it’s job from the start, Nixon wouldn’t have gotten away with jackshit. Nor would he tried to.
And the folks in place nowadays have been duped by the Republicans into thinking that they’re “free-market but honest” guys; whereas the Dems are the “socialist but crooked” guys. And so it doesn’t occur to them that the Republicans are acting entirely in their own best interests; while completely fucking with the business world. They were supposed to be the Big Business party, and they’ve now turned Big Business into nothing more than a cashcow. A cashcow that allows a crooked exterminator to live like a king. And the media doesn’t have a clue. But this whole thing isn’t a conspiracy against us. Sometimes, there’s nothing to blame but plain old stupidity.
For a variety of reasons, some of which I still don't get, the old fashioned media wants very badly for this to be a bipartisan scandal. This is only the latest attempt to make it so.
But I don’t think this is correct. While I do think that the media would prefer this to be bipartisan, I don’t think they’re intentionally forcing it to be so. I think the problem is that they still don’t understand what this is. They still think this is a lobbyist scandal. They think the problem is with lobbyists handing out money to politicians; as if it just ends with the money. But it’s not. It’s a political scandal, with Jack Abramoff as a middle-man handling a Republican slushfund.
But it didn’t have to be Abramoff; he just happened to be the guy they used. But it could have been anyone else they assigned as the bagman. In truth, he wasn’t a lobbyist at all. A real lobbyist is a guy you hire to press politicians for a certain point of view. But he didn’t have to press anyone; he was already the go-to guy. His clients weren’t the businesses handing out the money. His client was the Republican Party, who wanted that money. And the businesses knew that they had to go through him or they’d be cut-off completely.
In mobster terms, Abramoff was just the hired goon who went around collecting the extortion money from the local shopkeepers. And while the mob-types always insist that the money is for “protection”, it was only protection against them stomping you down and putting you out of business. And that’s exactly the shakedown racket that the Republicans were running. This wasn’t about gaining access to the Republicans. This was about not getting shut-out. Businesses weren’t the beneficiaries of Abramoff’s lobbying; they were the victims of a political scam.
But the media still hasn’t gotten that. They’re used to the old system and still think of Jack as a lobbyist who leaned towards Republicans because they were more in-tune with his clients’ needs. But that he also leaned towards Democrats when he needed to. And that’s why they keep focusing on who Jack contacted and who he gave money to. Because that’s all they think this is; yet another case of Big Money corrupting politics. And it just hasn’t occurred to them that the Republican politicians are so corrupt that they’ve corrupted Big Money.
But the media doesn’t get that, and keeps focusing on the money. Not because they’re trying to help the Republicans; but because they’re complete dopes who can’t see the big picture. And I think the problem is that the media has developed a network of eager-beavers with tunnel vision who only see what’s directly in front of them and can only understand what they’re spoonfed. And there’s really nothing new about this. Almost nobody saw the big picture in Watergate, until the whole thing was entirely sketched out for them. And then Woodward & Bernstein looked like geniuses; simply for having recognized the obvious. But the amazement shouldn’t have been that Nixon was discovered; but rather that he could get away with it as long as he did. Had the media done it’s job from the start, Nixon wouldn’t have gotten away with jackshit. Nor would he tried to.
And the folks in place nowadays have been duped by the Republicans into thinking that they’re “free-market but honest” guys; whereas the Dems are the “socialist but crooked” guys. And so it doesn’t occur to them that the Republicans are acting entirely in their own best interests; while completely fucking with the business world. They were supposed to be the Big Business party, and they’ve now turned Big Business into nothing more than a cashcow. A cashcow that allows a crooked exterminator to live like a king. And the media doesn’t have a clue. But this whole thing isn’t a conspiracy against us. Sometimes, there’s nothing to blame but plain old stupidity.
Wednesday, February 08, 2006
Natural Republicans
Referring to Chris Matthews’ complete skewering of “former Pentagon Spokesbeing” Torie Clarke, Atrios writes:
The real question is if this is what he really thinks why do we so rarely hear it?
But it really isn’t the case with Matthews that this is unusual for him. Remember, he was always against the war. But really, there’s only so many times you can confront anyone about this shit, and have them respond back with the crap that Clarke responded with, before it simply becomes bad television. We keep wanting them to fess up and be straight with us, and that’s just not the kind of people they are. It always bugs me at the end of each Matlock when people unnecessarily confess to the crime, as it almost never works like that in real life; but it really does make for better television. And besides, anyone who still doesn’t know that the WMD’s were a crock of shit, won’t be persuaded by anything that Matthews said.
But both Atrios and Crooks & Liars seemed to suggest that this was something new for Matthews, but it’s not. Guys like him largely agree with us on the issues. They know all this stuff. But the problem is that they don’t like us and they do like the Republicans. They believe all that crap that the GOP spin machine spews out against us. We’re freaks. We’re anti-American. We’re unpatriotic. We smell bad. Because that’s all it’s really good for: Getting people to hate us.
If you’re not already prone to agree with the Republican position, you’ll never agree. Because it’s crap. Fantasyland crap that shouldn’t fool a fourth-grader. But it’s easy to believe the smears. That’s why the more intelligent conservatives (and yes, they’re out there) don’t really like the Republicans either. They’ll often tell you how much they dislike both sides. But they really really hate the Dems. And that’s the best that the spin machine can do to these people. They can’t make them love Bush; but they can certainly make them hate us.
And so that’s the deal with Matthews too. He hates Dems. That’s why he suggested that illegal immigrants are “natural Republicans”; because he thinks that Republicans are good and hard-working and that Dems are lazy and against free enterprise. And whether or not DeLay’s got some dirt on Matthews, Matthews really does like him. He’s a hardworking bugman from Texas. But this is the way of the media elite: They like Democrat positions, but don’t like Democrats. And that’s the only chance that the Republicans have.
P.S. I really admired the level of bullshit required in Torie’s response. The war wasn’t about WMD’s, it was about the pre-emptive action required to stop the WMD’s that didn’t exist. Except she never really put it quite so boldly. But then again, they never do.
The real question is if this is what he really thinks why do we so rarely hear it?
But it really isn’t the case with Matthews that this is unusual for him. Remember, he was always against the war. But really, there’s only so many times you can confront anyone about this shit, and have them respond back with the crap that Clarke responded with, before it simply becomes bad television. We keep wanting them to fess up and be straight with us, and that’s just not the kind of people they are. It always bugs me at the end of each Matlock when people unnecessarily confess to the crime, as it almost never works like that in real life; but it really does make for better television. And besides, anyone who still doesn’t know that the WMD’s were a crock of shit, won’t be persuaded by anything that Matthews said.
But both Atrios and Crooks & Liars seemed to suggest that this was something new for Matthews, but it’s not. Guys like him largely agree with us on the issues. They know all this stuff. But the problem is that they don’t like us and they do like the Republicans. They believe all that crap that the GOP spin machine spews out against us. We’re freaks. We’re anti-American. We’re unpatriotic. We smell bad. Because that’s all it’s really good for: Getting people to hate us.
If you’re not already prone to agree with the Republican position, you’ll never agree. Because it’s crap. Fantasyland crap that shouldn’t fool a fourth-grader. But it’s easy to believe the smears. That’s why the more intelligent conservatives (and yes, they’re out there) don’t really like the Republicans either. They’ll often tell you how much they dislike both sides. But they really really hate the Dems. And that’s the best that the spin machine can do to these people. They can’t make them love Bush; but they can certainly make them hate us.
And so that’s the deal with Matthews too. He hates Dems. That’s why he suggested that illegal immigrants are “natural Republicans”; because he thinks that Republicans are good and hard-working and that Dems are lazy and against free enterprise. And whether or not DeLay’s got some dirt on Matthews, Matthews really does like him. He’s a hardworking bugman from Texas. But this is the way of the media elite: They like Democrat positions, but don’t like Democrats. And that’s the only chance that the Republicans have.
P.S. I really admired the level of bullshit required in Torie’s response. The war wasn’t about WMD’s, it was about the pre-emptive action required to stop the WMD’s that didn’t exist. Except she never really put it quite so boldly. But then again, they never do.
Backdoor Men
Holy shit! Marshall is right. Apparently, Bush really is planning to privatize Social Security on the sly.
"The Democrats were laughing all the way to the funeral of Social Security modernization," White House spokesman Trent Duffy told me in an interview Tuesday, but "the president still cares deeply about this. " Duffy asserted that Bush would have been remiss not to include in the budget the cost of something that he feels so strongly about, and he seemed surprised at my surprise that Social Security privatization had been written into the budget without any advance fanfare.
And this is just sooo like them. They’re doing an extremely ballsy thing by running with an extremely unpopular agenda item; and so they play it all on the down-low and hope that nobody notices. And even now, we’re only hearing this from “Allan Sloan, Business Columnist”. Their attempts to outright destroy Social Security on the sly were foiled last year; and so now they’re stuck with the backdoor approach to the sly destruction.
And now that Sloan’s busted them, they’re acting as if this is the most natural thing in the world and act surprised that we’re surprised by all this. But that’s just the way that crooks do things. Only honest people have a “hand in the cookie jar” reaction to getting caught. Crooks always act as if the cookie jar really belonged to them the whole time and that you should just be lucky that they didn’t call the cops on you for stealing their cookies.
If Democrat politicians are worth anything, they will bless Bush for this wonderful windfall; right before pounding it into the ground. Not just as yet another assault on the unpopular and horrible idea of privatization; but against the corrupt and deceitful practices that the Republicans engage in.
"The Democrats were laughing all the way to the funeral of Social Security modernization," White House spokesman Trent Duffy told me in an interview Tuesday, but "the president still cares deeply about this. " Duffy asserted that Bush would have been remiss not to include in the budget the cost of something that he feels so strongly about, and he seemed surprised at my surprise that Social Security privatization had been written into the budget without any advance fanfare.
And this is just sooo like them. They’re doing an extremely ballsy thing by running with an extremely unpopular agenda item; and so they play it all on the down-low and hope that nobody notices. And even now, we’re only hearing this from “Allan Sloan, Business Columnist”. Their attempts to outright destroy Social Security on the sly were foiled last year; and so now they’re stuck with the backdoor approach to the sly destruction.
And now that Sloan’s busted them, they’re acting as if this is the most natural thing in the world and act surprised that we’re surprised by all this. But that’s just the way that crooks do things. Only honest people have a “hand in the cookie jar” reaction to getting caught. Crooks always act as if the cookie jar really belonged to them the whole time and that you should just be lucky that they didn’t call the cops on you for stealing their cookies.
If Democrat politicians are worth anything, they will bless Bush for this wonderful windfall; right before pounding it into the ground. Not just as yet another assault on the unpopular and horrible idea of privatization; but against the corrupt and deceitful practices that the Republicans engage in.
Tuesday, February 07, 2006
Misery
And so the lady who’s hooking me up for an EKG (don’t ask) answers the phone and it’s clearly a guy (you can tell because her voice softened), and she’s doing the “can I call you back later” thing, but he’s not having it; and it turns out to be some ex-boyfriend stalker who’s gone to jail because he wouldn’t stop stalking her, but continues to do so even after his release. And he just wants to be friends and is trying to sing to her; and so what do I do? I’m just there for a frickin’ EKG, and now I’m being treated to a damn story. And while I’m entirely sympathetic to her problem, I am there for an EKG. And what do I do? I’m lying there with my shirt open as she sticks some sort of cold probie things on me and tells me about extremely personal matters that certainly won’t end up good. I was polite, but what exactly does Miss Manners say conversation-wise to the EKG lady with the stalker? I just don’t know. I left with a “Good luck with all that”, which sounded just as rude as it probably was; but she thanked me, so I guess it wasn’t a bad thing to say.
And so I was walking to the hospital with my supposedly Columbian coffee and non-Danish danish and see this homeless-looking dude carrying a big trashbag in front of me. And of course I’m in a hurry, so I’m walking fast. And he’s in no hurry, so he’s walking slow. And things would have timed-out well, except he had to keep adjusting that damn bag of his; so I caught up with him. And I don’t have anything against homeless dudes, but I don’t have anything for them either. I don’t have extra money to be giving anyone (not that he asked), and I’ve had a nice happy life and they’re fucking homeless; so I don’t have any interesting conversation for them either. They tell me their sadsack story, and I tell them how I sleep-in each morning because I’m self-employed? You don’t know what I look like, of course, but I don’t even look like I could possibly have a sadsack story. And I don’t. I look like a well-protected dude with a charmed life; and that’s largely correct. And so I have no stories to share this morning.
But boy does he have a story (they always have stories). He’s getting a divorce and has to carry all his blankets with him so they don’t get stolen. And the teenagers, they keep stealing his oatmeal and pouring it out. The oatmeal he paid for with his hard-earned money (he never said how he earned it). And while he doesn’t want to kill them for it (he says), he certainly is planning to do something vaguely ominous. It’s obvious that the glint in his eye is intended to convey menace; but it fails miserably. Anyone willing to kill over oatmeal doesn’t need to worry about oatmeal. But I have to play along; but I’ve got nothing. All I want to do is laugh. This guy doesn’t look like he could hurt a bug. But that’s clearly a no-no, as I don’t want to hurt his feelings.
And so he was heading to Luby’s to answer an ad to do work for the Livestock Show & Rodeo, but the sign said that all the positions were filled. And I have nothing to say to any of this. I act polite, but I honestly can’t think of anything to say. He asks me what I do, and I had to tell him that I’m a CPA; normally something I’m proud of, but now I’m embarrassed. He’s telling me how he once took an accounting class in high school, but couldn’t understand any of it and only cheated off of other people. And again I’m embarrassed, as I was the one that people cheated off of in accounting; and thinking that they were going to regret their decision. And I have nothing to say to this. I try saying some goodwill gesture; but it’s all crap anyway, so I just continue smiling and act as if everything’s fine.
And he’s slowing me down (I was still in a hurry), but I couldn’t just leave him behind, and he had to keep adjusting that bag of his. And all I could think about was how much I wanted to finish off my coffee and danish (I was hungry), but didn’t want to eat it in front of him. Hell, I was pretending they didn’t exist, lest he request me to give up my only breakfast. And so finally I had my chance and split-off and went my way. And he wished me luck with my thing (don’t ask), and I had nothing to say. I just kind of gave a wave and walked off. Even now, the best I can think of is “Good luck with the oatmeal”, but somehow that seems a tad, I don’t know, wrong.
And that’s my life. I don’t know what to say to people. They all have problems and worries and troubles, and I don’t. Not that I don’t have any problems, but I really don’t care about them. My life is pretty damn good, and I don’t have any stalkers after me (that I know of) and the only people who steal my oatmeal are my kids, and they can have it, as I’m not a big oatmeal eater. And so I don’t have anything to talk about with these people. I only like to talk about politics and religion and that other fun stuff; but those aren’t subjects you want to bring up with strangers, especially homeless strangers. At least not if you’d like the conversation to eventually end well. And so I don’t know what to do. I just smile and nod and pretend as if this is all normal; and unfortunately it is. All too normal. People have problems and they want you to hear about them.
Frankly, I have no idea what my point of all this is. I normally like to tie things into a nice little message, but fuck if I know what I’m saying here. I’m sure there’s some kind of message in all this, but I guess I’ll just leave that for you to figure out. Maybe the message is that I’m a big dick; but I doubt that. Because that would be the message to all my posts. So I guess I’m just left again not knowing what to say. I’ve got nothing.
And so I was walking to the hospital with my supposedly Columbian coffee and non-Danish danish and see this homeless-looking dude carrying a big trashbag in front of me. And of course I’m in a hurry, so I’m walking fast. And he’s in no hurry, so he’s walking slow. And things would have timed-out well, except he had to keep adjusting that damn bag of his; so I caught up with him. And I don’t have anything against homeless dudes, but I don’t have anything for them either. I don’t have extra money to be giving anyone (not that he asked), and I’ve had a nice happy life and they’re fucking homeless; so I don’t have any interesting conversation for them either. They tell me their sadsack story, and I tell them how I sleep-in each morning because I’m self-employed? You don’t know what I look like, of course, but I don’t even look like I could possibly have a sadsack story. And I don’t. I look like a well-protected dude with a charmed life; and that’s largely correct. And so I have no stories to share this morning.
But boy does he have a story (they always have stories). He’s getting a divorce and has to carry all his blankets with him so they don’t get stolen. And the teenagers, they keep stealing his oatmeal and pouring it out. The oatmeal he paid for with his hard-earned money (he never said how he earned it). And while he doesn’t want to kill them for it (he says), he certainly is planning to do something vaguely ominous. It’s obvious that the glint in his eye is intended to convey menace; but it fails miserably. Anyone willing to kill over oatmeal doesn’t need to worry about oatmeal. But I have to play along; but I’ve got nothing. All I want to do is laugh. This guy doesn’t look like he could hurt a bug. But that’s clearly a no-no, as I don’t want to hurt his feelings.
And so he was heading to Luby’s to answer an ad to do work for the Livestock Show & Rodeo, but the sign said that all the positions were filled. And I have nothing to say to any of this. I act polite, but I honestly can’t think of anything to say. He asks me what I do, and I had to tell him that I’m a CPA; normally something I’m proud of, but now I’m embarrassed. He’s telling me how he once took an accounting class in high school, but couldn’t understand any of it and only cheated off of other people. And again I’m embarrassed, as I was the one that people cheated off of in accounting; and thinking that they were going to regret their decision. And I have nothing to say to this. I try saying some goodwill gesture; but it’s all crap anyway, so I just continue smiling and act as if everything’s fine.
And he’s slowing me down (I was still in a hurry), but I couldn’t just leave him behind, and he had to keep adjusting that bag of his. And all I could think about was how much I wanted to finish off my coffee and danish (I was hungry), but didn’t want to eat it in front of him. Hell, I was pretending they didn’t exist, lest he request me to give up my only breakfast. And so finally I had my chance and split-off and went my way. And he wished me luck with my thing (don’t ask), and I had nothing to say. I just kind of gave a wave and walked off. Even now, the best I can think of is “Good luck with the oatmeal”, but somehow that seems a tad, I don’t know, wrong.
And that’s my life. I don’t know what to say to people. They all have problems and worries and troubles, and I don’t. Not that I don’t have any problems, but I really don’t care about them. My life is pretty damn good, and I don’t have any stalkers after me (that I know of) and the only people who steal my oatmeal are my kids, and they can have it, as I’m not a big oatmeal eater. And so I don’t have anything to talk about with these people. I only like to talk about politics and religion and that other fun stuff; but those aren’t subjects you want to bring up with strangers, especially homeless strangers. At least not if you’d like the conversation to eventually end well. And so I don’t know what to do. I just smile and nod and pretend as if this is all normal; and unfortunately it is. All too normal. People have problems and they want you to hear about them.
Frankly, I have no idea what my point of all this is. I normally like to tie things into a nice little message, but fuck if I know what I’m saying here. I’m sure there’s some kind of message in all this, but I guess I’ll just leave that for you to figure out. Maybe the message is that I’m a big dick; but I doubt that. Because that would be the message to all my posts. So I guess I’m just left again not knowing what to say. I’ve got nothing.
Cum Cocked Limeys
Regarding Superbowl censorship, what exactly is the fucking point of censoring a song that always gets played on the radio uncensored? As if little kids are just scouring every one of Mick’s mumbled words looking for a new one to show-off at school. You know that the only ones even paying attention to that crap are the “Family” groups who would have been spouting it off left and right; had it aired uncensored. And hell, you’d think that Keith Richards’ existence is more corrupting than anything Jagger could have said.
But how silly is this:
The incident was reminiscent of the band's performance on "The Ed Sullivan Show" during the 1960s, when the host demanded the Stones change the lyrics to "Let's Spend the Night Together." As ordered, Jagger sang "let's spend some time together," but he rolled his eyes for effect.
Wow. Rolled his eyes, did he? That sure showed them establishment bastards. But then again, it’s really not much different now:
The band may have known about it, but that doesn't mean they liked it, spokeswoman Fran Curtis said. Jagger sang the full lyrics during his performance, she said.
I’m sorry, but aren’t the Stones big enough to have boycotted the damn thing if they weren’t so happy? Either agree to the damn censorship or shut the fuck up. I could understand if they just needed the money or the exposure, but of all bands, the Stones really don’t have much right to complain about it afterwards. I really like their music, but they really don’t have much right to complain about censorship they fully agreed to. And honestly, the “dead man cum” line, while almost cool, is also a bit dorky.
Then again, I really like the descriptions that the journalists have given to describe the offending words:
In "Start Me Up," the show's editors silenced one word close to the song's end, a reference to a woman so sexy she could arouse a dead man. The lyrics for "Rough Justice" included a synonym for rooster that was removed.
That almost makes it worthwhile.
But how silly is this:
The incident was reminiscent of the band's performance on "The Ed Sullivan Show" during the 1960s, when the host demanded the Stones change the lyrics to "Let's Spend the Night Together." As ordered, Jagger sang "let's spend some time together," but he rolled his eyes for effect.
Wow. Rolled his eyes, did he? That sure showed them establishment bastards. But then again, it’s really not much different now:
The band may have known about it, but that doesn't mean they liked it, spokeswoman Fran Curtis said. Jagger sang the full lyrics during his performance, she said.
I’m sorry, but aren’t the Stones big enough to have boycotted the damn thing if they weren’t so happy? Either agree to the damn censorship or shut the fuck up. I could understand if they just needed the money or the exposure, but of all bands, the Stones really don’t have much right to complain about it afterwards. I really like their music, but they really don’t have much right to complain about censorship they fully agreed to. And honestly, the “dead man cum” line, while almost cool, is also a bit dorky.
Then again, I really like the descriptions that the journalists have given to describe the offending words:
In "Start Me Up," the show's editors silenced one word close to the song's end, a reference to a woman so sexy she could arouse a dead man. The lyrics for "Rough Justice" included a synonym for rooster that was removed.
That almost makes it worthwhile.
My Death Wish
If I ever die, I only want people praising me for my wonderful hair and for the ability to recycle my limited wardrobe so often without it seeming to have been quite so often. Everything else is considered completely tacky. They can also discuss the weather; though only in very hushed tones and they have to mention my wonderful hair in that too. But everything else is off-limits.
Oh, and by no means is anyone allowed to look at my widowed wife until after her corpse has finished burning on my funeral pyre. After which, they are only permitted to say the word “Fttt!” while starring directly into the sun. Those are my orders.
Oh, and by no means is anyone allowed to look at my widowed wife until after her corpse has finished burning on my funeral pyre. After which, they are only permitted to say the word “Fttt!” while starring directly into the sun. Those are my orders.
Monday, February 06, 2006
Three Points
Three points on Three Alberto quotes I got from Atrios:
GONZALES: Well, Senator, I would first refer to the experts in the Intel Committee who are making that statement, first of all. I'm just the lawyer.
Wow, it looks like we’ve found an argument that even Alberto Gonzalez won’t make. Everyone’s got their limit, I guess.
GONZALES (cont’d): But if they're not reminded about it all the time in the newspapers and in stories, they sometimes forget.
So, exactly how much do we need to fear people who are so stupid that they forget that their phones might be tapped? I think about this stuff every time I talk about 9/11, terrorists, or politics on the phone; and I’m not doing anything wrong. What are the odds that a terrorist is going to forget about wiretaps while having the exact kind of conversation that requires wiretaps?
And do you think that maybe we’d be able to catch them easier, if we just checked all the NY Times subscribers getting cave delivery? Or are these not the terrorists that Bush has running scared and living in caves?
Alberto: President Washington, President Lincoln, President Wilson, President Roosevelt have all authorized electronic surveillance on a far broader scale.
In defense of Alberto, he said “authorized” not “used”. And he wasn’t referring to powers they authorized for themselves; but the ones they authorized for Bush, so that Bush could surveil electronics on a far broader scale. And they authorized this when they didn’t dissolve the Constitution. Alberto was simply reasserting his argument that Bush’s wiretap authorization stems from broad powers that lay dormant within the Constitution; just waiting for this time in history.
GONZALES: Well, Senator, I would first refer to the experts in the Intel Committee who are making that statement, first of all. I'm just the lawyer.
Wow, it looks like we’ve found an argument that even Alberto Gonzalez won’t make. Everyone’s got their limit, I guess.
GONZALES (cont’d): But if they're not reminded about it all the time in the newspapers and in stories, they sometimes forget.
So, exactly how much do we need to fear people who are so stupid that they forget that their phones might be tapped? I think about this stuff every time I talk about 9/11, terrorists, or politics on the phone; and I’m not doing anything wrong. What are the odds that a terrorist is going to forget about wiretaps while having the exact kind of conversation that requires wiretaps?
And do you think that maybe we’d be able to catch them easier, if we just checked all the NY Times subscribers getting cave delivery? Or are these not the terrorists that Bush has running scared and living in caves?
Alberto: President Washington, President Lincoln, President Wilson, President Roosevelt have all authorized electronic surveillance on a far broader scale.
In defense of Alberto, he said “authorized” not “used”. And he wasn’t referring to powers they authorized for themselves; but the ones they authorized for Bush, so that Bush could surveil electronics on a far broader scale. And they authorized this when they didn’t dissolve the Constitution. Alberto was simply reasserting his argument that Bush’s wiretap authorization stems from broad powers that lay dormant within the Constitution; just waiting for this time in history.
Defending the Indefensible
Josh Marshall, writing of Legal Flim-Flam Man Gonzales’ on-going wiretap flim-flam:
The argument to history that Gonzales is attempting isn't just off point. It's typical of the administration's basic way of operating with the public -- conscious misdirection and flimflam. You can't make this argument unless your intent is to confuse the issue and avoid the issue of whether the president has to follow the law.
It’s a minor point of disagreement, almost too pedantic to qualify as “disagreement”, but I disagree with Marshall on this one. Because this isn’t just the legal defense that they’ve just decided to mislead us with. This is the legal defense they’ve been running with from the start. Long before they had to start justifying this crap, they came up with their justification. And it was as much crap then as it is now. But this is the best they could do; and while they’d have certainly preferred that we never need be given an excuse, this is what they had been planning to pin their case on before they started the wiretaps.
And this is the way that they think. They’re like the worst of the scammy lawyers who twist the law into pretzels trying to make it work in their direction; but they do it even when they don’t need to. And the problem for them is that they’re ends-oriented people. They had their end target in view, the “reality” they were wanting; and then they scour the law books and political precedents for any kind of justification for what they wanted. Not just for these illegal wiretaps, but for torture and everything else.
But the problem for them is that they don’t have a choice. Their ideology teaches them that they’re supposed to have these things, and so their efforts aren’t to see if it’s justified; but to find that justification. No matter how ridiculous. They must find a justification. And that’s why they bend over to find low-level lawyers who are good at finding stupid justifications. Because the only reason they’re even concerned with the law is because The Law might be concerned with them. But they don’t need the law any more than you need your parents telling you how to dress. They already know what they’re supposed to get. They’re just hoping that their feeble excuses will be enough. And unfortunately for us, they always have in the past.
But again, when reading these lame-ass excuses, remember one thing: These aren’t caught-in-the-cookiejar excuses by someone who wasn’t ready (ala Hurricane Katrina screw-ups); these were the justifications they ran with from the start. These are the best excuses that their best minds could come up with to justify these activities; and they went with it anyway. They knew that there was no good legal defense; and they just didn’t care.
The argument to history that Gonzales is attempting isn't just off point. It's typical of the administration's basic way of operating with the public -- conscious misdirection and flimflam. You can't make this argument unless your intent is to confuse the issue and avoid the issue of whether the president has to follow the law.
It’s a minor point of disagreement, almost too pedantic to qualify as “disagreement”, but I disagree with Marshall on this one. Because this isn’t just the legal defense that they’ve just decided to mislead us with. This is the legal defense they’ve been running with from the start. Long before they had to start justifying this crap, they came up with their justification. And it was as much crap then as it is now. But this is the best they could do; and while they’d have certainly preferred that we never need be given an excuse, this is what they had been planning to pin their case on before they started the wiretaps.
And this is the way that they think. They’re like the worst of the scammy lawyers who twist the law into pretzels trying to make it work in their direction; but they do it even when they don’t need to. And the problem for them is that they’re ends-oriented people. They had their end target in view, the “reality” they were wanting; and then they scour the law books and political precedents for any kind of justification for what they wanted. Not just for these illegal wiretaps, but for torture and everything else.
But the problem for them is that they don’t have a choice. Their ideology teaches them that they’re supposed to have these things, and so their efforts aren’t to see if it’s justified; but to find that justification. No matter how ridiculous. They must find a justification. And that’s why they bend over to find low-level lawyers who are good at finding stupid justifications. Because the only reason they’re even concerned with the law is because The Law might be concerned with them. But they don’t need the law any more than you need your parents telling you how to dress. They already know what they’re supposed to get. They’re just hoping that their feeble excuses will be enough. And unfortunately for us, they always have in the past.
But again, when reading these lame-ass excuses, remember one thing: These aren’t caught-in-the-cookiejar excuses by someone who wasn’t ready (ala Hurricane Katrina screw-ups); these were the justifications they ran with from the start. These are the best excuses that their best minds could come up with to justify these activities; and they went with it anyway. They knew that there was no good legal defense; and they just didn’t care.
Pajamadama-Ding-Dongs
I sometimes regret the choice of the name “Doctor Biobrain” as my blogname. Sure, it’s my real name and everything, but sometimes I’m afraid that it scares people off. Like I’m just some sort of doofy villain from a bad 1950’s sci-fi movie (I’m actually a doofy villain in real life). And when the cooler bloggers have names like “Atrios” and “Digby” and “Josh Marshall”, “Doctor Biobrain” might not be the coolest. But one thing is for certain: It’s a helleva lot better than “Pajamas Media” or the triply gay-ass (though not in the homosexual sense) “Powerline”. That’s just embarrassing.
I liked this exchange with Senator Durbin:
DURBIN: No, you’ve got it wrong. You’ve got it wrong. I don’t know – who do you work for, incidentally?Q: Powerline and Pajamas Media.DURBIN: Jamas Media?Q: Pajamas Media. DURBIN: Pajama Media?Q: And Powerline.DURBIN: Okay, I’m sorry I wasn’t familiar with your publication. But I will just tell you this: the argument is the Constitution spells out the powers of the president, as well as the powers of the legislative branch and the judicial branch. And statutes will be followed if, in fact, they put exclusive authority. That’s was FISA does. It creates the word “exclusive means” – exclusive authority. And they are reading more into it now than the statute obviously allows. Q: But did you hear Gonzales say –DURBIN: I’ll check out Pajamaline, but I’m not familiar with your publication.
Atrios didn’t mention which jammyman this was, but needless to say, all the Powerliners have worse names than Biobrain too. But what do you expect from doofs who believe that Congress is supposed to retroactively approve of a president’s illegal activities; and that until they do so, the Attorney General’s opinion outranks a Senator’s.
I liked this exchange with Senator Durbin:
DURBIN: No, you’ve got it wrong. You’ve got it wrong. I don’t know – who do you work for, incidentally?Q: Powerline and Pajamas Media.DURBIN: Jamas Media?Q: Pajamas Media. DURBIN: Pajama Media?Q: And Powerline.DURBIN: Okay, I’m sorry I wasn’t familiar with your publication. But I will just tell you this: the argument is the Constitution spells out the powers of the president, as well as the powers of the legislative branch and the judicial branch. And statutes will be followed if, in fact, they put exclusive authority. That’s was FISA does. It creates the word “exclusive means” – exclusive authority. And they are reading more into it now than the statute obviously allows. Q: But did you hear Gonzales say –DURBIN: I’ll check out Pajamaline, but I’m not familiar with your publication.
Atrios didn’t mention which jammyman this was, but needless to say, all the Powerliners have worse names than Biobrain too. But what do you expect from doofs who believe that Congress is supposed to retroactively approve of a president’s illegal activities; and that until they do so, the Attorney General’s opinion outranks a Senator’s.
Saturday, February 04, 2006
The Undead Defense
Disproven Clichés and the Art of Attack-Defense
Look at the message boards for any Yahoo News story regarding a GOP embarrassment or scandal, I dare you. With few exceptions, every one of them will follow the same pattern. You’ll have a quick rush of liberals denouncing Bush and/or the Republicans for the specific scandal, followed quickly by a bunch of attacks against Democrats and liberals by righties. And if the story even remotely involves Hillary or Ted Kennedy or Gore/Kerry/Dean or any other big name Dem, there will be a veritable onslaught of tirades against them. Tirades very specific to the individual Dem, but rarely changing over time. And of course, there will be comparisons to Bill, and how he did the exact thing (but much worse) and how the hypocritical libs had been willing to give a pass to it all, back then. And all of these tirades will have two things in common: They’ll all be the same basic attacks regardless of the story you’re reading, and they’ll never stop until everyone stops posting to that story.
And the next eventuality is that many of the liberals who had started out attacking the specific scandal will spend almost all of their time defending against these same tired attacks and allegations. It’s as if a time-portal has opened up, and every political discussion involving a Democrat doing bad has suddenly merged into whatever current event you came to discuss. You’ll suddenly find yourself struggling to recall the most intimate details of Travelgate or the supposed Silver Platter of Bin Laden; or if Teddy is involved, you’ll be expected to defend his “murder” of Mary Jo, and be treated as if you had been the one giving him the booze and the keys (it was actually me). And if you didn’t know any better, you’d swear that these attackers had just emerged from a stasis box, with no knowledge outside the time period they’re discussing. And perhaps they have.
Sure, there are Dems who will show up late and begin with the story at hand, but most of them will eventually take part in defending against the same tired, oft disproven and absurd allegations that the cons keep throwing out. And there are a few Dems who will continue battering away at the current story, but what’s the point? They’ll just be ignored and you’ll start to feel like a dope just repeating yourself to no avail.
And that’s what always happens. Tens of thousands of messages may be posted for any given story, but they’ll all quickly turn into the same damn discussion you had the last two hundred times. Before blogging, I cut my teeth on the Yahoo message boards, so I know exactly how this works. Hell, that’s one reason I quit reading the damn things (though I will confess to still be drawn back sometimes).
And so any outrage we may have towards any GOP embarrassment quickly morphs into us defending Dem embarrassments. Every damn time. Like I said, it starts slowly, but will eventually build into this. I’m not sure if this is simply because Dems just like defending shit or what, but it’s pretty damn aggravating. Here we are, in a position to totally put the “Rethugs” on the ropes, and they’ve got us back in 1996, reliving Whitewater all over again.
And it never works. They never listen. If they were willing to listen to reality, they wouldn’t continue making the same tired, disproven attacks. Like I said, it’s as if they’re the undead who awaken only to fight battles in Yahoo; and were completely unaware that any new information has been released. They can remember the specific names of the dirty bastards who dragged Vince Foster’s murdered corpse to Fort Marcy Park, but have somehow failed to hear that Clinton was exonerated in every one of those invented scandals; or that he was no longer president.
Bashing Teddy
And worse are the entirely irrelevant personal attacks from decades past. One time recently, I started harrassing some Ted Kennedy freaks for their freaky-ass Ted Kennedy hatred (It was a story on the Alito hearings, which Kennedy had spoken at, so naturally the topic of Mary Jo’s untimely death was of immense importance to the discussion).
Now, I don’t care if they attack Kennedy. Kennedy’s a big boy and I’m sure he couldn’t give a crap what these losers might possibly say about him; and that’s exactly what I was saying at the time. So while I like Kennedy, I wasn’t going to defend him. But I wanted to know what the hell was so wrong with them that they’d obsess over Ted so much. I could understand somewhat regarding Clinton or something, but Ted Kennedy is no Bill Clinton. He’s just one Senator of the minority party, and while he’s a relatively important Senator, the world does not hinge upon him.
Yet these freaks absolutely HATE Ted. They have user id’s mocking him and rant incessantly about him. It’s freaky. And there are tons of them. Based on their vitriol and fury, you’d think Teddy had eaten their beloved dog while raping their father on Christmas Day…every single year of their lives. And they’re so damn nasty that I really wish he had.
And some of their attacks are unfathomably absurd. When I asked about their hatred (which they ALL insist is NOT hatred, before insisting that I was a freak for having suggested that it was hatred), many of them cited the fact that Kennedy was a richie-rich spoiled brat with an overbearing sense of entitlement, who always acted as if he had earned what he clearly had been given. And call me crazy, but I really think that this description fits somebody else equally well. Especially as one of these guys has spent his career trying to help the working man and the less fortunate, while the other has not. And yet the bashing of the presidential one is considered irrational and unpatriotic, while the thrashing of Kennedy is the least we should do.
And I never could get an answer. The best they did was to continue attacking Ted and to attack me for defending Ted. Yet I never once said anything in defense of Ted. Never once. Again, I like the guy, but I knew that any defense would be pointless. I just wanted to know what their big beef was with the guy. But it turned out that this too was pointless, as they just couldn’t stop attacking him long enough to give an answer. They all acted as if they had been behaving rationally and logically, and couldn’t understand why I wasn’t accepting their logical argument that Ted is a murdering traitor who deserved nothing less than to be ripped apart by rabid wolves and eaten by terrorists. Oh, and heaven forfend, he’s a fat drunk too. I had no idea that conservatives were such health freaks, until now that is.
And did I mention that he’s a loser? An insignificant loser that nobody cares about or listens to? Naturally, you might be wondering why so many people would spend all their waking hours personally attacking an insignificant loser who they never met and who never did anything wrong to them. But they don’t wonder this at all. It makes perfect sense. It’s because Teddy’s a spoiled brat loser. Even Plato himself would find such logic unassailable.
Radio Parrots
But these attacks serve one very good purpose, they distract from the GOP embarrassment that we were supposed to be discussing. It takes us off of the offensive and puts us back defending ourselves. And that’s exactly where we don’t want to be. And what’s weird is that they don’t seem to have any idea that this is what’s going on. They act as if it’s perfectly natural for them to attack decades old wrong-doing by Dems in a story about current Repub wrong-doing.
And they don’t seem to notice that all of them seem to have the exact same talking points as all the others. Not that it’s a coincident, but it just makes sense that they’re all saying the exact same things. Because they all have the same source material: The Truth. And just so you understand, that Truth most certainly does not come from the rightwing radio talkshows that they may or may not listen to (a fact that they’ll rarely ever admit).
Sure, maybe there was a rightwing talkshow host or two (or all of them) who made similar arguments to these, but they were merely confirming everything that these people already know to be true; and these people are not merely parroting talking points that were fed to them…by every single rightwing talkshow host on and off of radio. But again, it’s often easier to get an admission of monkey molestation from these people than for them to admit that they’re repeating what their talkshow told them.
But the fact that these attacks reverberate back to us is merely a side-effect to the real motive. In psy-ops propaganda terms, it’s referred to as “blowback”, I believe. The real motive is for these hosts to give some angle whereby the heat is taken off of the GOP and onto the Dems, without making it appear to be as such. Because if you give a lengthy defense of your side, it becomes obvious that a defense was necessary. And that’s not anywhere they want to be. Because if Bush needs a defense, it doesn’t take too much more thinking to wonder if the defense is wrong. So instead, they’re distracted with attacks against Clinton, Kennedy, Kerry, and Dean; as well as the real reason why the Dems are doing this. But it’s always about the evil Dems inventing attacks, and why we shouldn’t pay any notice to the man behind the curtain.
And that’s why we can never make any headway with these people. They’ve been given their marching orders and they just can’t hear any criticism. They know that the real story is with the Dems. It wasn’t about Alito; it’s about Kennedy and how he left that poor girl to die. It’s not about Bush’s spying; it’s about how Clinton did the same thing and those damn Dems didn’t make a peep about it. It’s never about whatever it’s supposed to be about; it’s always about the Dems and what the blasted Dems are doing to fuck shit up.
What To Do
But again, the intent of this isn’t for them to beat us at arguments. The point is for them to make their listeners entirely impervious to anything we could say. Because they already know us to be the enemy, and they just need to be told how it applies in this particular case. And if they can’t find some specific part of the story that puts the onus back onto the Dems, then they’ll just dig into that bag of tricks and toss out an old one.
And so we can either choose to ignore these attacks and make our own, which will most surely be ignored; or we can defend against the attacks and allow the GOP’s embarrassment to not embarrass them so much. Or you can try to do what I did, which was to expose the whole proceedings and embarrass them personally.
I have no idea how successful I possibly could have been, but I’m sure that it worked better than any of Teddy’s defenders might have done. I most certainly angered them (though I was never rude about it), and might have sent a few neuron sparks flying in directions that they hadn’t flown before; so maybe that’s good, I don’t know. But the main thing was to engage them directly, but without putting myself into a defensive spot.
It’s sort of like a hacker looking for a backdoor into the mainframe (in case you can’t tell, my hacker knowledge is pretty much limited to the movie WarGames). They’ve already been programmed with the appropriate counter-attack to anything you might say, but if you try to work directly against that programming, you have a better chance at getting through. And one sore spot to work is on the talkradio influence itself. Like I said, they will almost always insist that they are not parroting their radio’s talking points, and will often even pretend as if maybe they don’t even listen to talkradio. It’s a load of crap, of course; as you can spot the tell-tales in their arguments which match all the others.
But under no condition should you move onto the defensive. They’re so used to putting people there, that they all insisted that I was defending Kennedy; though I was only attacking them personally. Because it’s not about defending out side. It’s about pushing our story. Or pushing them back. Or hell, I’ve almost kind of forgotten what the point is. Just do it. That’s all I can say: Just do it. Fight those damn zombies, and keep sticking it to them. They might act like they never got hurt, but it’s just an act.
Look at the message boards for any Yahoo News story regarding a GOP embarrassment or scandal, I dare you. With few exceptions, every one of them will follow the same pattern. You’ll have a quick rush of liberals denouncing Bush and/or the Republicans for the specific scandal, followed quickly by a bunch of attacks against Democrats and liberals by righties. And if the story even remotely involves Hillary or Ted Kennedy or Gore/Kerry/Dean or any other big name Dem, there will be a veritable onslaught of tirades against them. Tirades very specific to the individual Dem, but rarely changing over time. And of course, there will be comparisons to Bill, and how he did the exact thing (but much worse) and how the hypocritical libs had been willing to give a pass to it all, back then. And all of these tirades will have two things in common: They’ll all be the same basic attacks regardless of the story you’re reading, and they’ll never stop until everyone stops posting to that story.
And the next eventuality is that many of the liberals who had started out attacking the specific scandal will spend almost all of their time defending against these same tired attacks and allegations. It’s as if a time-portal has opened up, and every political discussion involving a Democrat doing bad has suddenly merged into whatever current event you came to discuss. You’ll suddenly find yourself struggling to recall the most intimate details of Travelgate or the supposed Silver Platter of Bin Laden; or if Teddy is involved, you’ll be expected to defend his “murder” of Mary Jo, and be treated as if you had been the one giving him the booze and the keys (it was actually me). And if you didn’t know any better, you’d swear that these attackers had just emerged from a stasis box, with no knowledge outside the time period they’re discussing. And perhaps they have.
Sure, there are Dems who will show up late and begin with the story at hand, but most of them will eventually take part in defending against the same tired, oft disproven and absurd allegations that the cons keep throwing out. And there are a few Dems who will continue battering away at the current story, but what’s the point? They’ll just be ignored and you’ll start to feel like a dope just repeating yourself to no avail.
And that’s what always happens. Tens of thousands of messages may be posted for any given story, but they’ll all quickly turn into the same damn discussion you had the last two hundred times. Before blogging, I cut my teeth on the Yahoo message boards, so I know exactly how this works. Hell, that’s one reason I quit reading the damn things (though I will confess to still be drawn back sometimes).
And so any outrage we may have towards any GOP embarrassment quickly morphs into us defending Dem embarrassments. Every damn time. Like I said, it starts slowly, but will eventually build into this. I’m not sure if this is simply because Dems just like defending shit or what, but it’s pretty damn aggravating. Here we are, in a position to totally put the “Rethugs” on the ropes, and they’ve got us back in 1996, reliving Whitewater all over again.
And it never works. They never listen. If they were willing to listen to reality, they wouldn’t continue making the same tired, disproven attacks. Like I said, it’s as if they’re the undead who awaken only to fight battles in Yahoo; and were completely unaware that any new information has been released. They can remember the specific names of the dirty bastards who dragged Vince Foster’s murdered corpse to Fort Marcy Park, but have somehow failed to hear that Clinton was exonerated in every one of those invented scandals; or that he was no longer president.
Bashing Teddy
And worse are the entirely irrelevant personal attacks from decades past. One time recently, I started harrassing some Ted Kennedy freaks for their freaky-ass Ted Kennedy hatred (It was a story on the Alito hearings, which Kennedy had spoken at, so naturally the topic of Mary Jo’s untimely death was of immense importance to the discussion).
Now, I don’t care if they attack Kennedy. Kennedy’s a big boy and I’m sure he couldn’t give a crap what these losers might possibly say about him; and that’s exactly what I was saying at the time. So while I like Kennedy, I wasn’t going to defend him. But I wanted to know what the hell was so wrong with them that they’d obsess over Ted so much. I could understand somewhat regarding Clinton or something, but Ted Kennedy is no Bill Clinton. He’s just one Senator of the minority party, and while he’s a relatively important Senator, the world does not hinge upon him.
Yet these freaks absolutely HATE Ted. They have user id’s mocking him and rant incessantly about him. It’s freaky. And there are tons of them. Based on their vitriol and fury, you’d think Teddy had eaten their beloved dog while raping their father on Christmas Day…every single year of their lives. And they’re so damn nasty that I really wish he had.
And some of their attacks are unfathomably absurd. When I asked about their hatred (which they ALL insist is NOT hatred, before insisting that I was a freak for having suggested that it was hatred), many of them cited the fact that Kennedy was a richie-rich spoiled brat with an overbearing sense of entitlement, who always acted as if he had earned what he clearly had been given. And call me crazy, but I really think that this description fits somebody else equally well. Especially as one of these guys has spent his career trying to help the working man and the less fortunate, while the other has not. And yet the bashing of the presidential one is considered irrational and unpatriotic, while the thrashing of Kennedy is the least we should do.
And I never could get an answer. The best they did was to continue attacking Ted and to attack me for defending Ted. Yet I never once said anything in defense of Ted. Never once. Again, I like the guy, but I knew that any defense would be pointless. I just wanted to know what their big beef was with the guy. But it turned out that this too was pointless, as they just couldn’t stop attacking him long enough to give an answer. They all acted as if they had been behaving rationally and logically, and couldn’t understand why I wasn’t accepting their logical argument that Ted is a murdering traitor who deserved nothing less than to be ripped apart by rabid wolves and eaten by terrorists. Oh, and heaven forfend, he’s a fat drunk too. I had no idea that conservatives were such health freaks, until now that is.
And did I mention that he’s a loser? An insignificant loser that nobody cares about or listens to? Naturally, you might be wondering why so many people would spend all their waking hours personally attacking an insignificant loser who they never met and who never did anything wrong to them. But they don’t wonder this at all. It makes perfect sense. It’s because Teddy’s a spoiled brat loser. Even Plato himself would find such logic unassailable.
Radio Parrots
But these attacks serve one very good purpose, they distract from the GOP embarrassment that we were supposed to be discussing. It takes us off of the offensive and puts us back defending ourselves. And that’s exactly where we don’t want to be. And what’s weird is that they don’t seem to have any idea that this is what’s going on. They act as if it’s perfectly natural for them to attack decades old wrong-doing by Dems in a story about current Repub wrong-doing.
And they don’t seem to notice that all of them seem to have the exact same talking points as all the others. Not that it’s a coincident, but it just makes sense that they’re all saying the exact same things. Because they all have the same source material: The Truth. And just so you understand, that Truth most certainly does not come from the rightwing radio talkshows that they may or may not listen to (a fact that they’ll rarely ever admit).
Sure, maybe there was a rightwing talkshow host or two (or all of them) who made similar arguments to these, but they were merely confirming everything that these people already know to be true; and these people are not merely parroting talking points that were fed to them…by every single rightwing talkshow host on and off of radio. But again, it’s often easier to get an admission of monkey molestation from these people than for them to admit that they’re repeating what their talkshow told them.
But the fact that these attacks reverberate back to us is merely a side-effect to the real motive. In psy-ops propaganda terms, it’s referred to as “blowback”, I believe. The real motive is for these hosts to give some angle whereby the heat is taken off of the GOP and onto the Dems, without making it appear to be as such. Because if you give a lengthy defense of your side, it becomes obvious that a defense was necessary. And that’s not anywhere they want to be. Because if Bush needs a defense, it doesn’t take too much more thinking to wonder if the defense is wrong. So instead, they’re distracted with attacks against Clinton, Kennedy, Kerry, and Dean; as well as the real reason why the Dems are doing this. But it’s always about the evil Dems inventing attacks, and why we shouldn’t pay any notice to the man behind the curtain.
And that’s why we can never make any headway with these people. They’ve been given their marching orders and they just can’t hear any criticism. They know that the real story is with the Dems. It wasn’t about Alito; it’s about Kennedy and how he left that poor girl to die. It’s not about Bush’s spying; it’s about how Clinton did the same thing and those damn Dems didn’t make a peep about it. It’s never about whatever it’s supposed to be about; it’s always about the Dems and what the blasted Dems are doing to fuck shit up.
What To Do
But again, the intent of this isn’t for them to beat us at arguments. The point is for them to make their listeners entirely impervious to anything we could say. Because they already know us to be the enemy, and they just need to be told how it applies in this particular case. And if they can’t find some specific part of the story that puts the onus back onto the Dems, then they’ll just dig into that bag of tricks and toss out an old one.
And so we can either choose to ignore these attacks and make our own, which will most surely be ignored; or we can defend against the attacks and allow the GOP’s embarrassment to not embarrass them so much. Or you can try to do what I did, which was to expose the whole proceedings and embarrass them personally.
I have no idea how successful I possibly could have been, but I’m sure that it worked better than any of Teddy’s defenders might have done. I most certainly angered them (though I was never rude about it), and might have sent a few neuron sparks flying in directions that they hadn’t flown before; so maybe that’s good, I don’t know. But the main thing was to engage them directly, but without putting myself into a defensive spot.
It’s sort of like a hacker looking for a backdoor into the mainframe (in case you can’t tell, my hacker knowledge is pretty much limited to the movie WarGames). They’ve already been programmed with the appropriate counter-attack to anything you might say, but if you try to work directly against that programming, you have a better chance at getting through. And one sore spot to work is on the talkradio influence itself. Like I said, they will almost always insist that they are not parroting their radio’s talking points, and will often even pretend as if maybe they don’t even listen to talkradio. It’s a load of crap, of course; as you can spot the tell-tales in their arguments which match all the others.
But under no condition should you move onto the defensive. They’re so used to putting people there, that they all insisted that I was defending Kennedy; though I was only attacking them personally. Because it’s not about defending out side. It’s about pushing our story. Or pushing them back. Or hell, I’ve almost kind of forgotten what the point is. Just do it. That’s all I can say: Just do it. Fight those damn zombies, and keep sticking it to them. They might act like they never got hurt, but it’s just an act.
Friday, February 03, 2006
Evidence of Softie Dems
Of the legal minds at Findlaw, I’ve always kind of liked that of Edward Lazarus. I never thought of him as the sharpest tool in the shed, but I never saw him as a complete tool either. Until now, that is. In his recent column The Liberty-Security Tradeoff: Virtually Everyone Accepts That Liberty Blah Blah Who Cares Long Title, Edward argues that the reason nobody accepts Dem claims of being strong on security is because nobody believes them to be strong on security. And while that argument might seem circular on its face, its circularity is apparent on its face.
His evidence? Because people like the television show “24” and its terrorist-torturing hero. As Ed says: “Even in circumstances like this, "24" presents, and America seemingly accepts, the torturers as heroes, even when the victim is no terrorist.” And ok, sure. Popular entertainment can’t be topped when it comes to evidence of whether people are willing to give up their freedom for security. That’s why folks elected Arnold. But…would America be willing to give up “24” for freedom? I doubt it.
But Ed doesn’t rest his argument there. For you see, Dems are “uncomfortable projecting American power.” German power, we’re more than comfortable asserting; but that American power is so blasted uncomfortable. He explains:
That attitude led to an unconscionable failure to intervene in the Rwandan genocide. And it led to weak responses to terrorist strikes in the Clinton years: How much our history might have changed if, rather than lobbing a few missiles at bin Laden's camps and then ignoring the issue, the President had cleaned the camps out, and captured and tried bin Laden and his lieutenants! In that event, military force would have led to not only greater security, but also greater liberty: The compromises our free society has made, might not have come about.
Whoa, there. Slow down, Sparky. Let’s take that point-by-point:
an unconscionable failure to intervene in the Rwandan genocide
Right, Rwanda is exactly what’s on every voter’s mind when they’re pulling those levers for Head of Security. Hell, I’d bet that there are more Americans who have seen Hotel Rwanda than who actually know about Rwanda as a real-life issue. And while Rwanda was a horrible failure, exactly why would Americans consider this to be a failure in security? Has Bush made himself a reputation as Mr. Toughguy Security because he sends troops into African wars? I think not.
What else did he say?
And it led to weak responses to terrorist strikes in the Clinton years
Because we’re supposed to pretend that terrorist attackers weren’t caught during Clinton’s presidency. And he’d have a point, were that point not wrong.
How much our history might have changed if, rather than lobbing a few missiles at bin Laden's camps and then ignoring the issue, the President had cleaned the camps out, and captured and tried bin Laden and his lieutenants!
Yes, if only Clinton had been a strong leader, like Bush, and captured Bin Laden. That really is a great example of how weak Clinton was: He couldn’t even capture Bin Laden. Sure, he was in no position to invade Afghanistan, which is what would have been required at the time. And sure, even if he had invaded, Bin Laden could have escaped into the mountains, and possibly remained in Pakistan indefinitely (unless he wanted to invade them too). But none of that would have happened, had we a strong, bold leader, like President Bush. Hell no. Bush would have kicked ass and taken names. But alas, we’re still stuck with Bin Laden…all thanks to that fucking weak-ass Clinton. No wonder nobody takes us seriously on security.
And that’s it. That’s Edward’s argument for why we’re seen as being weak on security: Jack Bauer’s popularity, Rwanda, and for failing to capture Osama Bin Laden. Oh, and let’s forget all about that Kosovo thing, as some people might misconstrue that to suggest that we might somehow be comfortable with asserting American power.
Oh, and one point that Edward fails to cite as a reason why Americans might think Dems are soft on security: Because dopes like Edward Lazarus continue to read from Karl Rove’s script regarding matters of Democrat failings; along with all the other stereotypes regarding Dem extremism, flip-floppery, and inability to get out a coherent message.
Just so you know, Edward continued on and changed the subject to many other Rove-fed lines; and I addressed them point-by-point. But it really wasn’t interesting and I got too tired to edit it properly. So in a fit of pique, I erased it all. It was funny, but covered too much turf and wasn’t funny enough. All I can say is that Ed really needs to stay in the lawyer business and to stay the hell out of politics.
His evidence? Because people like the television show “24” and its terrorist-torturing hero. As Ed says: “Even in circumstances like this, "24" presents, and America seemingly accepts, the torturers as heroes, even when the victim is no terrorist.” And ok, sure. Popular entertainment can’t be topped when it comes to evidence of whether people are willing to give up their freedom for security. That’s why folks elected Arnold. But…would America be willing to give up “24” for freedom? I doubt it.
But Ed doesn’t rest his argument there. For you see, Dems are “uncomfortable projecting American power.” German power, we’re more than comfortable asserting; but that American power is so blasted uncomfortable. He explains:
That attitude led to an unconscionable failure to intervene in the Rwandan genocide. And it led to weak responses to terrorist strikes in the Clinton years: How much our history might have changed if, rather than lobbing a few missiles at bin Laden's camps and then ignoring the issue, the President had cleaned the camps out, and captured and tried bin Laden and his lieutenants! In that event, military force would have led to not only greater security, but also greater liberty: The compromises our free society has made, might not have come about.
Whoa, there. Slow down, Sparky. Let’s take that point-by-point:
an unconscionable failure to intervene in the Rwandan genocide
Right, Rwanda is exactly what’s on every voter’s mind when they’re pulling those levers for Head of Security. Hell, I’d bet that there are more Americans who have seen Hotel Rwanda than who actually know about Rwanda as a real-life issue. And while Rwanda was a horrible failure, exactly why would Americans consider this to be a failure in security? Has Bush made himself a reputation as Mr. Toughguy Security because he sends troops into African wars? I think not.
What else did he say?
And it led to weak responses to terrorist strikes in the Clinton years
Because we’re supposed to pretend that terrorist attackers weren’t caught during Clinton’s presidency. And he’d have a point, were that point not wrong.
How much our history might have changed if, rather than lobbing a few missiles at bin Laden's camps and then ignoring the issue, the President had cleaned the camps out, and captured and tried bin Laden and his lieutenants!
Yes, if only Clinton had been a strong leader, like Bush, and captured Bin Laden. That really is a great example of how weak Clinton was: He couldn’t even capture Bin Laden. Sure, he was in no position to invade Afghanistan, which is what would have been required at the time. And sure, even if he had invaded, Bin Laden could have escaped into the mountains, and possibly remained in Pakistan indefinitely (unless he wanted to invade them too). But none of that would have happened, had we a strong, bold leader, like President Bush. Hell no. Bush would have kicked ass and taken names. But alas, we’re still stuck with Bin Laden…all thanks to that fucking weak-ass Clinton. No wonder nobody takes us seriously on security.
And that’s it. That’s Edward’s argument for why we’re seen as being weak on security: Jack Bauer’s popularity, Rwanda, and for failing to capture Osama Bin Laden. Oh, and let’s forget all about that Kosovo thing, as some people might misconstrue that to suggest that we might somehow be comfortable with asserting American power.
Oh, and one point that Edward fails to cite as a reason why Americans might think Dems are soft on security: Because dopes like Edward Lazarus continue to read from Karl Rove’s script regarding matters of Democrat failings; along with all the other stereotypes regarding Dem extremism, flip-floppery, and inability to get out a coherent message.
Just so you know, Edward continued on and changed the subject to many other Rove-fed lines; and I addressed them point-by-point. But it really wasn’t interesting and I got too tired to edit it properly. So in a fit of pique, I erased it all. It was funny, but covered too much turf and wasn’t funny enough. All I can say is that Ed really needs to stay in the lawyer business and to stay the hell out of politics.
Thursday, February 02, 2006
The Rise and Fall of Boehner
As a little help to someone who doesn’t watch TV news (and still doesn’t have the cable turned on yet), how is John Boehner’s last name supposed to be pronounced? I’ve got an idea (one which I will childishly remain using), but I was wondering how he pronounced it. That way, when I’m asked on TV about Boehner’s eventually downfall and disgrace, I’ll know who they’re talking about.
A Good Dem
I don’t know much about Nick Lampson, but I know what I like. Lampson is the former Congressman who got out-districted by DeLay and is now out to beat DeLay in his own district; as mentioned and interviewed by Josh Marshall. And what I liked was his ability to stay on-topic and say the right thing.
Now, I’m not going to swear that this guy is always on the ball and ready to go, but I did like this little exchange in that interview:
TPM: Now, this wasn’t just in the abstract, trying to get more Republicans or more Democrats. There were a handful of Democrats who were the targets of this. So how did this effect you, and a few other, former members of the Texas Congressional delegation?
Lampson: Well, it gave us districts that we couldn’t win, essentially. But I think most of us tried to look at it, not so much as what it would do to us, but what it was doing to our communities.
Communities of interest should be the focal point for us trying to do redistricting. You should be able to design a plan that’s going to help people set goals for themselves and be able to achieve those goals for economic growth and for whatever other reasons. You don’t want to have a district that is so diverse, for example, that you have extremely poor people as a small minority within a district that is very affluent, and you fix it so that they have no political say, because the likelihood of their having any of their concerns addressed becomes smaller.
So that was a big thing for me in my own mind. It wasn’t about me. It was about my community. And I think our communities got very seriously hurt because of it.
And that’s the right answer to kind of a weird question. Who cares what this did to Lampson and a few other former Congressmen? Is this ultimately about the Congressmen or even their political party, or is this ultimately about democracy and citizen representation in government? Of course, he really could have fine-tuned that message, to make it as straightforward as what I just wrote. I don’t know how much the phrase “communities of interest” excites you, but it really didn’t do much for me.
But he got the basics right. Re-districting screwed with people’s ability to be properly represented in Congress. Because representation does not simply mean that you got to vote on election day. I know that Republicans act as if democracy happens only once every few years, and is solely performed in a voting booth (which may or may not reflect your specific preference); but that’s not right. Representation means that you have a voice. But it doesn’t necessarily mean that you specifically get to speak; it means that people who are like you are given a presence. And the way the system works is that it assumes that like-minded people will live together. And so DeLay’s unprecedented gerrymandering effectively screwed with people’s ability to be represented; and thus, screwed with democracy itself.
And I can attest to this, as I now live in a very liberal neighborhood which has always elected a Democrat, but who is now represented by bad Republican Lamar Smith, who lies to us on his Issues page regarding taxes, healthcare, and national security. You can walk around my neighborhood and see anti-Bush bumperstickers and signs all over the place, yet we’re now represented by one of his henchmen. And I have Tom DeLay (among others) to thank for that. Not because he helped beat the Democrat, as no Republican could have won this district; but because he destroyed the district all together, dividing it into four parts that all got drowned-out by the GOP areas out of town. And by doing so, Tom DeLay took a little bit of democracy out of Texas.
And so Lampson did good by reflecting that fact, rather than answering the question by telling us how he was personally affected by the redistricting.
Hearting Bush
Thus said, I really wasn’t too pleased with Lampson’s answer to the “Do you heart Bush” question, to which he seemed to believe that Bush was being prevented from doing what he wanted to do by those who “intentionally set out to win their issues”. I’m not sure exactly what he meant by that, and while he did single-out DeLay as a problem, he wasn’t entirely clear whether Tom DeLay was part of those preventing Bush, or if DeLay merely incited them. Somehow, Lampson seems to believe that Bush is getting sidetracked by the politics of polarization, rather than it being his entire strategy. In either case, he made clear that he blames guys like DeLay for screwing up things for Bush.
But on the plus side, when asked about Bush’s job thus far, Lampson correctly identified many of Bush’s biggest blunders, including the foreign policy and tax-cuts. Another clueless moment was when he identified with Bush’s desire for tax-cuts, but then suggested that they shouldn’t have been targeted at helping the rich. Again, he’s assuming that this is an unfortunate side-effect, rather than the entire point.
But he did identify the Bush Blunders, and when you combine that with the fact that he personally knows Bush and that he’s running in Bush Country, we perhaps can excuse him for hearting Bush as much as he does. And as long as he beats Tom DeLay and pushes Bush on the items he gave in his interview, then he can heart Bush all he wants.
Now, I’m not going to swear that this guy is always on the ball and ready to go, but I did like this little exchange in that interview:
TPM: Now, this wasn’t just in the abstract, trying to get more Republicans or more Democrats. There were a handful of Democrats who were the targets of this. So how did this effect you, and a few other, former members of the Texas Congressional delegation?
Lampson: Well, it gave us districts that we couldn’t win, essentially. But I think most of us tried to look at it, not so much as what it would do to us, but what it was doing to our communities.
Communities of interest should be the focal point for us trying to do redistricting. You should be able to design a plan that’s going to help people set goals for themselves and be able to achieve those goals for economic growth and for whatever other reasons. You don’t want to have a district that is so diverse, for example, that you have extremely poor people as a small minority within a district that is very affluent, and you fix it so that they have no political say, because the likelihood of their having any of their concerns addressed becomes smaller.
So that was a big thing for me in my own mind. It wasn’t about me. It was about my community. And I think our communities got very seriously hurt because of it.
And that’s the right answer to kind of a weird question. Who cares what this did to Lampson and a few other former Congressmen? Is this ultimately about the Congressmen or even their political party, or is this ultimately about democracy and citizen representation in government? Of course, he really could have fine-tuned that message, to make it as straightforward as what I just wrote. I don’t know how much the phrase “communities of interest” excites you, but it really didn’t do much for me.
But he got the basics right. Re-districting screwed with people’s ability to be properly represented in Congress. Because representation does not simply mean that you got to vote on election day. I know that Republicans act as if democracy happens only once every few years, and is solely performed in a voting booth (which may or may not reflect your specific preference); but that’s not right. Representation means that you have a voice. But it doesn’t necessarily mean that you specifically get to speak; it means that people who are like you are given a presence. And the way the system works is that it assumes that like-minded people will live together. And so DeLay’s unprecedented gerrymandering effectively screwed with people’s ability to be represented; and thus, screwed with democracy itself.
And I can attest to this, as I now live in a very liberal neighborhood which has always elected a Democrat, but who is now represented by bad Republican Lamar Smith, who lies to us on his Issues page regarding taxes, healthcare, and national security. You can walk around my neighborhood and see anti-Bush bumperstickers and signs all over the place, yet we’re now represented by one of his henchmen. And I have Tom DeLay (among others) to thank for that. Not because he helped beat the Democrat, as no Republican could have won this district; but because he destroyed the district all together, dividing it into four parts that all got drowned-out by the GOP areas out of town. And by doing so, Tom DeLay took a little bit of democracy out of Texas.
And so Lampson did good by reflecting that fact, rather than answering the question by telling us how he was personally affected by the redistricting.
Hearting Bush
Thus said, I really wasn’t too pleased with Lampson’s answer to the “Do you heart Bush” question, to which he seemed to believe that Bush was being prevented from doing what he wanted to do by those who “intentionally set out to win their issues”. I’m not sure exactly what he meant by that, and while he did single-out DeLay as a problem, he wasn’t entirely clear whether Tom DeLay was part of those preventing Bush, or if DeLay merely incited them. Somehow, Lampson seems to believe that Bush is getting sidetracked by the politics of polarization, rather than it being his entire strategy. In either case, he made clear that he blames guys like DeLay for screwing up things for Bush.
But on the plus side, when asked about Bush’s job thus far, Lampson correctly identified many of Bush’s biggest blunders, including the foreign policy and tax-cuts. Another clueless moment was when he identified with Bush’s desire for tax-cuts, but then suggested that they shouldn’t have been targeted at helping the rich. Again, he’s assuming that this is an unfortunate side-effect, rather than the entire point.
But he did identify the Bush Blunders, and when you combine that with the fact that he personally knows Bush and that he’s running in Bush Country, we perhaps can excuse him for hearting Bush as much as he does. And as long as he beats Tom DeLay and pushes Bush on the items he gave in his interview, then he can heart Bush all he wants.
Wednesday, February 01, 2006
The Fuck-Up Defense
I’m not going to call Atrios a liar (especially as I’d still like to some day appear on his blogroll), but I don’t really remember any liberals using the “Bush is a fuck-up” argument against the Iraq war, as Atrios is now saying. And maybe he did, I don’t know. But to me, that almost makes the warhawks’ argument better. It allows them to insist that they were doing the right thing, and that it was Bush who blew it for them. And who could blame them for it, they’d say. The Bush marketing campaign really was quite brilliant, and why should they have been as cynical as us? After all, they didn’t hate Bush with a passion bordering on insanity, as we did; so they had no reason to doubt that he wasn’t the second reincarnation of Jesus Christ and George Patton combined.
But that’s not the case. Because I didn’t want Clinton to invade Iraq either. I half-heartedly supported his campaign in Kosovo, but Iraq was always far too risky. And even Bush Senior knew that it wasn’t such a good idea. War is a risky risky thing which should only be fought as a last resort, and we’re damn lucky that things have turned out as well as they have. Hell, we’re lucky that Saddam didn’t have nukes that could have been smuggled out of the country like so many vases.
And that was always my argument against invading; that the unknown risks far outweighed the benefits. We had no good reason to believe Saddam had WMD’s and it made even less sense that he’d actually turn these extremely expensive and hard to obtain weapons over to religious terrorists; just so he could worry about us nuking his country to smithereens. It just wasn’t his style.
Saddam was a brutal dictator who liked being a big fish in a small pond and wasn’t going give us a reason to remind him how small that pond really was. We may have called him a “madman” and he well may have been, but he was certainly a madman who knew how to preserve his power for many decades. I mean, Saddam was torturing his citizens back when Georgie was still a coked-up failure from Midland. Hell, Saddam was torturing his citizens back when Georgie was still a drunken Yankee! And we’re now supposed to believe that he’s going to risk losing that, just so he can help-out some Islamic fundamentalists who hate him?
And that really is exactly what I was saying back then. I don’t know how to find old posts on the Yahoo messageboards, but the argument I just made was exactly what I was saying in 2002-2003. That the risks were too great and that Saddam was unlikely to cause us any harm. If anything, he probably liked the economic sanctions (as most evil dictators probably do) as it allows them better control over their country; and allows them to blame hardships on someone else. And while Saddam may have still planned to conquer other countries in the middle-east, which certainly would have a negative effect on us, he had no reason whatsoever to try to attack us directly. Again, he may have been a madman, but he was certainly a shrewd madman who wanted to stay in power.
And so the whole “Bush screws up everything” argument isn’t even relevant. The invasion of Iraq was a bad idea no matter who was in charge. I don’t care if it was frickin’ Abe Lincoln with God as his co-pilot, it was a bad idea. (Well maybe God would have made it work). And so I see no reason why we should allow the warhawks, liberal or otherwise, off the hook with that defense.
Well no, there is a reason. If, by giving them the “Bush is a fuck-up” defense, it forces them to finally acknowledge what a fuck-up Bush is; then I think we’ve done some good. Just as long as we all understand that, while Bush really is a fuck-up, the whole Iraq invasion plan was really fucked-up.
But that’s not the case. Because I didn’t want Clinton to invade Iraq either. I half-heartedly supported his campaign in Kosovo, but Iraq was always far too risky. And even Bush Senior knew that it wasn’t such a good idea. War is a risky risky thing which should only be fought as a last resort, and we’re damn lucky that things have turned out as well as they have. Hell, we’re lucky that Saddam didn’t have nukes that could have been smuggled out of the country like so many vases.
And that was always my argument against invading; that the unknown risks far outweighed the benefits. We had no good reason to believe Saddam had WMD’s and it made even less sense that he’d actually turn these extremely expensive and hard to obtain weapons over to religious terrorists; just so he could worry about us nuking his country to smithereens. It just wasn’t his style.
Saddam was a brutal dictator who liked being a big fish in a small pond and wasn’t going give us a reason to remind him how small that pond really was. We may have called him a “madman” and he well may have been, but he was certainly a madman who knew how to preserve his power for many decades. I mean, Saddam was torturing his citizens back when Georgie was still a coked-up failure from Midland. Hell, Saddam was torturing his citizens back when Georgie was still a drunken Yankee! And we’re now supposed to believe that he’s going to risk losing that, just so he can help-out some Islamic fundamentalists who hate him?
And that really is exactly what I was saying back then. I don’t know how to find old posts on the Yahoo messageboards, but the argument I just made was exactly what I was saying in 2002-2003. That the risks were too great and that Saddam was unlikely to cause us any harm. If anything, he probably liked the economic sanctions (as most evil dictators probably do) as it allows them better control over their country; and allows them to blame hardships on someone else. And while Saddam may have still planned to conquer other countries in the middle-east, which certainly would have a negative effect on us, he had no reason whatsoever to try to attack us directly. Again, he may have been a madman, but he was certainly a shrewd madman who wanted to stay in power.
And so the whole “Bush screws up everything” argument isn’t even relevant. The invasion of Iraq was a bad idea no matter who was in charge. I don’t care if it was frickin’ Abe Lincoln with God as his co-pilot, it was a bad idea. (Well maybe God would have made it work). And so I see no reason why we should allow the warhawks, liberal or otherwise, off the hook with that defense.
Well no, there is a reason. If, by giving them the “Bush is a fuck-up” defense, it forces them to finally acknowledge what a fuck-up Bush is; then I think we’ve done some good. Just as long as we all understand that, while Bush really is a fuck-up, the whole Iraq invasion plan was really fucked-up.
Victory Be Mine
For those not paying attention, I’d just like to announce that I have officially won MY FOURTH FUCKING CARNIVAL OF THE LIBERALS! That’s right, suckers! Numero Fouro!!! I knew it to be a slam dunk the moment I finished it, and sure enough, SLAM F-ING DUNK!
I’d also like to give a shout-out to Modem Butterfly, this Carnival’s host, for the fancy-ass “Twilight Zone” theme. Tres awesome!
But for any of you that didn’t win, don’t let that get you down. There’s always another contest in another two weeks, and maybe this will be your big week to shine. And if you can’t win fairly, I figure it’s about time that I volunteer to host the damn thing some day soon, and I am always more than willing to accept a bribe from a friend (and anyone with cash can’t be too unfriendly). Anyway, can’t waste too much time here. I’ve got a big post I’m trying to finish before my kids boot me off the computer (don’t ask).
I’d also like to give a shout-out to Modem Butterfly, this Carnival’s host, for the fancy-ass “Twilight Zone” theme. Tres awesome!
But for any of you that didn’t win, don’t let that get you down. There’s always another contest in another two weeks, and maybe this will be your big week to shine. And if you can’t win fairly, I figure it’s about time that I volunteer to host the damn thing some day soon, and I am always more than willing to accept a bribe from a friend (and anyone with cash can’t be too unfriendly). Anyway, can’t waste too much time here. I’ve got a big post I’m trying to finish before my kids boot me off the computer (don’t ask).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
