Via Tim Lambert at Deltoid, I read:
When NOAA press officer Laborde was contacted to discuss the e-mails, he denied that interviews were subject to approval from White House officials. Confronted with his own e-mails, however, he said, "If you already knew the answer, why did you ask the question?"
And this is one aspect of the Bush Admin’s abuse of journalist methods that will perhaps always bother me: That journalists insist on confirmation of things they already know. And that just makes sense, for standard journalism. It’s not enough that they know things; they have to be able to prove things. And someone’s not lying until they admit that they’re lying. That should just be standard.
But if you already know something and your target has a history of lying to you about it, it’s time to come out with a different tact. Because the Bushies are totally onto this idea and continue to milk it for all it’s worth. They know that honesty and openness is for dopes and they can get much more through other means. Deception is so ingrained in them that it’s quite possible that press officer Laborde honestly wanted to know why he was being asked the question. To a Bushie, it’s like asking them if they want to breathe. They have no other choice.
And so you get press conferences and gaggles in which the reporters already know all the answers, but as long as the Prez or press secretary refuse to answer the question, the reporters won’t print it. Nor will they write about how they’re being stonewalled. Instead, they keep trying to weasel out the truth, aiming to trip-up Bush or an underling to accidentally admit to something. It’s like the press is so wrapped-up in the game that they’ve forgotten that they’re discussing something real.
And worst of all, even when they catch the Bushies in a lie, they still won’t outright call it that. Instead, they rely on winking euphemisms that everyone’s supposed to understand…but obviously won’t. And if you’re using an unclear euphemism to describe a lie, you might as well just call it a lie. And the Bushies will keep this up forever. It is almost never in their best interests to confess to anything and they rarely do. The few times honesty has come through, they’ve always regretted it. As I’ve argued before, for Republicans, honesty is the worst policy.
And again, I understand the need for these rules of journalism; but there really comes a time when you’ve got to see you’re being used and abused and break outside of that. The Bushies will never admit to lying or wrong-doing or anything bad. Try as you might, you’ll just be lied to, stonewalled, and deceived again and again.
And so if you already know the answer, why ask them the question? Laborde is obviously distressed about this, but when Bushies usually ask the question, it’s only for their own private amusement. They’ve turned journalism into a game and almost never lose. Journalists need to stop playing.
Thursday, September 21, 2006
Dick & Don's Free Khalid Movement
What if Khalid Sheikh Mohammed finally got his day in court, whether kangaroo or not, and was found innocent? As if even the super top-secret evidence that no one was actually allowed to look at still wasn’t convincing enough? Would they release him? Maybe deport him back to his homeland for a hero’s welcome? And if that happened, would Bush finally just give-up and move back to Texas? Would he make sure to fire Cheney and Rummy first? Or would he just shoot them? Knowing Bush, that’s really hard to say.
And might this be the move Dick & Don were waiting for? As if they planned all this incompetence on purpose, and had no idea Bush could last this long? And that 9/11 was their masterstroke and expected him to fold that afternoon (which would explain why Dick had Georgie bouncing around on Air Force One). And after the Katrina disaster didn’t do the trick, they finally started moving on this free Khalid movement.
And perhaps this is all part of Dick’s Impeachment 2007 strategy, after which, he’ll rule as a competent, yet maniacal leader for the next ten years; before anointing Dick Clone III as his successor, with Jenna Bush as VP and Barb as First Lady. These guys do think ahead, and that really would make a lot more sense than what we’ve seen from Dick so far. And you know the media would just eat that shit up. They always wanted to be ruled by a cold-blooded bastard, and they’d finally get it.
But back to the original question: Could this really happen? Is there any chance in hell that they’d ever find Khalid innocent and release him? Impossible. So what’s the point? Fricking Saddam Hussein has a better chance of being found innocent, and he’s fricking Saddam Hussein! And what are they planning to do with him once they’re done? Death penalty? Probably not, thanks to that god damned martyr clause. The top guys always get away, ever since that whole Jesus debacle. Yet another case of the little guy getting screwed. Typical.
So it’ll probably just be life in prison. But isn’t that what he’s facing if we don’t have a trial? Of course. We’ll never let him free; trial or not. So what’s the point? I honestly don’t know. I’m all for trials, particularly the good ones. But I’m sure we can’t let this guy go. And I’m sure we won’t. So what’s the point? You know, it’s stuff like this why they invented prison accidents. Is it wrong for me to say that I wouldn’t mind?
And might this be the move Dick & Don were waiting for? As if they planned all this incompetence on purpose, and had no idea Bush could last this long? And that 9/11 was their masterstroke and expected him to fold that afternoon (which would explain why Dick had Georgie bouncing around on Air Force One). And after the Katrina disaster didn’t do the trick, they finally started moving on this free Khalid movement.
And perhaps this is all part of Dick’s Impeachment 2007 strategy, after which, he’ll rule as a competent, yet maniacal leader for the next ten years; before anointing Dick Clone III as his successor, with Jenna Bush as VP and Barb as First Lady. These guys do think ahead, and that really would make a lot more sense than what we’ve seen from Dick so far. And you know the media would just eat that shit up. They always wanted to be ruled by a cold-blooded bastard, and they’d finally get it.
But back to the original question: Could this really happen? Is there any chance in hell that they’d ever find Khalid innocent and release him? Impossible. So what’s the point? Fricking Saddam Hussein has a better chance of being found innocent, and he’s fricking Saddam Hussein! And what are they planning to do with him once they’re done? Death penalty? Probably not, thanks to that god damned martyr clause. The top guys always get away, ever since that whole Jesus debacle. Yet another case of the little guy getting screwed. Typical.
So it’ll probably just be life in prison. But isn’t that what he’s facing if we don’t have a trial? Of course. We’ll never let him free; trial or not. So what’s the point? I honestly don’t know. I’m all for trials, particularly the good ones. But I’m sure we can’t let this guy go. And I’m sure we won’t. So what’s the point? You know, it’s stuff like this why they invented prison accidents. Is it wrong for me to say that I wouldn’t mind?
Monday, September 18, 2006
Instapundit Loves Lewinsky?
I’ve got to agree with Alex Koppelman at Meta-Media when he suggests that there may be a real possibility of Glenn Reynolds, Mr. Instapundit, being a certifiable nutcase serial killer who enjoys torturing old people with dirty pictures of his alligator. I’m not saying that I know that first-hand. How could I? I barely have enough time to scratch-out a blogpost or two a day; forget about scouring his creepy basement for endangered senior citizens. And for all I know, they may enjoy seeing dirty pictures of his pandas while he dances naked to ABBA. I don’t know. I’m just saying that it’s a possibility that someone might want to consider dealing with before it’s too late.
And can you really know for sure what he’s doing with those scissors he bought? I mean, really? Or that he’s only used those knives of his for cooking purposes? Of course not. And while I have no cold-hard “clinical” proof that he doesn’t whack-off each night to his Bill and Monica dolls; I think I’ll decline any invitation for a sleep-over at the Reynolds household all the same.
Because you never know. Knowledge is an allusive thing which one can never be too sure of, while speculation smells so nice and fits like a glove. I mean, Insty could have nukes himself, for all we know. Or he could be an Iranian. I’ve never seen him, nor do I personally know of anyone who has. Perhaps he’s a computer. Or worse…
I’m not saying I know, simply that you don’t either. And a little of your ignorance can go a long way to paying my bills.
Update: Apparently, I’m not the only one curious about Reynolds’ supposedly zombie-free basement. Scroll down…
Second Update: I would like to clarify that I’m merely engaging in speculation, and have made clear that I have no evidence for any of this. But then again, where is any of the evidence to the contrary? There are a lot of accusations swirling about Mr. Reynolds with nary a denial in sight. I wonder -- does Karl Rove already have proof of all this, and is Insty being successfully blackmailed?
And can you really know for sure what he’s doing with those scissors he bought? I mean, really? Or that he’s only used those knives of his for cooking purposes? Of course not. And while I have no cold-hard “clinical” proof that he doesn’t whack-off each night to his Bill and Monica dolls; I think I’ll decline any invitation for a sleep-over at the Reynolds household all the same.
Because you never know. Knowledge is an allusive thing which one can never be too sure of, while speculation smells so nice and fits like a glove. I mean, Insty could have nukes himself, for all we know. Or he could be an Iranian. I’ve never seen him, nor do I personally know of anyone who has. Perhaps he’s a computer. Or worse…
I’m not saying I know, simply that you don’t either. And a little of your ignorance can go a long way to paying my bills.
Update: Apparently, I’m not the only one curious about Reynolds’ supposedly zombie-free basement. Scroll down…
Second Update: I would like to clarify that I’m merely engaging in speculation, and have made clear that I have no evidence for any of this. But then again, where is any of the evidence to the contrary? There are a lot of accusations swirling about Mr. Reynolds with nary a denial in sight. I wonder -- does Karl Rove already have proof of all this, and is Insty being successfully blackmailed?
Fishy Fishy
Apparently, cities are now using fish to combat terrorism in their water supply:
Bluegills — a hardy species about the size of a human hand — are considered more versatile. They are highly attuned to chemical disturbances in their environment, and when exposed to toxins, they experience the fish version of coughing, flexing their gills to expel unwanted particles.
The computerized system in use in San Francisco and elsewhere is designed to detect even slight changes in the bluegills' vital signs and send an e-mail alert when something is wrong.
You know, that’s pretty cool and everything, but email?? Come on, fish. How about a buzzer or something? Or a flashing red light? With our luck, we’ll get a stupid fish who types “defer salmonella” in the subject line and it’ll get sucked into the junk email folder and lost forever. I actually did get such an email in my junk folder today, but it was merely a stock tip for something worth $0.175 which is estimated to reach $0.75 within the week. I can’t wait.
But lest you think we’ve finally foiled Bin Laden for good, these fish apparently do have their limitations:
And they are no use against other sorts of attacks — say, the bombing of a water main, or an attack by computer hackers on the systems that control the flow of water.
Damn! Damn! Damn! Don’t these fish know how important this is? I know, it’s impressive enough that the fish can detect these threats, and the email thing is pretty cool. (I wonder how they type) But until these fishes get up off their asses and start defending our waters against bombs and hackers, we’re stuck relying on Bush. And with what we’ve seen so far…I’d rather go with the fish.
Bluegills — a hardy species about the size of a human hand — are considered more versatile. They are highly attuned to chemical disturbances in their environment, and when exposed to toxins, they experience the fish version of coughing, flexing their gills to expel unwanted particles.
The computerized system in use in San Francisco and elsewhere is designed to detect even slight changes in the bluegills' vital signs and send an e-mail alert when something is wrong.
You know, that’s pretty cool and everything, but email?? Come on, fish. How about a buzzer or something? Or a flashing red light? With our luck, we’ll get a stupid fish who types “defer salmonella” in the subject line and it’ll get sucked into the junk email folder and lost forever. I actually did get such an email in my junk folder today, but it was merely a stock tip for something worth $0.175 which is estimated to reach $0.75 within the week. I can’t wait.
But lest you think we’ve finally foiled Bin Laden for good, these fish apparently do have their limitations:
And they are no use against other sorts of attacks — say, the bombing of a water main, or an attack by computer hackers on the systems that control the flow of water.
Damn! Damn! Damn! Don’t these fish know how important this is? I know, it’s impressive enough that the fish can detect these threats, and the email thing is pretty cool. (I wonder how they type) But until these fishes get up off their asses and start defending our waters against bombs and hackers, we’re stuck relying on Bush. And with what we’ve seen so far…I’d rather go with the fish.
Dobson's Gang of Thugs
Wow. It took me several hours to write my post on religious war mongers, but former House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Texas) summed it up better in two lines:
"Dobson and his gang of thugs are real nasty bullies. I pray devoutly every day, but being a Christian is no excuse for being stupid.”
And that was a main point I was saying. Well, except that I don’t pray at all, and I was complaining about Tony Perkins from the Family Research Council and not James Dobson of Focus on the Family. But otherwise, the point stands. They’re both pulling the same stunts for the same reasons and they don’t care who they fool to do it.
It’s not about truth, it’s about power. And maybe they really do believe in the whole god thing and think they’re working for a higher power, but that doesn’t negate the fact that they’re deceiving their followers while illegitimately stoking fear and resentment among fellow Americans. And all in the name of preserving the “family”.
Miss You When You’re Gone
Armey went on, saying:
“There's a high demagoguery coefficient to issues like prayer in schools. Demagoguery doesn't work unless it's dumb, shallow as water on a plate. These issues are easy for the intellectually lazy and can appeal to a large demographic. These issues become bigger than life, largely because they're easy. There ain't no thinking."
I agree completely. Sure, I don’t use faux-fancy terms like “demagoguery coefficient” because I think they are counter-productive to the whole comprehension thing, which sort of undermines the whole reason for using fancy words. But whatever. He’s right.
And what’s odd is that I never liked Armey when he was in office, but have now taken more of a liking since he became a former Congressman. I’m sure we’d still disagree on many key issues, but at least he seems to be playing by a consistent set of rules, rather than making shit up like the current batch of “conservatives” continues to do.
Why is it that you never really get to know someone until after they stop running for office? (Al Gore, I’m looking at you.)
"Dobson and his gang of thugs are real nasty bullies. I pray devoutly every day, but being a Christian is no excuse for being stupid.”
And that was a main point I was saying. Well, except that I don’t pray at all, and I was complaining about Tony Perkins from the Family Research Council and not James Dobson of Focus on the Family. But otherwise, the point stands. They’re both pulling the same stunts for the same reasons and they don’t care who they fool to do it.
It’s not about truth, it’s about power. And maybe they really do believe in the whole god thing and think they’re working for a higher power, but that doesn’t negate the fact that they’re deceiving their followers while illegitimately stoking fear and resentment among fellow Americans. And all in the name of preserving the “family”.
Miss You When You’re Gone
Armey went on, saying:
“There's a high demagoguery coefficient to issues like prayer in schools. Demagoguery doesn't work unless it's dumb, shallow as water on a plate. These issues are easy for the intellectually lazy and can appeal to a large demographic. These issues become bigger than life, largely because they're easy. There ain't no thinking."
I agree completely. Sure, I don’t use faux-fancy terms like “demagoguery coefficient” because I think they are counter-productive to the whole comprehension thing, which sort of undermines the whole reason for using fancy words. But whatever. He’s right.
And what’s odd is that I never liked Armey when he was in office, but have now taken more of a liking since he became a former Congressman. I’m sure we’d still disagree on many key issues, but at least he seems to be playing by a consistent set of rules, rather than making shit up like the current batch of “conservatives” continues to do.
Why is it that you never really get to know someone until after they stop running for office? (Al Gore, I’m looking at you.)
Sunday, September 17, 2006
My Papal Apology
I’m saying an offensive thing about you and think you’re ignorant for taking offense. So I’m sorry for your ignorance and regret your sensitivity. Perhaps next time you shouldn’t suck so much. Sorry.
Friday, September 15, 2006
Religious War Mongers
Looks like somebody's planning to escalate the war against Christianity, and it ain’t the atheists (emphasis added):
"There are a number of pastors that said, 'Look, we don't get involved in politics, I'm not going to get involved in this issue, I just want to preach the gospel,'" said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council. "When they realize their ability to preach the gospel may very well be at stake, they may reconsider their involvement."
Now this is just bulldooky. More scare tactics by the people who can’t get votes legitimately. Because if their religion was under assault, they’d already know it and wouldn’t need Tony Perkins to collect incomplete anecdotes and half-truths to demonstrate it. I mean, he’s trying to show pastors that their ability to preach might be at stake, so you’d think he’d have evidence of that kind of thing, right? Apparently, maybe not so much.
Perkins and others are building a case file of anecdotes where they say religious people have spoken out against gay marriage only to be punished. Perkins specifically cited the decision by Maryland Gov. Robert Ehrlich in June to fire his appointee to the Washington area transit board after the board member referred to homosexuals as "persons of sexual deviancy."
The board member, Robert J. Smith, said he was expressing his personal beliefs as a Roman Catholic.
Right. A pastor’s ability to preach might be at stake because public officials are being held accountable for insulting people on television and wanting to discriminate against those they disagree with. Can you imagine the flipside of this? Had Mr. Smith been a gay man suggesting that Catholics were persons of logical deviancy, he most surely would have been sent packing; and probably for his own good.
And that’s the thing: These people might actually have a case, were the supposed anti-Christians behaving towards Christians as these anti-gay Christians are doing towards the gays. If gay people tried to attack and disgrace and discriminate against Christians simply for being Christian, Perkins might actually have an argument. But instead, he’s whining because people are being denied the right to treat others shabbily.
And that’s the whole point. This isn’t an attack on Christians. This is about keeping them within the same bounds that are expected of everyone else. And while Tony Perkins might call that persecution, everyone else knows of it as equality. Overall, the rule is that people are allowed to have their beliefs, but they shouldn’t expect a free pass when they say offensive things publicly. Religious freedom isn’t an excuse for rudeness.
If Robert J. Smith wants to preach his “gospel”, that’s fine. There’s even a job title for people who do that kind of thing. They’re called “Preachers”. But nobody’s stopping him from preaching in his free time, and there are plenty of employers who expect that kind of thing. Unfortunately for him, transit boards aren’t one of them. Perhaps Mr. Perkins has an opening he’d like Mr. Smith to fill. I’ll leave that to them.
Private Bigots
And frankly, I don’t have any real problem with Robert J. Smith being a bigot privately. I’d rather he not be, but he can have his personal beliefs. But when he, a public official, says things publicly, that’s another issue. Here’s the line in question, which he said on television:
"That doesn't mean that government should proffer a special place of entitlement within the laws of the United States for persons of sexual deviancy," Smith said in the conversation about the rights of gays and lesbians.
Afterwards, he was asked to apologize and would not. And this just isn’t acceptable behavior and religion is absolutely no defense. Especially as he’s just using his religion as cover for his bigotry. But in the end, they’re still his beliefs. And that goes for everyone else. People can hide behind books, myths, teachers, and priests if they want to, but in the end, you are responsible for your own beliefs and your own actions.
Now, if Mr. Smith believes that the bible is forcing him to agree to this against his better judgment, let him say so. It would go a long way to defending him if he were to say that he personally approves of homosexuality, and was merely following what he thought his god wanted. But that’s not the case. The bible may say it, in his opinion, but that doesn’t force him to agree. And it certainly doesn’t force him to say it on television repeatedly. And if that’s what he wants to do, then he’s got no one to blame but himself.
I’ve actually read the bible, and I don’t have any real problem with it. If it helps people make sense of their life and gives them guidance, then great. Books can be good for that kind of thing. But it is entirely wrong for people to abuse the bible by acting as if it fully represents and justifies their own personal beliefs. There are millions of Christians out there, and no two are alike in their beliefs. They may share the basic premise, but the details are certainly different, as it is with all people. So how can anyone have the gall to pretend as if each one of their own personal beliefs are dictated from the bible? Impossible, and probably blasphemous.
And just to make things clear, the bible’s rules are intended to be about what you do personally, not about forcing others to follow beliefs they don’t hold. The bible may ban Mr. Smith from engaging in his homosexual fantasies, but that right does not translate to him banning people of other beliefs. And I’ve never heard a bible passage that forbids the government from allowing gay marriage by non-Christians. Or one which defends bigoted speech on television. And while evangelism might be considered a religious duty, it’s fairly obvious that this sort of bigotry only preaches to a very small choir. I doubt Mr. Smith won over many converts that day.
Anti-Mexican Christians Under Attack?
And this is even more clear when we read this from the same article:
In May of last year, the governor fired the head of an Eastern Shore judicial nominating committee after the official used a derogatory term for Mexicans in his personal Web log.
Now perhaps Tony Perkins might want to couch this in terms of persecution too. But of whom? Racists. Bigots. That’s who. This isn’t an anti-Christian bias. This is about bigotry. And whether you’re publicly anti-gay or anti-Mexican, it doesn’t matter. Both types were shown the door, and rightly so. But I doubt Mr. Perkins will highlight this other story with equal fervor.
And I don’t want public officials who are anti-Christian bigots either. I don’t like any bigots. If you’ve got bigoted beliefs, fine. But don’t expect the taxpayers to support you when you express them publicly. And the same goes for businesses, who shouldn’t expect customers to support bigoted companies. Similarly, if some gay public official goes on television in leather ass-less chaps and starts humping people, I’d expect him to get dismissed too. That’s just how this works. Some things are inappropriate, and ass-less chaps and bigotry are two of those things (unless, of course, you happen to work at a bigoted gaybar, in which case that might be a job duty).
And beyond that, Tony Perkins’ actions have nothing to do with bigotry, religion, or offensiveness, and everything to do with elections, money, and power. Because it is fairly obvious to see that Christianity isn’t under assault here, but bigotry. Unless, of course, you’re looking for bias in order to trick people into voting against their better judgment. Tony Perkins might be trying to draw attention to an imagined assault, but his cynical ploy to woo power by dividing people is perhaps the biggest offense. If there is a god, I’m sure he’s got some special punishment for those who misappropriate his name to stoke religious divisions for personal gain.
"There are a number of pastors that said, 'Look, we don't get involved in politics, I'm not going to get involved in this issue, I just want to preach the gospel,'" said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council. "When they realize their ability to preach the gospel may very well be at stake, they may reconsider their involvement."
Now this is just bulldooky. More scare tactics by the people who can’t get votes legitimately. Because if their religion was under assault, they’d already know it and wouldn’t need Tony Perkins to collect incomplete anecdotes and half-truths to demonstrate it. I mean, he’s trying to show pastors that their ability to preach might be at stake, so you’d think he’d have evidence of that kind of thing, right? Apparently, maybe not so much.
Perkins and others are building a case file of anecdotes where they say religious people have spoken out against gay marriage only to be punished. Perkins specifically cited the decision by Maryland Gov. Robert Ehrlich in June to fire his appointee to the Washington area transit board after the board member referred to homosexuals as "persons of sexual deviancy."
The board member, Robert J. Smith, said he was expressing his personal beliefs as a Roman Catholic.
Right. A pastor’s ability to preach might be at stake because public officials are being held accountable for insulting people on television and wanting to discriminate against those they disagree with. Can you imagine the flipside of this? Had Mr. Smith been a gay man suggesting that Catholics were persons of logical deviancy, he most surely would have been sent packing; and probably for his own good.
And that’s the thing: These people might actually have a case, were the supposed anti-Christians behaving towards Christians as these anti-gay Christians are doing towards the gays. If gay people tried to attack and disgrace and discriminate against Christians simply for being Christian, Perkins might actually have an argument. But instead, he’s whining because people are being denied the right to treat others shabbily.
And that’s the whole point. This isn’t an attack on Christians. This is about keeping them within the same bounds that are expected of everyone else. And while Tony Perkins might call that persecution, everyone else knows of it as equality. Overall, the rule is that people are allowed to have their beliefs, but they shouldn’t expect a free pass when they say offensive things publicly. Religious freedom isn’t an excuse for rudeness.
If Robert J. Smith wants to preach his “gospel”, that’s fine. There’s even a job title for people who do that kind of thing. They’re called “Preachers”. But nobody’s stopping him from preaching in his free time, and there are plenty of employers who expect that kind of thing. Unfortunately for him, transit boards aren’t one of them. Perhaps Mr. Perkins has an opening he’d like Mr. Smith to fill. I’ll leave that to them.
Private Bigots
And frankly, I don’t have any real problem with Robert J. Smith being a bigot privately. I’d rather he not be, but he can have his personal beliefs. But when he, a public official, says things publicly, that’s another issue. Here’s the line in question, which he said on television:
"That doesn't mean that government should proffer a special place of entitlement within the laws of the United States for persons of sexual deviancy," Smith said in the conversation about the rights of gays and lesbians.
Afterwards, he was asked to apologize and would not. And this just isn’t acceptable behavior and religion is absolutely no defense. Especially as he’s just using his religion as cover for his bigotry. But in the end, they’re still his beliefs. And that goes for everyone else. People can hide behind books, myths, teachers, and priests if they want to, but in the end, you are responsible for your own beliefs and your own actions.
Now, if Mr. Smith believes that the bible is forcing him to agree to this against his better judgment, let him say so. It would go a long way to defending him if he were to say that he personally approves of homosexuality, and was merely following what he thought his god wanted. But that’s not the case. The bible may say it, in his opinion, but that doesn’t force him to agree. And it certainly doesn’t force him to say it on television repeatedly. And if that’s what he wants to do, then he’s got no one to blame but himself.
I’ve actually read the bible, and I don’t have any real problem with it. If it helps people make sense of their life and gives them guidance, then great. Books can be good for that kind of thing. But it is entirely wrong for people to abuse the bible by acting as if it fully represents and justifies their own personal beliefs. There are millions of Christians out there, and no two are alike in their beliefs. They may share the basic premise, but the details are certainly different, as it is with all people. So how can anyone have the gall to pretend as if each one of their own personal beliefs are dictated from the bible? Impossible, and probably blasphemous.
And just to make things clear, the bible’s rules are intended to be about what you do personally, not about forcing others to follow beliefs they don’t hold. The bible may ban Mr. Smith from engaging in his homosexual fantasies, but that right does not translate to him banning people of other beliefs. And I’ve never heard a bible passage that forbids the government from allowing gay marriage by non-Christians. Or one which defends bigoted speech on television. And while evangelism might be considered a religious duty, it’s fairly obvious that this sort of bigotry only preaches to a very small choir. I doubt Mr. Smith won over many converts that day.
Anti-Mexican Christians Under Attack?
And this is even more clear when we read this from the same article:
In May of last year, the governor fired the head of an Eastern Shore judicial nominating committee after the official used a derogatory term for Mexicans in his personal Web log.
Now perhaps Tony Perkins might want to couch this in terms of persecution too. But of whom? Racists. Bigots. That’s who. This isn’t an anti-Christian bias. This is about bigotry. And whether you’re publicly anti-gay or anti-Mexican, it doesn’t matter. Both types were shown the door, and rightly so. But I doubt Mr. Perkins will highlight this other story with equal fervor.
And I don’t want public officials who are anti-Christian bigots either. I don’t like any bigots. If you’ve got bigoted beliefs, fine. But don’t expect the taxpayers to support you when you express them publicly. And the same goes for businesses, who shouldn’t expect customers to support bigoted companies. Similarly, if some gay public official goes on television in leather ass-less chaps and starts humping people, I’d expect him to get dismissed too. That’s just how this works. Some things are inappropriate, and ass-less chaps and bigotry are two of those things (unless, of course, you happen to work at a bigoted gaybar, in which case that might be a job duty).
And beyond that, Tony Perkins’ actions have nothing to do with bigotry, religion, or offensiveness, and everything to do with elections, money, and power. Because it is fairly obvious to see that Christianity isn’t under assault here, but bigotry. Unless, of course, you’re looking for bias in order to trick people into voting against their better judgment. Tony Perkins might be trying to draw attention to an imagined assault, but his cynical ploy to woo power by dividing people is perhaps the biggest offense. If there is a god, I’m sure he’s got some special punishment for those who misappropriate his name to stoke religious divisions for personal gain.
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
We're All Bin Laden Now
How ironic is it that a man who decided to not shave until after we caught Bin Laden is now looking like Bin Laden? Too ironic? Or just right? Because that’s what Bush has done to all those who put faith in his actions and motives.
Bush says we’re under attack because these people hate our freedom and tolerance and love war and unrest, and now he’s making us all look like Bin Laden. But I’m sure, like the man’s beard, these are only temporary measures, until we catch Bin Laden. And then Bush, or whoever the president will be, will quickly sweep away all the powers Bush has claimed for himself and allow Congress and the Courts to once again have some role in the functioning of our government. And I’m not going to stop blogging until it does.
P.S. No, I’m not actually suggesting there is any moral equivalence between us and Osama. Only a similar outlook by some of our more restrictionist-minded leaders. But then again, I have few doubts that Bush wouldn’t kill thousands of civilians to achieve his goals; because he’s already doing it. And he does so in our name.
Bush says we’re under attack because these people hate our freedom and tolerance and love war and unrest, and now he’s making us all look like Bin Laden. But I’m sure, like the man’s beard, these are only temporary measures, until we catch Bin Laden. And then Bush, or whoever the president will be, will quickly sweep away all the powers Bush has claimed for himself and allow Congress and the Courts to once again have some role in the functioning of our government. And I’m not going to stop blogging until it does.
P.S. No, I’m not actually suggesting there is any moral equivalence between us and Osama. Only a similar outlook by some of our more restrictionist-minded leaders. But then again, I have few doubts that Bush wouldn’t kill thousands of civilians to achieve his goals; because he’s already doing it. And he does so in our name.
Napoleonic History
It looks like Media Matters still has a lot to learn about conservatives. They think they’ve busted Disney-ABC’s docufantasy The Path to 9/11, because the filmmakers promised that Bush would get a similarly harsh treatment as what they did to Clinton. Yet as MM point out, it is only Condi Rice who gets the bad treatment, while Bush looks macho and decisive; and they had to rearrange a few facts to make that happen.
But that’s just not how this works. Sure, it was an unfair and untruthful treatment, when they invent macho conversations immediately before 9/11 which never happened, have Bush ordering planes to be shot down, which probably never happened, and fail to even mention the Goat story we know Bush was so enthralled with on 9/11. But these aren’t complete fictions, but rather rearrangements of history in order to make the storyline more clear (ie, that Clinton was sucky and Bush was brilliant).
So a nitpicker can surely find parts of the movie that completely alter the reality of what happened, but that’s not the point. Conservatives just have a different standard of reality, so you’ve got to grade this stuff on a curb. I mean, if you’ve got some psychopathic nutcase thinking he’s Napoleon, isn’t it good enough when he acknowledges his defeat at Waterloo? Of course. That’s real progress. Similarly, the fact that the producers of Path didn’t have Bush personally stop the entire attack with a pair of chopsticks and a glue-gun is strong evidence that these people put their whack-job beliefs on hold for a few hours so they could deal honestly and sanely with a few historical facts. Relatively speaking, anyway.
So I really don’t see where Media Matters gets off on suggesting that the movie’s creators were disingenuous when they stated they had tarnished Bush’s image too. Because to them, they did. After all, even in the movie Bush didn’t stop the attacks, and we’ve got to give them credit for that. Or they could have included the part where a coked-up Clinton reads The Pet Goat to Bin Laden while pleasuring Saddam. This showed real restraint on their part.
And sure, they could have put a little more truth into their movie. Who couldn’t? But that’s not the point. These people have been thrashing around the shallow-end so long they imagine they’re Olympic swimmers, and it’s just wrong for us to try to throw them into the deep-end all at once. We need to work this a little at a time, and be proud of them when they can turn-down the imagined heroics of our incompetent leaders a little. Baby steps, people. Baby steps.
And who knows, the next time someone actually trusts them to make a movie, maybe they’ll have learned to have enough faith in facts to actually include some in their work. Anything’s possible, right?
But that’s just not how this works. Sure, it was an unfair and untruthful treatment, when they invent macho conversations immediately before 9/11 which never happened, have Bush ordering planes to be shot down, which probably never happened, and fail to even mention the Goat story we know Bush was so enthralled with on 9/11. But these aren’t complete fictions, but rather rearrangements of history in order to make the storyline more clear (ie, that Clinton was sucky and Bush was brilliant).
So a nitpicker can surely find parts of the movie that completely alter the reality of what happened, but that’s not the point. Conservatives just have a different standard of reality, so you’ve got to grade this stuff on a curb. I mean, if you’ve got some psychopathic nutcase thinking he’s Napoleon, isn’t it good enough when he acknowledges his defeat at Waterloo? Of course. That’s real progress. Similarly, the fact that the producers of Path didn’t have Bush personally stop the entire attack with a pair of chopsticks and a glue-gun is strong evidence that these people put their whack-job beliefs on hold for a few hours so they could deal honestly and sanely with a few historical facts. Relatively speaking, anyway.
So I really don’t see where Media Matters gets off on suggesting that the movie’s creators were disingenuous when they stated they had tarnished Bush’s image too. Because to them, they did. After all, even in the movie Bush didn’t stop the attacks, and we’ve got to give them credit for that. Or they could have included the part where a coked-up Clinton reads The Pet Goat to Bin Laden while pleasuring Saddam. This showed real restraint on their part.
And sure, they could have put a little more truth into their movie. Who couldn’t? But that’s not the point. These people have been thrashing around the shallow-end so long they imagine they’re Olympic swimmers, and it’s just wrong for us to try to throw them into the deep-end all at once. We need to work this a little at a time, and be proud of them when they can turn-down the imagined heroics of our incompetent leaders a little. Baby steps, people. Baby steps.
And who knows, the next time someone actually trusts them to make a movie, maybe they’ll have learned to have enough faith in facts to actually include some in their work. Anything’s possible, right?
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
Smoking Kippers
A commenter recently showed up on a post of mine from February titled Moose Hatred, in which I had blasted the aptly named Bullmoose for being full of bull. Specifically, the commenter slightly took me to task for not understanding that Bullmoose wasn’t criticizing people who disagree with Bush; only the ones who hated Bush.
And this had me somewhat perplexed, as that was one of the main topics of my post; how completely absurd it is to suggest that there is this huge irrational Bush Hater group that is somehow more troublesome than Bush himself. Hell, Bush had already given us so many rational reasons to hate him that you’d really have to work to find an irrational one. It’s like blasting into a barrel of fish and trying not to hit any. Impossible.
And sure, there are crazies out there. But really, are these people who are normally rational who become irrational only when it comes to Bush? Or is it that they’re somewhat irrational people who are also somewhat irrational when it comes to Bush. Of course. And they’re on all sides of the political spectrum, which only makes sense.
So does that mean we need to paint all people with the same broad brush, simply because they happen to have a some basic points in common? Or that we need to waste our time debunking the crazies?? Of course not. And yet the Bullmoose clearly spends more time denouncing small-time liberal “haters” than addressing his problems with the Republican president. And while he pays lip service to the idea that there are also rightwing crazies, it’s only to justify his attacks against the lefty ones.
Here was the first line I had quoted of Bullmoose:
The Moose does not hate George W. Bush. That is a very controversial statement in almost all of the left and in much of the Democratic Party.
Now, come fucking on. Even beyond the idiotic third-person device, that’s not a serious statement. It’s an insult. A cheap insult designed to make Moose feel superior to the people who keep proving him wrong. I mean, nobody hates the Moose because he doesn’t hate Bush. We hate the Moose because he’s an insulting twit who is helping to screw up our country. Much like the man Moose doesn’t hate. But instead of acknowledging our position or ignoring us, he lobs another of Rove’s insults at us. Great.
Dueling Monologues
And that’s about what I wrote at the time, saying:
And what serious person could believe such nonsense? Sure, there are lefties who supposedly ascribe to the “Bush hatred” idea, but I don’t believe them. Because the word “hatred” typically means that the feelings are irrational. And there are too many good, rational reasons to not like Bush. You don’t even have to be paying attention and you’ll quickly be offended by what he does. So I just don’t see exactly what the problem is with not liking the dude. But if this is what passes for “hatred” these days, then I believe the intelligent position is to hate Bush.
Now I’ll admit that it was a damn long post, but that was only the third paragraph I wrote, and was clearly the main point. And yet, my commenter writes:
Hey, the issue is not whether or not someone disagrees with Bush--it's whether or not someone HATES him. The rhetoric of HATE comes from both sides, and is totally counter-productive. Hate is a personal issue, not a political one, and it has no place in constructive dialog
Constructive dialogue? How about trying to read what someone writes before disagreeing with them? How’s that for the opening of dialogue? Call me crazy, but I think that if you’re not listening to the other side, then it’s only a monologue.
I don’t mean to be picking on my commenters. God knows I have so few of them, and I suppose this might be just the reason. But this really sums-up the problem with these centrist “non-haters”. Because they’re just being used as tools by the Republicans, and continue to slowdown their own team. I mean, who gives a shit if we hate Bush? Why should that matter? Shouldn’t it be about what we say, not the reasons we say it?
Of course. The whole “Bush Hater” line was a ruse devised by the Whitehouse as a catch-all to attack Bush’s critics and put them on the defensive. No longer are these disagreers. They’re irrational haters. But this wasn’t a valid argument. It wasn’t even intended as a direct insult against the so-called haters. The real purpose was to convince “centrist” Dems that they need to distance themselves from the “crazies” on the left. And to do that, they had to insult the “haters” and constantly denounce them and convince them to come down from the ledge. And only after they got their liberal ducks in a row could they finally take-on the extremists on the other side. It was like a never-ending primary for a general election that never happened.
And so they’ve spent the last six years attacking us and trying to get us to shut-up, so they can finally get down to criticizing Bush. Because as long as us “haters” are denouncing Bush, these guys can’t. And the centrists adopted the line all the way. And by doing so, they are doing Bush’s dirty work for him. The centrists continue to slander millions of Bush’s harshest critics, and by doing so, have only enabled him in his quest to divide the nation to his advantage. And they dare to blame us for this polarization.
Anti-Bush Forces
The Washington Post’s dope-in-chief Richard Cohen admitted to this in his embarrassing review of Fahrenheit 9/11, writing (emphasis added):
The case against Bush need not and should not rest on guilt by association or half-baked conspiracy theories, which collapse at the first double take but reinforce the fervor of those already convinced. The success of Moore's movie, though, suggests this is happening -- a dialogue in which anti-Bush forces talk to themselves and do so in a way that puts off others. I found that happening to me in the run-up to the war, when I spent more time and energy arguing with those who said the war was about oil (no!) or Israel (no!) or something just as silly than I did questioning the stated reasons for invading Iraq -- weapons of mass destruction and Hussein's links to Osama bin Laden. This was stupid of me, but human nature nonetheless.
That’s right. A supposedly respectable journalist actually wrote that in a bigtime newspaper. That the reason he didn’t question the most important assertions in modern history was because he was too busy fending off the unimportant crazies on his own side. Needless to say, Cohen did not actually collapse any conspiracy theories in that column. Instead, he just stated that it was easily done while insulting millions of Democrats and insinuating a few falsehoods of his own. Stupid, indeed.
But maybe he’s right. Perhaps it was my anti-war posts on the Yahoo messageboards in early ’03 that were to blame for making Cohen say this of Colin Powell’s career-ruining presentation to the UN:
The evidence he presented to the United Nations -- some of it circumstantial, some of it absolutely bone-chilling in its detail -- had to prove to anyone that Iraq not only hasn't accounted for its weapons of mass destruction but without a doubt still retains them. Only a fool -- or possibly a Frenchman -- could conclude otherwise.
Sacre bleu! If only I hadn’t already said that Bush was lying, Cohen would have been a touch more diligent about Powell’s bogus presentation. Talk about bone-chilling.
And here he is in September 2004 explaining why he can’t be a true blue Democrat:
In fact, Bush haters go so far they wind up adding a dash of red to my blue, pushing me by revulsion into a color I otherwise would not have.
Interestingly, Cohen started by explaining why he’s not a blue or a red stater, but rather a purple state of his own. And then spends one paragraph saying why he doesn’t like Bush’s policies, and the remaining five paragraphs explaining why he personally dislikes the Bush Haters, and how folks who merely disagree with Bush but don’t hate him are not blue staters, but purple ones, like himself. Color me unimpressed.
And here he is still blaming the crazies several years into Bush’s presidency, as this column from March shows, where he has to first mock the “Bush lied” people, before concluding that he finally caught Bush in a lie. (Bravo, Mr. Cohen.)
But why was it necessary for him to do that? Why did he admittedly spend so much energy fighting his own side, rather than combating the real danger in his backyard? It’s for the same reason why almost all of the bigtime “liberal” pundits had to denounce Fahrenheit 9/11, Michael Moore, and almost anyone left of the DLC. Because they had become convinced that they had to disassociate themselves from the freaks before they could be taken seriously. And to do that, they had to spend a lot of time, energy, insults, and generalizations to publicly denounce these people whenever they got the chance. And for that, they blame the lefties they attacked.
Circular Backstab
And that’s exactly how the Whitehouse planned it, and it’s still working. “Centrists” have to constantly backstab their own people to prove their non-hatred for Bush, despite the fact that we’ve been explaining this to them for years. Sometimes we say that it’s not hatred and sometimes we say that the hatred isn’t irrational; but it all works out to being the same thing. This is a trick. They were tricked, and they’re still tricked. And so they spend five paragraphs of precious newspaper column to denounce the people they agree with on most issues.
But they don’t need to denounce us. They don’t need to insult us. They don’t even need to notice us if they don’t want to. But if they feel they must address us, they could surely do so without impugning our motives or slandering us with Rove’s beloved slur. Even one “Bush Hater” line is too many. They continually denounce the vilification of enemies by vilifying their so-called allies. And yet they rarely hurl this charge directly at anyone. Michael Moore got blasted in that column I cited, and yet Cohen never directly labels Moore a “hater”. They just keep using the same line denouncing generic “Bush Haters” that Rove gave them.
And now I’ve got this on my commentboard. Again, I’m not trying to pick on one of my few commenters. I just can’t help it. Had he read my post and understood what I wrote, he wouldn’t have said what he did. But he couldn’t bother. I quoted the Bullmoose in yet another of his anti-Bush-Hater idiocies, and this guy had to defend him. Not because I said anything wrong. But because he believed the Bullmoose hadn’t said anything wrong and I had disagreed with him. And that meant that I hadn’t understood the Moose’s delicate point of denouncing large swaths of generic people for having the wrong motives.
But I did understand and the Moose was wrong, for the reasons I said before. Bush hatred is a red herring. And unfortunately for Democrats, that’s about the only fish the DLC’s bait is any good at catching anymore. But I guess that’s somehow our fault too.
And this had me somewhat perplexed, as that was one of the main topics of my post; how completely absurd it is to suggest that there is this huge irrational Bush Hater group that is somehow more troublesome than Bush himself. Hell, Bush had already given us so many rational reasons to hate him that you’d really have to work to find an irrational one. It’s like blasting into a barrel of fish and trying not to hit any. Impossible.
And sure, there are crazies out there. But really, are these people who are normally rational who become irrational only when it comes to Bush? Or is it that they’re somewhat irrational people who are also somewhat irrational when it comes to Bush. Of course. And they’re on all sides of the political spectrum, which only makes sense.
So does that mean we need to paint all people with the same broad brush, simply because they happen to have a some basic points in common? Or that we need to waste our time debunking the crazies?? Of course not. And yet the Bullmoose clearly spends more time denouncing small-time liberal “haters” than addressing his problems with the Republican president. And while he pays lip service to the idea that there are also rightwing crazies, it’s only to justify his attacks against the lefty ones.
Here was the first line I had quoted of Bullmoose:
The Moose does not hate George W. Bush. That is a very controversial statement in almost all of the left and in much of the Democratic Party.
Now, come fucking on. Even beyond the idiotic third-person device, that’s not a serious statement. It’s an insult. A cheap insult designed to make Moose feel superior to the people who keep proving him wrong. I mean, nobody hates the Moose because he doesn’t hate Bush. We hate the Moose because he’s an insulting twit who is helping to screw up our country. Much like the man Moose doesn’t hate. But instead of acknowledging our position or ignoring us, he lobs another of Rove’s insults at us. Great.
Dueling Monologues
And that’s about what I wrote at the time, saying:
And what serious person could believe such nonsense? Sure, there are lefties who supposedly ascribe to the “Bush hatred” idea, but I don’t believe them. Because the word “hatred” typically means that the feelings are irrational. And there are too many good, rational reasons to not like Bush. You don’t even have to be paying attention and you’ll quickly be offended by what he does. So I just don’t see exactly what the problem is with not liking the dude. But if this is what passes for “hatred” these days, then I believe the intelligent position is to hate Bush.
Now I’ll admit that it was a damn long post, but that was only the third paragraph I wrote, and was clearly the main point. And yet, my commenter writes:
Hey, the issue is not whether or not someone disagrees with Bush--it's whether or not someone HATES him. The rhetoric of HATE comes from both sides, and is totally counter-productive. Hate is a personal issue, not a political one, and it has no place in constructive dialog
Constructive dialogue? How about trying to read what someone writes before disagreeing with them? How’s that for the opening of dialogue? Call me crazy, but I think that if you’re not listening to the other side, then it’s only a monologue.
I don’t mean to be picking on my commenters. God knows I have so few of them, and I suppose this might be just the reason. But this really sums-up the problem with these centrist “non-haters”. Because they’re just being used as tools by the Republicans, and continue to slowdown their own team. I mean, who gives a shit if we hate Bush? Why should that matter? Shouldn’t it be about what we say, not the reasons we say it?
Of course. The whole “Bush Hater” line was a ruse devised by the Whitehouse as a catch-all to attack Bush’s critics and put them on the defensive. No longer are these disagreers. They’re irrational haters. But this wasn’t a valid argument. It wasn’t even intended as a direct insult against the so-called haters. The real purpose was to convince “centrist” Dems that they need to distance themselves from the “crazies” on the left. And to do that, they had to insult the “haters” and constantly denounce them and convince them to come down from the ledge. And only after they got their liberal ducks in a row could they finally take-on the extremists on the other side. It was like a never-ending primary for a general election that never happened.
And so they’ve spent the last six years attacking us and trying to get us to shut-up, so they can finally get down to criticizing Bush. Because as long as us “haters” are denouncing Bush, these guys can’t. And the centrists adopted the line all the way. And by doing so, they are doing Bush’s dirty work for him. The centrists continue to slander millions of Bush’s harshest critics, and by doing so, have only enabled him in his quest to divide the nation to his advantage. And they dare to blame us for this polarization.
Anti-Bush Forces
The Washington Post’s dope-in-chief Richard Cohen admitted to this in his embarrassing review of Fahrenheit 9/11, writing (emphasis added):
The case against Bush need not and should not rest on guilt by association or half-baked conspiracy theories, which collapse at the first double take but reinforce the fervor of those already convinced. The success of Moore's movie, though, suggests this is happening -- a dialogue in which anti-Bush forces talk to themselves and do so in a way that puts off others. I found that happening to me in the run-up to the war, when I spent more time and energy arguing with those who said the war was about oil (no!) or Israel (no!) or something just as silly than I did questioning the stated reasons for invading Iraq -- weapons of mass destruction and Hussein's links to Osama bin Laden. This was stupid of me, but human nature nonetheless.
That’s right. A supposedly respectable journalist actually wrote that in a bigtime newspaper. That the reason he didn’t question the most important assertions in modern history was because he was too busy fending off the unimportant crazies on his own side. Needless to say, Cohen did not actually collapse any conspiracy theories in that column. Instead, he just stated that it was easily done while insulting millions of Democrats and insinuating a few falsehoods of his own. Stupid, indeed.
But maybe he’s right. Perhaps it was my anti-war posts on the Yahoo messageboards in early ’03 that were to blame for making Cohen say this of Colin Powell’s career-ruining presentation to the UN:
The evidence he presented to the United Nations -- some of it circumstantial, some of it absolutely bone-chilling in its detail -- had to prove to anyone that Iraq not only hasn't accounted for its weapons of mass destruction but without a doubt still retains them. Only a fool -- or possibly a Frenchman -- could conclude otherwise.
Sacre bleu! If only I hadn’t already said that Bush was lying, Cohen would have been a touch more diligent about Powell’s bogus presentation. Talk about bone-chilling.
And here he is in September 2004 explaining why he can’t be a true blue Democrat:
In fact, Bush haters go so far they wind up adding a dash of red to my blue, pushing me by revulsion into a color I otherwise would not have.
Interestingly, Cohen started by explaining why he’s not a blue or a red stater, but rather a purple state of his own. And then spends one paragraph saying why he doesn’t like Bush’s policies, and the remaining five paragraphs explaining why he personally dislikes the Bush Haters, and how folks who merely disagree with Bush but don’t hate him are not blue staters, but purple ones, like himself. Color me unimpressed.
And here he is still blaming the crazies several years into Bush’s presidency, as this column from March shows, where he has to first mock the “Bush lied” people, before concluding that he finally caught Bush in a lie. (Bravo, Mr. Cohen.)
But why was it necessary for him to do that? Why did he admittedly spend so much energy fighting his own side, rather than combating the real danger in his backyard? It’s for the same reason why almost all of the bigtime “liberal” pundits had to denounce Fahrenheit 9/11, Michael Moore, and almost anyone left of the DLC. Because they had become convinced that they had to disassociate themselves from the freaks before they could be taken seriously. And to do that, they had to spend a lot of time, energy, insults, and generalizations to publicly denounce these people whenever they got the chance. And for that, they blame the lefties they attacked.
Circular Backstab
And that’s exactly how the Whitehouse planned it, and it’s still working. “Centrists” have to constantly backstab their own people to prove their non-hatred for Bush, despite the fact that we’ve been explaining this to them for years. Sometimes we say that it’s not hatred and sometimes we say that the hatred isn’t irrational; but it all works out to being the same thing. This is a trick. They were tricked, and they’re still tricked. And so they spend five paragraphs of precious newspaper column to denounce the people they agree with on most issues.
But they don’t need to denounce us. They don’t need to insult us. They don’t even need to notice us if they don’t want to. But if they feel they must address us, they could surely do so without impugning our motives or slandering us with Rove’s beloved slur. Even one “Bush Hater” line is too many. They continually denounce the vilification of enemies by vilifying their so-called allies. And yet they rarely hurl this charge directly at anyone. Michael Moore got blasted in that column I cited, and yet Cohen never directly labels Moore a “hater”. They just keep using the same line denouncing generic “Bush Haters” that Rove gave them.
And now I’ve got this on my commentboard. Again, I’m not trying to pick on one of my few commenters. I just can’t help it. Had he read my post and understood what I wrote, he wouldn’t have said what he did. But he couldn’t bother. I quoted the Bullmoose in yet another of his anti-Bush-Hater idiocies, and this guy had to defend him. Not because I said anything wrong. But because he believed the Bullmoose hadn’t said anything wrong and I had disagreed with him. And that meant that I hadn’t understood the Moose’s delicate point of denouncing large swaths of generic people for having the wrong motives.
But I did understand and the Moose was wrong, for the reasons I said before. Bush hatred is a red herring. And unfortunately for Democrats, that’s about the only fish the DLC’s bait is any good at catching anymore. But I guess that’s somehow our fault too.
Monday, September 11, 2006
Long Live King Taufa'ahau Tupou IV
To answer your questions, yes, I once again got passed over for the position of King of Tonga, Polynesia’s last monarchy. But before you get all irate and do something stupid, I’ll just tell you up front that I really was to blame this time. I misread the situation on the ground and said a few things that I probably should not have. For instance, Polynesia is not a form of geometrical vomit. Now I know.
So just save the protests. I’ve decided to fully back Prince Tupouto’a’s ascendancy, and I beg of you to do the same. I know that all of you have very strong feelings about this, but I refuse to allow a repeat of what happened last time. Our time will come. And if nothing else, I’m still working to return the Hawaiian monarchy to its proper place, with me as its rightful ruler. I’ve never actually been to Hawaii, but I hear it’s lovely. Wish me luck.
So just save the protests. I’ve decided to fully back Prince Tupouto’a’s ascendancy, and I beg of you to do the same. I know that all of you have very strong feelings about this, but I refuse to allow a repeat of what happened last time. Our time will come. And if nothing else, I’m still working to return the Hawaiian monarchy to its proper place, with me as its rightful ruler. I’ve never actually been to Hawaii, but I hear it’s lovely. Wish me luck.
Sunday, September 10, 2006
Because Food Tastes Good
Just so you scientists know, people don’t want a weight loss pill that suppresses their appetite. They all want one so that they can eat as much as they want and not gain weight. And an exercise pill would be great too. Not that I’m a glutton or lazy. But so that I can be. So get on that.
Cruise Ship Christ
(Once again as my standard disclaimer on the subject, I was raised Catholic and suffered through Sunday School for many years, which gives me the right to say anything I please about the religion. I paid my dues. Beyond that, I have few doubts that most Catholic priests would openly agree with 90% of this post, and are likely to privately agree with the rest. So save your blasphemies for someone else.)
Gee, big surprise the Catholics are having problems getting worshippers:
[Pope] Benedict gently rebuked the German church for putting social service projects and technical assistance to the poor ahead of spreading the Christian message. African bishops, he said, told him all doors were open to them in Germany when they wanted to talk about aid projects, but added they were greeted with reservations when it came to evangelization.
"Clearly, some people have the idea that social projects should be urgently undertaken, while anything dealing with God or even the Catholic faith is of limited and lesser importance," Benedict said.
He said that faith must come first, before progress can be made in social problems, such as the AIDS epidemic in Africa. "Hearts must be converted if progress is to be made on social issues and reconciliation is to begin, and if — for example, AIDS is to be combated by realistically facing its deeper causes."
Now, is it just me, or is this an implicit threat from the Pope? As if he’s saying that the Church doesn’t want to help folks until they convert first. That could certainly be one understanding of what he’s saying. Or at the least, that the Church can’t really help until you convert, which could surely be an excuse to deny that help.
And even if he doesn’t mean that at all and insists that services shouldn’t be withheld to non-believers, I still find this to be a troubling message. That the Church comes before helping people. And that the problems of poor people should take a backseat while they try to increase church membership. Because I most certainly do believe that the Catholic faith should be of lesser importance than helping people, and I suspect that many others would agree, including most Catholics. The Pope may mean well, but his message really does sound a tad bit selfish.
The God of Niche
Especially as he’s got it entirely backwards. You get more followers by giving them more services and showing good deeds. To give people a reason to invest their energies in God. And the reason why religion is on an eternal wane isn’t because they’re giving away their services for free, or because of some modern movement conspiring against them; but because people just don’t need religion as they once did. Even here in a relatively religious country like America, people don’t use religion as they once did.
Where once God permeated throughout everyone’s life and was interwoven with the social and governmental fabric, people now use God to fill in the blanks for how they’d like things to be. Or to justify their feelings of superiority over others. Or to provide a sense of order in a seemingly unordered world. Or to justify one’s own unjustifiable actions and attitudes (eg, the whole anti-gay thing). Or all kinds of little niche functions, rather than the all-encompassing “He’s everywhere and everything” model folks used to have. They still the say words, but they obviously don’t apply.
But the rules never changed. The reason people used to have the more all-encompassing God is because they needed that. Because they didn’t have much else. They couldn’t predict the weather. Health and sickness were seemingly random events. And things occurred for no apparent reason. But thanks to science and other modern innovations, those services have been filled by far more reliable alternatives. So this isn’t some new development, but an obvious turn of events that cannot be prevented.
If I can go to a doctor to cure my sickness, then God becomes little more than an unpredictable back-up medicine. And so it is with everything else. They still pray. But the few who rely solely on that mechanism are usually castigated and sometimes taken to court for those beliefs. Even the Pope needs a doctor.
Part-Time God
And yet the church thinks that some group or evil line of rhetoric is to blame, and that they just have to do enough of their own evangelism and everything will work out. But it won’t. People who don’t need alot don’t need God much either. And as long as people’s needs are taken care of, they’ll have less need for God. And that seems to be exactly what the Pope seems to be saying with this.
Even the supposed increase in religious belief after 9/11 completely confirms this idea. People turned to God in a time of need, and they will abandon him as that need dissipates. The more hostile the world is, the more we need a Big Daddy to smooth things out for us. And now the Pope seems to be suggesting that we allow things to get alittle worse before the Church will start making things better. As if we need to temporarily slow-down our services to the poor until after more people rely on the Church for them. Now that I think about it, that’s the Bush Plan too.
But again, it won’t work. Because many of the people who see themselves as being devoutly religious are the exact niche-people I’m talking about. They think of God when they need him, and as time passes, that’s becoming increasingly rare. They might have God for an hour during Mass, but that won’t impact their ungodly actions while stuck in traffic on the way home. Because God has become about churches and symbols, and when people are faced with problems, they generally turn to their own resources. Though that’s not to say they won’t use God’s name to blasphemously justify any decision they make. Only that the God justification came later.
Overall, people have become more self-reliant; and that bodes ill for a jealous and demanding god whose powers are limited to helping the desperately needy. The Pope laments that Africa and Asia are more fervently religious than Europe; and yet that just makes the most obvious sense. They need God more than we do. And as their needs go away, so will their need for God. And again, a cynic might suggest that this concept hasn’t eluded the Vatican either. And I might be that cynic.
Social Clubs
And sure, there still are religious people here in America who really do devote their lives full-time to God. Who still see God as their sole purpose, rather than a hobby they dabble in occasionally. But those people are becoming more and more rare, to the point that they’re seen as oddities, even by other religious people.
Despite the typical denunciations of atheists for belittling religion, intolerance of other religions is an age-old practice among Christians. In fact, of all the religious practices that have survived into our modern age, the belittling of other religions is still strongest. And I suppose, if you think you’ve got the one true religion, then it would just make sense to mock the people who waste their time handling snakes or needlessly avoiding caffeine, believing that it doesn’t do a damn thing to get them any closer to God. It’s only when it comes to their own beliefs that people start getting uppity about religious intolerance.
And for most people, God has become but a minor obligation in their lives. They consider themselves very religious and might even go to church each week and pray each night. But that’s generally the extent of their belief. They do the smallest amount they think is required and then turn to Him when they need a little assistance; which often is limited to asking for help on a test or getting a little nookie from a well-liked girl.
Even the Eternal Mystery of God has now been relegated to use as a “Get Out of Argument Free” card; a catch-all explanation for why even they can’t explain their holy position on an issue. A nicer way of saying “I’d like to explain it to you, but we’re both too dumb to understand.” Call me crazy, but I find such explanations to be a tad less than satisfactory.
Pew Warmers
Over time, church attendance has become the last bastion of God’s once-omnipotent tendrils; and even that’s on the wane. “Believers” go because they feel they must. Not even necessarily because they think God requires it, but more out of habit. Because they’ve just always done it and have it ingrained that this is something they need to do. As if their warm body heating up a pew is all God really wanted from us. I guess those big churches can get quite drafty.
And for the rest of it, church service is little more than a social event. The place where your friends are. I’ve even known people who openly speak of church as a good way to network, for business purposes. Or as a place to see hot chicks dressed up in their Sunday best. But even many of the purists benefit more from the church’s social structure than it’s theological one.
And they have their pot lucks and fish fries, which are always great excuses for seeing friends. Growing up, that was the only part I liked about religion, anyway. I love fried fish. And if they do some social service that actually helps other people in the process, all the better. But as the Pope said, that service comes second. And that it’s more important for these people to convert more friends. To expand the network.
And while Pope Ratzinger can hope that these efforts will help bring more people into God and into his churches, there is really only hope for the latter. Good social circles are hard to come by in these relatively nomadic and isolated days, and that aspect of religion might never pass. But a lot of bad stuff would have to happen in Europe and America before these people start needing God in any kind of full-time capacity.
Rather than Lord & Savior, it looks like God has been demoted to a position as Social Director of the Cruise Ship Christ. And I’m not so sure that religious leaders necessarily have a problem with that. After all, a warm pew is better than no pew at all.
Gee, big surprise the Catholics are having problems getting worshippers:
[Pope] Benedict gently rebuked the German church for putting social service projects and technical assistance to the poor ahead of spreading the Christian message. African bishops, he said, told him all doors were open to them in Germany when they wanted to talk about aid projects, but added they were greeted with reservations when it came to evangelization.
"Clearly, some people have the idea that social projects should be urgently undertaken, while anything dealing with God or even the Catholic faith is of limited and lesser importance," Benedict said.
He said that faith must come first, before progress can be made in social problems, such as the AIDS epidemic in Africa. "Hearts must be converted if progress is to be made on social issues and reconciliation is to begin, and if — for example, AIDS is to be combated by realistically facing its deeper causes."
Now, is it just me, or is this an implicit threat from the Pope? As if he’s saying that the Church doesn’t want to help folks until they convert first. That could certainly be one understanding of what he’s saying. Or at the least, that the Church can’t really help until you convert, which could surely be an excuse to deny that help.
And even if he doesn’t mean that at all and insists that services shouldn’t be withheld to non-believers, I still find this to be a troubling message. That the Church comes before helping people. And that the problems of poor people should take a backseat while they try to increase church membership. Because I most certainly do believe that the Catholic faith should be of lesser importance than helping people, and I suspect that many others would agree, including most Catholics. The Pope may mean well, but his message really does sound a tad bit selfish.
The God of Niche
Especially as he’s got it entirely backwards. You get more followers by giving them more services and showing good deeds. To give people a reason to invest their energies in God. And the reason why religion is on an eternal wane isn’t because they’re giving away their services for free, or because of some modern movement conspiring against them; but because people just don’t need religion as they once did. Even here in a relatively religious country like America, people don’t use religion as they once did.
Where once God permeated throughout everyone’s life and was interwoven with the social and governmental fabric, people now use God to fill in the blanks for how they’d like things to be. Or to justify their feelings of superiority over others. Or to provide a sense of order in a seemingly unordered world. Or to justify one’s own unjustifiable actions and attitudes (eg, the whole anti-gay thing). Or all kinds of little niche functions, rather than the all-encompassing “He’s everywhere and everything” model folks used to have. They still the say words, but they obviously don’t apply.
But the rules never changed. The reason people used to have the more all-encompassing God is because they needed that. Because they didn’t have much else. They couldn’t predict the weather. Health and sickness were seemingly random events. And things occurred for no apparent reason. But thanks to science and other modern innovations, those services have been filled by far more reliable alternatives. So this isn’t some new development, but an obvious turn of events that cannot be prevented.
If I can go to a doctor to cure my sickness, then God becomes little more than an unpredictable back-up medicine. And so it is with everything else. They still pray. But the few who rely solely on that mechanism are usually castigated and sometimes taken to court for those beliefs. Even the Pope needs a doctor.
Part-Time God
And yet the church thinks that some group or evil line of rhetoric is to blame, and that they just have to do enough of their own evangelism and everything will work out. But it won’t. People who don’t need alot don’t need God much either. And as long as people’s needs are taken care of, they’ll have less need for God. And that seems to be exactly what the Pope seems to be saying with this.
Even the supposed increase in religious belief after 9/11 completely confirms this idea. People turned to God in a time of need, and they will abandon him as that need dissipates. The more hostile the world is, the more we need a Big Daddy to smooth things out for us. And now the Pope seems to be suggesting that we allow things to get alittle worse before the Church will start making things better. As if we need to temporarily slow-down our services to the poor until after more people rely on the Church for them. Now that I think about it, that’s the Bush Plan too.
But again, it won’t work. Because many of the people who see themselves as being devoutly religious are the exact niche-people I’m talking about. They think of God when they need him, and as time passes, that’s becoming increasingly rare. They might have God for an hour during Mass, but that won’t impact their ungodly actions while stuck in traffic on the way home. Because God has become about churches and symbols, and when people are faced with problems, they generally turn to their own resources. Though that’s not to say they won’t use God’s name to blasphemously justify any decision they make. Only that the God justification came later.
Overall, people have become more self-reliant; and that bodes ill for a jealous and demanding god whose powers are limited to helping the desperately needy. The Pope laments that Africa and Asia are more fervently religious than Europe; and yet that just makes the most obvious sense. They need God more than we do. And as their needs go away, so will their need for God. And again, a cynic might suggest that this concept hasn’t eluded the Vatican either. And I might be that cynic.
Social Clubs
And sure, there still are religious people here in America who really do devote their lives full-time to God. Who still see God as their sole purpose, rather than a hobby they dabble in occasionally. But those people are becoming more and more rare, to the point that they’re seen as oddities, even by other religious people.
Despite the typical denunciations of atheists for belittling religion, intolerance of other religions is an age-old practice among Christians. In fact, of all the religious practices that have survived into our modern age, the belittling of other religions is still strongest. And I suppose, if you think you’ve got the one true religion, then it would just make sense to mock the people who waste their time handling snakes or needlessly avoiding caffeine, believing that it doesn’t do a damn thing to get them any closer to God. It’s only when it comes to their own beliefs that people start getting uppity about religious intolerance.
And for most people, God has become but a minor obligation in their lives. They consider themselves very religious and might even go to church each week and pray each night. But that’s generally the extent of their belief. They do the smallest amount they think is required and then turn to Him when they need a little assistance; which often is limited to asking for help on a test or getting a little nookie from a well-liked girl.
Even the Eternal Mystery of God has now been relegated to use as a “Get Out of Argument Free” card; a catch-all explanation for why even they can’t explain their holy position on an issue. A nicer way of saying “I’d like to explain it to you, but we’re both too dumb to understand.” Call me crazy, but I find such explanations to be a tad less than satisfactory.
Pew Warmers
Over time, church attendance has become the last bastion of God’s once-omnipotent tendrils; and even that’s on the wane. “Believers” go because they feel they must. Not even necessarily because they think God requires it, but more out of habit. Because they’ve just always done it and have it ingrained that this is something they need to do. As if their warm body heating up a pew is all God really wanted from us. I guess those big churches can get quite drafty.
And for the rest of it, church service is little more than a social event. The place where your friends are. I’ve even known people who openly speak of church as a good way to network, for business purposes. Or as a place to see hot chicks dressed up in their Sunday best. But even many of the purists benefit more from the church’s social structure than it’s theological one.
And they have their pot lucks and fish fries, which are always great excuses for seeing friends. Growing up, that was the only part I liked about religion, anyway. I love fried fish. And if they do some social service that actually helps other people in the process, all the better. But as the Pope said, that service comes second. And that it’s more important for these people to convert more friends. To expand the network.
And while Pope Ratzinger can hope that these efforts will help bring more people into God and into his churches, there is really only hope for the latter. Good social circles are hard to come by in these relatively nomadic and isolated days, and that aspect of religion might never pass. But a lot of bad stuff would have to happen in Europe and America before these people start needing God in any kind of full-time capacity.
Rather than Lord & Savior, it looks like God has been demoted to a position as Social Director of the Cruise Ship Christ. And I’m not so sure that religious leaders necessarily have a problem with that. After all, a warm pew is better than no pew at all.
Saturday, September 09, 2006
Disney Needs to Know
It doesn’t happen often, but it looks like I’m going to have to pull rank on Digby again. Writing of the whole Disney 9/11 docusham, Digby ends with:
And then it's also possible they knew exactly what they were doing. Nowrasteh says they called him in in November of 2004. Disney ABC and Platt may have felt in that moment of GOP triumph that there was no possible downside to blaming the Democrats for 9/11. It looked like the smart play. Two years later it looks like a debacle of epic proportions.
And I appreciate the speculative nature of this, but really can’t see this as being very possible. Corporate executives are not ideologues and only care about politics as far as it gets them what they want. But even in the shadow of the 2004 elections, it’s unlikely that they’d have gone for such a partisan movie. Because a heavily partisan movie with many important and provably false “facts” is never in a serious film company’s best interests. A right-leaning movie wouldn’t necessarily hurt them, but an openly fraudulent one would.
But as I said before, they probably are Republicans, only in that Republicans most closely match the interests of these kinds of people. And they probably did want a Republican movie, but they really didn’t know how Republican they were getting. Because these Hollywood-types are not conservatives. They like Bush and support many of his policies (eg, annual taxcuts), but they don’t have the big agenda that conservatives have. And they don’t really see that big agenda, which they’d probably object to. So they consulted a few conservatives and were given the name of a trusted director, and had assumed they’d be getting a relatively honest work.
And it’s important to remember that they probably weren’t as focused on putting this before the election, but rather, putting it on September 11. A serious work that would show how serious they could be. They had ordered a movie based on the 9/11 Commission report, and that’s what the imagined they were getting. Because they haven’t yet learned that some Republicans prefer something more than money. The conservatives have got a message to sell.
Trusting Republicans
Because Republicans are not supposed to be the biased loonies. We are. To much of America, we’re the wacko extremist loons who can’t keep our partisanship in our trousers. Whipping it around and blasting everyone with our ideological zeal, so to speak. That’s what these people really believe. Not just Republicans, but folks who consider themselves to be moderate or centrist Democrats. They’ve been told that liberals are the partisan loons and that Republicans are responsible and sane. And despite all the deeds of the past decade, they continue to believe this.
These aren’t necessarily Fox News watchers, but CNN watchers. And even then, are likely to only follow the news when the scaremongering gets high. But they have the same attitude as CNN, and CNN hates us too and does have a certain affection for Republicans. Sure, they may lean towards the Democratic side on many of the issues, but they like Republicans personally.
To them, Republicans are supposed to be the principled and truthful ones, which is probably what Disney thought they were hiring. Even Walter Cronkite and Dan Rather had opinions, which they were able to suppress when delivering the news. And that’s what Disney thought they were getting.
And so even though they knew they were getting rightwingers, they just assumed that they’d be honest rightwingers. That they’d tell the story properly. And seeing as how the director and that other dude continue to insist this is a fair and honest movie, despite all the clear indications to the contrary; there can be few doubts that this is exactly what they told Disney too. Because these guys sound reasonable, at least when they’re talking to the straight media. They know the right words to say. They acted as if this was based on the 9/11 report, which is apparently the film Disney had requested them to make. And the Disney-ABC execs didn’t have the understanding to know when the film was differing from that report; because they’d never read it and kept getting assurances that the film was faithful to it.
Secret Agendas
And this is what we see repeatedly with Republicans. They may be batshit crazy inside, but they have just enough connection to reality to understand which things would sound batshit crazy if they actually said them to a straight audience. That’s what they use pollsters for, to learn the right words to use to sell their agenda. And so they invent cover stories to hide what their real motives are. And that’s exactly what we’ve been seeing with this movie, and probably what the filmmakers told Disney.
And that’s what makes our protests all the more important. Not because Disney’s a secret hard-right organization out to screw the Dems. But because they’re a mainstream company with a decent reputation which needs to understand that you’ll get burned when you play with fire. They thought they could trust Republicans to make a fair movie. They thought they could make a special appeal to rightwingers, who would be the audience most thrilled by a 9/11 movie. And they need to know what a bad, bad mistake it is to trust their movies to unknown conservatives with hidden agendas.
We all know that. We’ve been paying attention for the past fifty years. And it’s time that Disney learned that too. Republicans are not to be trusted with Hollywood. Because when they insist that people can’t separate their biases from the truth and that biased people can think they’re being honest when they’re not; they speak from experience. Disney’s got to learn.
And then it's also possible they knew exactly what they were doing. Nowrasteh says they called him in in November of 2004. Disney ABC and Platt may have felt in that moment of GOP triumph that there was no possible downside to blaming the Democrats for 9/11. It looked like the smart play. Two years later it looks like a debacle of epic proportions.
And I appreciate the speculative nature of this, but really can’t see this as being very possible. Corporate executives are not ideologues and only care about politics as far as it gets them what they want. But even in the shadow of the 2004 elections, it’s unlikely that they’d have gone for such a partisan movie. Because a heavily partisan movie with many important and provably false “facts” is never in a serious film company’s best interests. A right-leaning movie wouldn’t necessarily hurt them, but an openly fraudulent one would.
But as I said before, they probably are Republicans, only in that Republicans most closely match the interests of these kinds of people. And they probably did want a Republican movie, but they really didn’t know how Republican they were getting. Because these Hollywood-types are not conservatives. They like Bush and support many of his policies (eg, annual taxcuts), but they don’t have the big agenda that conservatives have. And they don’t really see that big agenda, which they’d probably object to. So they consulted a few conservatives and were given the name of a trusted director, and had assumed they’d be getting a relatively honest work.
And it’s important to remember that they probably weren’t as focused on putting this before the election, but rather, putting it on September 11. A serious work that would show how serious they could be. They had ordered a movie based on the 9/11 Commission report, and that’s what the imagined they were getting. Because they haven’t yet learned that some Republicans prefer something more than money. The conservatives have got a message to sell.
Trusting Republicans
Because Republicans are not supposed to be the biased loonies. We are. To much of America, we’re the wacko extremist loons who can’t keep our partisanship in our trousers. Whipping it around and blasting everyone with our ideological zeal, so to speak. That’s what these people really believe. Not just Republicans, but folks who consider themselves to be moderate or centrist Democrats. They’ve been told that liberals are the partisan loons and that Republicans are responsible and sane. And despite all the deeds of the past decade, they continue to believe this.
These aren’t necessarily Fox News watchers, but CNN watchers. And even then, are likely to only follow the news when the scaremongering gets high. But they have the same attitude as CNN, and CNN hates us too and does have a certain affection for Republicans. Sure, they may lean towards the Democratic side on many of the issues, but they like Republicans personally.
To them, Republicans are supposed to be the principled and truthful ones, which is probably what Disney thought they were hiring. Even Walter Cronkite and Dan Rather had opinions, which they were able to suppress when delivering the news. And that’s what Disney thought they were getting.
And so even though they knew they were getting rightwingers, they just assumed that they’d be honest rightwingers. That they’d tell the story properly. And seeing as how the director and that other dude continue to insist this is a fair and honest movie, despite all the clear indications to the contrary; there can be few doubts that this is exactly what they told Disney too. Because these guys sound reasonable, at least when they’re talking to the straight media. They know the right words to say. They acted as if this was based on the 9/11 report, which is apparently the film Disney had requested them to make. And the Disney-ABC execs didn’t have the understanding to know when the film was differing from that report; because they’d never read it and kept getting assurances that the film was faithful to it.
Secret Agendas
And this is what we see repeatedly with Republicans. They may be batshit crazy inside, but they have just enough connection to reality to understand which things would sound batshit crazy if they actually said them to a straight audience. That’s what they use pollsters for, to learn the right words to use to sell their agenda. And so they invent cover stories to hide what their real motives are. And that’s exactly what we’ve been seeing with this movie, and probably what the filmmakers told Disney.
And that’s what makes our protests all the more important. Not because Disney’s a secret hard-right organization out to screw the Dems. But because they’re a mainstream company with a decent reputation which needs to understand that you’ll get burned when you play with fire. They thought they could trust Republicans to make a fair movie. They thought they could make a special appeal to rightwingers, who would be the audience most thrilled by a 9/11 movie. And they need to know what a bad, bad mistake it is to trust their movies to unknown conservatives with hidden agendas.
We all know that. We’ve been paying attention for the past fifty years. And it’s time that Disney learned that too. Republicans are not to be trusted with Hollywood. Because when they insist that people can’t separate their biases from the truth and that biased people can think they’re being honest when they’re not; they speak from experience. Disney’s got to learn.
Friday, September 08, 2006
Blame Clinton First
Something else I don’t understand about the attacks on Clinton’s hunt for Bin Laden. They all insist he should have done more, often going as far as to suggest that Clinton could have invaded Afghanistan, as Bush did. But Bush did all that. Bush pushed this idea very far. And yet he still didn’t capture Bin Laden. And remember, Bush had no plans to invade Afghanistan before 9/11, and appeared to be reluctant about doing so afterwards. Which is probably one big reason he did such a crappy job at it.
But the main point is clear, Bush did all these things they said Clinton should have done, and more. A lot more. They insist that Bush requires powers that they would never have granted Clinton, and they’re even happy that Bush took them without permission. And yet Bush didn’t catch Bin Laden. And even if Bin Laden some day turns up, it’s unlikely that Bush will deserve any of the credit. It’ll be the Pakistanis who will capture him, and they’re obviously reluctant to do that. So where the hell do they come off blaming Clinton for things that Bush couldn’t do under better conditions?
And that’s just something I don’t understand. Because there is something implicit in these attacks against Clinton which pretends as if Bush caught the guy. And he didn’t. He invaded Afghanistan. He invaded Iraq. He even looked cross at Pakistan before totally folding and allowing them to get away with stuff they shouldn’t have. And then he mocked our civil liberties while using the Constitution as Kleenex.
And then there was this whole “Bush Doctrine” thing of declaring war on anyone who isn’t doing enough to help us kill all the terrorists and potential terrorists; which was naturally supposed to flush Osama and all the other terrorists out. And nothing worked. And these were certainly not tools that Clinton had at his disposal. He could not have declared the right to preemptively attack any country. He could not have invaded Afghanistan or Iraq, and he has the same track record as Bush in regards to catching Bin Laden. So what the hell? And do I even need to mention that terrorism is even worse now? I didn’t think so.
Yet, let’s keep blaming Clinton. I heard he even had OBL holed-up in a porta-potty with fifty nuclear weapons pointed right at the dude’s head, but Clinton was too busy raping the Statue of Liberty to bother pressing the button. It’s true. It’s all true. And I’ve got the historians to prove it.
But the main point is clear, Bush did all these things they said Clinton should have done, and more. A lot more. They insist that Bush requires powers that they would never have granted Clinton, and they’re even happy that Bush took them without permission. And yet Bush didn’t catch Bin Laden. And even if Bin Laden some day turns up, it’s unlikely that Bush will deserve any of the credit. It’ll be the Pakistanis who will capture him, and they’re obviously reluctant to do that. So where the hell do they come off blaming Clinton for things that Bush couldn’t do under better conditions?
And that’s just something I don’t understand. Because there is something implicit in these attacks against Clinton which pretends as if Bush caught the guy. And he didn’t. He invaded Afghanistan. He invaded Iraq. He even looked cross at Pakistan before totally folding and allowing them to get away with stuff they shouldn’t have. And then he mocked our civil liberties while using the Constitution as Kleenex.
And then there was this whole “Bush Doctrine” thing of declaring war on anyone who isn’t doing enough to help us kill all the terrorists and potential terrorists; which was naturally supposed to flush Osama and all the other terrorists out. And nothing worked. And these were certainly not tools that Clinton had at his disposal. He could not have declared the right to preemptively attack any country. He could not have invaded Afghanistan or Iraq, and he has the same track record as Bush in regards to catching Bin Laden. So what the hell? And do I even need to mention that terrorism is even worse now? I didn’t think so.
Yet, let’s keep blaming Clinton. I heard he even had OBL holed-up in a porta-potty with fifty nuclear weapons pointed right at the dude’s head, but Clinton was too busy raping the Statue of Liberty to bother pressing the button. It’s true. It’s all true. And I’ve got the historians to prove it.
Snowing Disney
I stand by my claim that Disney didn’t really know what they were doing. Sure, there were probably right-leaning individuals involved in approving and overseeing this project. But as I said before, they’re mostly going to be marketing-type people, who are so focused on scamming others that they don’t notice when they’re getting scammed. Because that’s apparently one of the easiest ways to get ahead in life. And it best explains why Disney got totally snowed on this project.
And so they were conned into thinking they were getting a fair and honest program, and didn’t have the knowledge or inclination to learn otherwise. I’m sure they knew it would be at least somewhat right-leaning, but they had no idea how right that goes. To them, producing such a movie would have been either left-leaning or right-leaning, and they decided to pick the one with the least amount of power and which has a better reputation for paying lip service to 9/11. Again, these people really don’t understand the issues. They don’t read blogs. And it’s terribly unlikely they read the 9/11 Commission report. I mean, I never read the damn thing and I do understand the issues and read blogs. They were told it was mostly based on the 9/11 Commission report and had no reason to believe otherwise.
So these dopes thought they had a keen idea and must have put out at least a few feelers to know that the GOP, as official purveyors of 9/11, would approve of this project. And sure, they must have known of some risk that they might offend people with their depiction of that dreadful day. But they received assurance after assurance from the filmmakers that this would be well researched and honest and they refused to question further. People who already have the answer they want rarely keep asking questions.
And even the filmmakers themselves may have believed the pap they produced. Almost all rightwingers are pulling a con job on us at some level, but underneath it all, they really are believers. They really do believe that Clinton was responsible for 9/11, and are willing to acknowledge that perhaps there were a few things during Bush’s very brief time in office that he could have done differently. Like, say, not have vacationed the entire month before the attack. Or not ignored reports that said such an attack was imminent while on that month-long vacation. And some may even criticize Bush’s post-9/11 actions, like the fact that he screwed up everything and did nothing right.
But that’s just nitpicking. Both presidents are shown to be at fault, with almost all of the blame resting entirely on Clinton. But don’t worry. Even the Bushies will find something to complain about. They always do.
And so they were conned into thinking they were getting a fair and honest program, and didn’t have the knowledge or inclination to learn otherwise. I’m sure they knew it would be at least somewhat right-leaning, but they had no idea how right that goes. To them, producing such a movie would have been either left-leaning or right-leaning, and they decided to pick the one with the least amount of power and which has a better reputation for paying lip service to 9/11. Again, these people really don’t understand the issues. They don’t read blogs. And it’s terribly unlikely they read the 9/11 Commission report. I mean, I never read the damn thing and I do understand the issues and read blogs. They were told it was mostly based on the 9/11 Commission report and had no reason to believe otherwise.
So these dopes thought they had a keen idea and must have put out at least a few feelers to know that the GOP, as official purveyors of 9/11, would approve of this project. And sure, they must have known of some risk that they might offend people with their depiction of that dreadful day. But they received assurance after assurance from the filmmakers that this would be well researched and honest and they refused to question further. People who already have the answer they want rarely keep asking questions.
And even the filmmakers themselves may have believed the pap they produced. Almost all rightwingers are pulling a con job on us at some level, but underneath it all, they really are believers. They really do believe that Clinton was responsible for 9/11, and are willing to acknowledge that perhaps there were a few things during Bush’s very brief time in office that he could have done differently. Like, say, not have vacationed the entire month before the attack. Or not ignored reports that said such an attack was imminent while on that month-long vacation. And some may even criticize Bush’s post-9/11 actions, like the fact that he screwed up everything and did nothing right.
But that’s just nitpicking. Both presidents are shown to be at fault, with almost all of the blame resting entirely on Clinton. But don’t worry. Even the Bushies will find something to complain about. They always do.
Thursday, September 07, 2006
Opportunistic Failures
Speaking of Disney’s 9/11 docufantasy, I just read this from rightwing conman Joe Scarborough:
But at the same time, doesn’t history show that Bill Clinton had several opportunities to go after bin Laden, but the President and his cabinet were afraid to do so because they may offend some people in the Arab world?
This is the kind of contradiction I just don’t understand from the right. They insist that Clinton was an opportunist jerkface who consistently used foreign policy to distract from his personal failings. Wag the dog, and all that? Right? Right?
And yet, what is this diehard insistence that Clinton had several opportunities to easily capture or kill Bin Laden but was too afraid to do it? Wouldn’t the death of Bin Laden have been a nice little treat for Clinton? Even before 9/11, Osama was an infamous enemy, the death of whom would have certainly benefited Clinton politically. So how can they explain why he wouldn’t have opportunistically taken advantage of the situation, if it were real?
I just can’t fathom this. Not that they’d have such contradictory attacks against Clinton, but that they’d be so oblivious to it for so long, and yet still consider themselves to be honest and principled. And the last straw is that they continue to insist that they didn’t viscerally hate Clinton, while insisting that we’re the irrational haters. It’s enough to make my blood boil, if I still used blood. But I guess if there weren’t conservatives out there, I’d have far fewer people to feel superior to; so I guess I can’t totally begrudge them their place in society.
But at the same time, doesn’t history show that Bill Clinton had several opportunities to go after bin Laden, but the President and his cabinet were afraid to do so because they may offend some people in the Arab world?
This is the kind of contradiction I just don’t understand from the right. They insist that Clinton was an opportunist jerkface who consistently used foreign policy to distract from his personal failings. Wag the dog, and all that? Right? Right?
And yet, what is this diehard insistence that Clinton had several opportunities to easily capture or kill Bin Laden but was too afraid to do it? Wouldn’t the death of Bin Laden have been a nice little treat for Clinton? Even before 9/11, Osama was an infamous enemy, the death of whom would have certainly benefited Clinton politically. So how can they explain why he wouldn’t have opportunistically taken advantage of the situation, if it were real?
I just can’t fathom this. Not that they’d have such contradictory attacks against Clinton, but that they’d be so oblivious to it for so long, and yet still consider themselves to be honest and principled. And the last straw is that they continue to insist that they didn’t viscerally hate Clinton, while insisting that we’re the irrational haters. It’s enough to make my blood boil, if I still used blood. But I guess if there weren’t conservatives out there, I’d have far fewer people to feel superior to; so I guess I can’t totally begrudge them their place in society.
Trashing Disney II
Oh, and as a follow-up to my last post. How totally likely is it that the ABC execs are so damn dumb that they wouldn’t have recognized factual errors or bias in their 9/11 movie? From my knowledge of the type of people who become successful in these types of corporations, I’d say it was highly likely. Heck, they probably believe the stuff themselves. Not that they’re partisan or ideologues. But because they’re just so damn dumb to not have read the 9/11 Commission Report or just about anything else on the subject. And when they saw it in the movie, they assumed it must be true.
These are marketing people, not terrorism scholars. They were sold a bill of goods by guys who were clearly trying to con them into believing this was an honest movie, and went to work marketing the movie they had. Sure, the creators had conservative backgrounds. But would you suggest that a liberal would automatically have made such a phony leftwing movie? Of course not. And the rightwingers would have howled in protest at the film, just as we’re howling.
And these corporate dopes don’t have the mental capability to understand that rightwingers just aren’t like that. They have to lie and bash Clinton. That’s just how they do things. And these ABC execs are probably much too worried about their own success to bother focusing on people who are trying to deceive them. Marketing people are the most gullible people in the world, and those are the types who are most to blame for bringing this atrocity to the air. I’m not necessarily suggesting that these guys aren’t Republican. I’m just saying that they’re only as Republican as they need to be. And had they had any inkling of the shitfest that they were stirring up, they would have left well enough alone.
And now they’re totally screwed. Again, as I said in my last post, it’s possible that they really are in on the fix and are openly shilling for the right. But I just don’t see it. I think they got conned and are just now figuring it out.
These are marketing people, not terrorism scholars. They were sold a bill of goods by guys who were clearly trying to con them into believing this was an honest movie, and went to work marketing the movie they had. Sure, the creators had conservative backgrounds. But would you suggest that a liberal would automatically have made such a phony leftwing movie? Of course not. And the rightwingers would have howled in protest at the film, just as we’re howling.
And these corporate dopes don’t have the mental capability to understand that rightwingers just aren’t like that. They have to lie and bash Clinton. That’s just how they do things. And these ABC execs are probably much too worried about their own success to bother focusing on people who are trying to deceive them. Marketing people are the most gullible people in the world, and those are the types who are most to blame for bringing this atrocity to the air. I’m not necessarily suggesting that these guys aren’t Republican. I’m just saying that they’re only as Republican as they need to be. And had they had any inkling of the shitfest that they were stirring up, they would have left well enough alone.
And now they’re totally screwed. Again, as I said in my last post, it’s possible that they really are in on the fix and are openly shilling for the right. But I just don’t see it. I think they got conned and are just now figuring it out.
Trashing Disney
One thing I’d like to know regarding this whole Disney 9/11 docufiction, Hugh Hewitt recently wrote about how the Disney execs were totally surprised by this assault on their rightwing propaganda film, because they were “dyed in the wool liberals and huge supporters of Clinton and the Democratic Party”. Did those execs agree with that? Because it really seems like a fairly backstabby thing for Hewitt to have done to his new buddies. I mean, here they are bending over backwards to provide anti-Dem claptrap weeks before the election, yet Hewitt turns around and calls them one of the harshest insults imaginable; at least as far as Hewitt’s audience is concerned. And it would completely undermine ABC’s efforts to woe rightwing viewers; which was the whole purpose of this silly movie.
The only possibility I can think is that this isn’t a marketing gimmick to persuade conservatives that ABC is the Fox News of television networks, but rather that they’re really in on some big conspiracy. Because they’d have to know that if ABC became the equivalent of Fox News that their credibility would go down the crapper and that it would just spoil the whole “They’re Out To Get Us” mantra that the conservatives have. So instead, we could see this as a “good cop, bad cop” scenario where ABC pretends to be liberal while secretly shilling for the right.
I have a hard time believing that. But I also have a hard time seeing why they’d ever trust Hugh Hewitt again, after he dished out his strongest insult on them repeatedly. Nor can I see why a relatively smart guy like Hewitt would make this mistake. I’ve always assumed that he wasn’t nearly loony as he pretends to be, but it seems like he’s making a big mistake by biting the hand that feeds him.
But then again, I really think that they’ve bungled this whole thing; largely thanks to ABC’s open desire to woe conservatives. And their big mistake was going so far as to give rightwingers exactly what they always demand; which is the last thing they actually want. They don’t want an unbiased media or even a rightwing media. Because who would they blame their problems on then? No, rightwingers want a leftwing media, which is the only way they can understand why their lives aren’t working out better. Rightwingers want to be victims so they can justify their desire to victimize people, and they want partisan conspiracies to justify their desire to use partisan conspiracies. And so no level of backbending and kowtowing will ever convince rightwingers that ABC is their network. And I suspect that the execs at Disney are going to be internalizing this message pretty damn quickly.
Unless, of course, this really is some sort of silly conspiracy on their part, but I have a hard time believing that. I don’t see corporate execs being the ideologues they’d need to be for this to happen. I just think they were total dopes who got blinded by dollar signs into thinking that they could pimp rightwing propaganda without being punished for it. And to have Hewitt openly trash ABC to his readers should certainly be an education to them all.
The only possibility I can think is that this isn’t a marketing gimmick to persuade conservatives that ABC is the Fox News of television networks, but rather that they’re really in on some big conspiracy. Because they’d have to know that if ABC became the equivalent of Fox News that their credibility would go down the crapper and that it would just spoil the whole “They’re Out To Get Us” mantra that the conservatives have. So instead, we could see this as a “good cop, bad cop” scenario where ABC pretends to be liberal while secretly shilling for the right.
I have a hard time believing that. But I also have a hard time seeing why they’d ever trust Hugh Hewitt again, after he dished out his strongest insult on them repeatedly. Nor can I see why a relatively smart guy like Hewitt would make this mistake. I’ve always assumed that he wasn’t nearly loony as he pretends to be, but it seems like he’s making a big mistake by biting the hand that feeds him.
But then again, I really think that they’ve bungled this whole thing; largely thanks to ABC’s open desire to woe conservatives. And their big mistake was going so far as to give rightwingers exactly what they always demand; which is the last thing they actually want. They don’t want an unbiased media or even a rightwing media. Because who would they blame their problems on then? No, rightwingers want a leftwing media, which is the only way they can understand why their lives aren’t working out better. Rightwingers want to be victims so they can justify their desire to victimize people, and they want partisan conspiracies to justify their desire to use partisan conspiracies. And so no level of backbending and kowtowing will ever convince rightwingers that ABC is their network. And I suspect that the execs at Disney are going to be internalizing this message pretty damn quickly.
Unless, of course, this really is some sort of silly conspiracy on their part, but I have a hard time believing that. I don’t see corporate execs being the ideologues they’d need to be for this to happen. I just think they were total dopes who got blinded by dollar signs into thinking that they could pimp rightwing propaganda without being punished for it. And to have Hewitt openly trash ABC to his readers should certainly be an education to them all.
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
Piling It On, with Jonah Goldberg
When Jonah Goldberg said “Wilson's wife is a desk jockey and much of the Washington cocktail circuit knew that already." What the fuck was he thinking? Because he sure sounded like he knew what he was talking about. Not that he did, mind you. But if you didn’t know any better, or who Jonah Goldberg was, or why he has his head up his ass, you might actually put some credence to those words.
“Much of the Washington cocktail circuit” he assured us. And that sounds pretty straight forward. Hell, it almost sounds as if Jonah himself might be a part of this cocktail circuit, and as if perhaps he himself may have known her true identity. Who knows? Jonah sounds somewhat coy about this, like that maybe he has friends in Washington who are privy to secrets; as opposed to the reality of him getting all his scoops from the RNC faxsheets in the NRO breakroom.
And none of the Freepers even thought to question Jonah’s wisdom. Sure, Jonah Goldberg may be widely known around the world as a simpering yutz, but, he’s their simpering yutz. And they’ll take what they can get.
Dropping in Rank
Jonah also said “I'm all in favor of firing whoever did the leaking, if he or she did as the reports suggest. But it sounds like the leaker is dropping in rank and importance as is the transgression.”
You tell Lewis Libby he was of low rank and importance! Tell Lewis Libby he was of low rank and importance! Tell Karl Rove he was of low rank and importance. Tell Richard Armitage he was of low rank and importance. There were many high ranking administration officials who leaked Plame’s identity. And it denigrates a leak to say the leaker was of low rank and importance. And don’t forgot to mention to them that Jonah Goldberg wants them fired. I’m certain they’ll take it under consideration.
And sure, Jonah didn’t know the truth of what happened. But what the hell did he know? From the looks of things, not a whole hell of a lot. And if I had to guess, I’d suggest that the “dropping in rank and importance” was a matter solely of the rightwing echo-chamber talking down the facts. Like a game of eternal telephone, each wingnut continues to slightly embellish the “facts” until it comes back to the original nut as fresh confirmation of all they feared; and on it continues indefinitely.
Everyone Knew
And it’s amazing to watch how quickly they all incorporate each new “fact” into their belief system, no matter how tenuous. Here’s a wingnut named Callahan struggling to combine a sensible argument made by Josh Marshall with the bullshit Goldberg had bestowed upon them:
Marshall thinks that proves the Pflame is a "covert" operative. How does that square with info about her floating around the cocktail party circuit? I think it's likely that Wilson's wife was at one time a covert operative, but is now a analyst/consultant.
Or…not.
But even the facts at the time didn’t warrant Callahan’s hypothesis. On the one hand, we have a Department of Justice investigation which most surely would have at least a preliminary idea of whether a crime could have been committed before they’d decide to open an investigation. And on the other hand, we have an unconfirmed factoid by Jonah Goldberg. Hmm. I wonder. Let’s just say Jonah’s factoid wins and call it even.
Everyone Knew
Here’s another Freeper embellishing Jonah’s factoid just a little further. A non-Freeper had suggested that perhaps Goldberg was being a hack. Yes, shocking, I know. Freeper Mattdono replies saying “Well, Jonah isn't the person that is saying this is a well-known fact.” Thus exposing to the world that Mattdono is a little unclear on the concept of the word “hack”, as he’s unaware that hacks frequently repeat untruths that they’re told. That’s what makes them such a damn nuisance.
He then goes on with his own speculation saying (emphasis added):
Apparently, everyone in the Washinton D.C. metroplex knew who Mr. Wilson's wife was and where she worked. Adding: Mr. Wilson's position of ambassador entails him attending many cocktail parties and other gala-type events. He has introduced his wife on countless occassions and in the course of conversation either she or he noted that she was an analyst for the CIA.
Or perhaps she lies to them and tells them she works for an energy company…which, in fact, was exactly what she did, up until the time that the Bush Admin outed her to the media. Fake identities are a standard thing that even children know that spies use, and yet somehow, this obvious possibility entirely alludes poor Mattdono.
Later on in the thread, he makes a woeful attempt at using Occam’s Razor and concludes that:
She is a CIA ANALYST, not an undercover agent.
She parades around the Washington D.C. cocktail circuit and is known to be an ANALYST with the CIA.
Mr. Wilson, when pressed, calls his wife an ANALYST with the CIA.
Determination: She is an ANALYST with the CIA.
Result: No law was broken, period! End of story!
Wow, all that from some Jonah Goldberg gossip that turned out to be totally false. Plato would be proud.
I really like the “she parades around” and the “Mr. Wilson, when pressed” lines. They are certainly embellishments of his own invention, and yet he imagines himself as a philosophical clinician; having separated the truth from the chaff with his precious razor which always proves him correct. And that’s not to mention how he seems to skip over the beginning and middle parts of his argument, and seems to start with his conclusion. Funny how that works out.
How Facts Evolve
But do you see how that works? It went from Jonah’s “much of the Washington cocktail circuit knew” to “everyone in the Washington D.C. metroplex knew”, before concluding that “no law was broken”. All in the first section of a long messageboard. The last message on the page is from StriperSniper who actually has the Wilsons busting rocks in Alaska to pay back the cost of the investigation. And that’s not to mention the people who believed this was a Hilary Clinton conspiracy to take the heat off of the non-story involving a political contributor of hers who supposedly had ties to Hamas. Yikes!
Now, I’m not suggesting that any of this was Jonah’s intent, and believe that he was just doing his best to relay what he was told and add some initial thoughts of his own regarding what this information meant and how it was good for his side. He had heard some breathless speculation regarding a factoid convenient to his beliefs, and he passed it on to his readers, perhaps with a tad bit of his own embellishment. Not that he was trying to change the story, mind you. It was just creative license, solely designed to make his gossip sound more interesting. To clean it up a bit. That’s how it’s done. And the next thing you know, someone else spins it just a little bit further, and a little bit further, and the next thing you know, a new fact is born.
And that’s probably where this started. Not with Jonah, but with a couple of eager Republicans, slobbering for a truth that helps their side, and seeing too many that just don’t help at all. And so they start speculating aloud, about what type of truth they’d like to see. What they think is probably the case. And how this is all going to turn out in the end. And the next thing you know, they’ve got a valid sounding theory. And they talk with other people, who agree with what they hear, and then at some point in those fevered minds, they begin to believe that their theories are already proven.
They hit a critical mass of conservative minds melding onto the same facts, and they literally wish them into existence. And it works all the better when the Whitehouse has a crack team of taxpayer-financed hackmen, working overtime to create a more Bush-friendly universe.
Piles of Speculation
And on and on it goes. The meme passes from one conservative to another: There was no crime. She was just a desk jockey. This is just another liberal trick. How about them Clintons? Not that they had any evidence to back this up, but they didn’t need any. They already know it’s true. And so it must be that she was just a desk jockey that everyone “knew” was a CIA person.
And sure, the evidence leaned against that possibility. The idea that Joe Wilson would go publicly with a story that would be so easily disproven and embarrassing doesn’t make sense. Nor that the DOJ would start an investigation were she merely an analyst. But that wasn’t what they wanted to hear and I strongly suspect that many of them still won’t hear it.
But it wasn’t a complete loss for them. They didn’t like the story and their intellectual dishonesty allowed them to ride out the storm until the media focused on something else for fifteen seconds. They didn’t need a good defense or a rational set of facts. They just needed something. Any port in a storm. It’s not that they’re too stupid or lazy to get the facts. They just don’t want them. And why should they? Their speculation works so much better.
P.S. I apologize for repeatedly referring to Valerie Wilson as Valerie Plame. But Plame is the name most people use, so I’m continuing with that convention solely for the basis of clarity; despite the fact that it’s not her name.
“Much of the Washington cocktail circuit” he assured us. And that sounds pretty straight forward. Hell, it almost sounds as if Jonah himself might be a part of this cocktail circuit, and as if perhaps he himself may have known her true identity. Who knows? Jonah sounds somewhat coy about this, like that maybe he has friends in Washington who are privy to secrets; as opposed to the reality of him getting all his scoops from the RNC faxsheets in the NRO breakroom.
And none of the Freepers even thought to question Jonah’s wisdom. Sure, Jonah Goldberg may be widely known around the world as a simpering yutz, but, he’s their simpering yutz. And they’ll take what they can get.
Dropping in Rank
Jonah also said “I'm all in favor of firing whoever did the leaking, if he or she did as the reports suggest. But it sounds like the leaker is dropping in rank and importance as is the transgression.”
You tell Lewis Libby he was of low rank and importance! Tell Lewis Libby he was of low rank and importance! Tell Karl Rove he was of low rank and importance. Tell Richard Armitage he was of low rank and importance. There were many high ranking administration officials who leaked Plame’s identity. And it denigrates a leak to say the leaker was of low rank and importance. And don’t forgot to mention to them that Jonah Goldberg wants them fired. I’m certain they’ll take it under consideration.
And sure, Jonah didn’t know the truth of what happened. But what the hell did he know? From the looks of things, not a whole hell of a lot. And if I had to guess, I’d suggest that the “dropping in rank and importance” was a matter solely of the rightwing echo-chamber talking down the facts. Like a game of eternal telephone, each wingnut continues to slightly embellish the “facts” until it comes back to the original nut as fresh confirmation of all they feared; and on it continues indefinitely.
Everyone Knew
And it’s amazing to watch how quickly they all incorporate each new “fact” into their belief system, no matter how tenuous. Here’s a wingnut named Callahan struggling to combine a sensible argument made by Josh Marshall with the bullshit Goldberg had bestowed upon them:
Marshall thinks that proves the Pflame is a "covert" operative. How does that square with info about her floating around the cocktail party circuit? I think it's likely that Wilson's wife was at one time a covert operative, but is now a analyst/consultant.
Or…not.
But even the facts at the time didn’t warrant Callahan’s hypothesis. On the one hand, we have a Department of Justice investigation which most surely would have at least a preliminary idea of whether a crime could have been committed before they’d decide to open an investigation. And on the other hand, we have an unconfirmed factoid by Jonah Goldberg. Hmm. I wonder. Let’s just say Jonah’s factoid wins and call it even.
Everyone Knew
Here’s another Freeper embellishing Jonah’s factoid just a little further. A non-Freeper had suggested that perhaps Goldberg was being a hack. Yes, shocking, I know. Freeper Mattdono replies saying “Well, Jonah isn't the person that is saying this is a well-known fact.” Thus exposing to the world that Mattdono is a little unclear on the concept of the word “hack”, as he’s unaware that hacks frequently repeat untruths that they’re told. That’s what makes them such a damn nuisance.
He then goes on with his own speculation saying (emphasis added):
Apparently, everyone in the Washinton D.C. metroplex knew who Mr. Wilson's wife was and where she worked. Adding: Mr. Wilson's position of ambassador entails him attending many cocktail parties and other gala-type events. He has introduced his wife on countless occassions and in the course of conversation either she or he noted that she was an analyst for the CIA.
Or perhaps she lies to them and tells them she works for an energy company…which, in fact, was exactly what she did, up until the time that the Bush Admin outed her to the media. Fake identities are a standard thing that even children know that spies use, and yet somehow, this obvious possibility entirely alludes poor Mattdono.
Later on in the thread, he makes a woeful attempt at using Occam’s Razor and concludes that:
She is a CIA ANALYST, not an undercover agent.
She parades around the Washington D.C. cocktail circuit and is known to be an ANALYST with the CIA.
Mr. Wilson, when pressed, calls his wife an ANALYST with the CIA.
Determination: She is an ANALYST with the CIA.
Result: No law was broken, period! End of story!
Wow, all that from some Jonah Goldberg gossip that turned out to be totally false. Plato would be proud.
I really like the “she parades around” and the “Mr. Wilson, when pressed” lines. They are certainly embellishments of his own invention, and yet he imagines himself as a philosophical clinician; having separated the truth from the chaff with his precious razor which always proves him correct. And that’s not to mention how he seems to skip over the beginning and middle parts of his argument, and seems to start with his conclusion. Funny how that works out.
How Facts Evolve
But do you see how that works? It went from Jonah’s “much of the Washington cocktail circuit knew” to “everyone in the Washington D.C. metroplex knew”, before concluding that “no law was broken”. All in the first section of a long messageboard. The last message on the page is from StriperSniper who actually has the Wilsons busting rocks in Alaska to pay back the cost of the investigation. And that’s not to mention the people who believed this was a Hilary Clinton conspiracy to take the heat off of the non-story involving a political contributor of hers who supposedly had ties to Hamas. Yikes!
Now, I’m not suggesting that any of this was Jonah’s intent, and believe that he was just doing his best to relay what he was told and add some initial thoughts of his own regarding what this information meant and how it was good for his side. He had heard some breathless speculation regarding a factoid convenient to his beliefs, and he passed it on to his readers, perhaps with a tad bit of his own embellishment. Not that he was trying to change the story, mind you. It was just creative license, solely designed to make his gossip sound more interesting. To clean it up a bit. That’s how it’s done. And the next thing you know, someone else spins it just a little bit further, and a little bit further, and the next thing you know, a new fact is born.
And that’s probably where this started. Not with Jonah, but with a couple of eager Republicans, slobbering for a truth that helps their side, and seeing too many that just don’t help at all. And so they start speculating aloud, about what type of truth they’d like to see. What they think is probably the case. And how this is all going to turn out in the end. And the next thing you know, they’ve got a valid sounding theory. And they talk with other people, who agree with what they hear, and then at some point in those fevered minds, they begin to believe that their theories are already proven.
They hit a critical mass of conservative minds melding onto the same facts, and they literally wish them into existence. And it works all the better when the Whitehouse has a crack team of taxpayer-financed hackmen, working overtime to create a more Bush-friendly universe.
Piles of Speculation
And on and on it goes. The meme passes from one conservative to another: There was no crime. She was just a desk jockey. This is just another liberal trick. How about them Clintons? Not that they had any evidence to back this up, but they didn’t need any. They already know it’s true. And so it must be that she was just a desk jockey that everyone “knew” was a CIA person.
And sure, the evidence leaned against that possibility. The idea that Joe Wilson would go publicly with a story that would be so easily disproven and embarrassing doesn’t make sense. Nor that the DOJ would start an investigation were she merely an analyst. But that wasn’t what they wanted to hear and I strongly suspect that many of them still won’t hear it.
But it wasn’t a complete loss for them. They didn’t like the story and their intellectual dishonesty allowed them to ride out the storm until the media focused on something else for fifteen seconds. They didn’t need a good defense or a rational set of facts. They just needed something. Any port in a storm. It’s not that they’re too stupid or lazy to get the facts. They just don’t want them. And why should they? Their speculation works so much better.
P.S. I apologize for repeatedly referring to Valerie Wilson as Valerie Plame. But Plame is the name most people use, so I’m continuing with that convention solely for the basis of clarity; despite the fact that it’s not her name.
Saturday, September 02, 2006
Smarter than Siegel
I just thought I should mention that I recently hired an outside firm to run a statistical analysis of my blog writing compared with the work of the writer formerly known as TNR’s Lee Siegel, and they confirmed that I am, in fact, wittier than Mr. Siegel. Additionally, I am also braver and more brilliant. And while my PQ or Puerility Quotient is out the roof compared with the ever-staid Mr. Siegel, this is more than compensated for with his perfect score on the SGI or Stupid Git Index.
You can make of this analysis what you will, I just thought I should put this out there to help further the discussion regarding my ability to intellectually crush Lee Siegel, the dope who played with himself and got burned.
You can make of this analysis what you will, I just thought I should put this out there to help further the discussion regarding my ability to intellectually crush Lee Siegel, the dope who played with himself and got burned.
Friday, September 01, 2006
The Jobs Report: What a Crock!
Guest Post by Doctor Snedley, Doctor Biobrain’s Personal Assistant
Well it looks like Atrios’ voodoo curse on the unemployed didn’t work this month. For those unable to stomach the filthy and virulent pus-mongering that Atrios peddles on a regular basis, I’ll explain.
Each month, some governmental-type bureaucrats release a report ostensibly called The Employment Situation, which they presume is some kind of indicator of how the job markets are performing. Naturally, this is a crock of turds, as government bureaucrats are the absolute last people to even understand what the concept of work entails, and would surely fail in cataloging how workers are succeeding under Bush. Why else would they have to resort to make-work jobs with the government instead of putting their economics degrees to better use in the private sector?
And just to show you how utterly absurd this report is, if it were to be taken seriously, one would have to somehow believe that job growth under Bill Clinton’s disastrous presidency was somehow better than under George W. Bush’s glorious reign. Yes, it’s true. Now, this is clearly an absurdity that can’t be easily dismissed as coincidental. I mean, come on! Perhaps these rubes believe we were born yesterday, but I was alive during the 90’s and remember the time spent under Billary’s boot-heel as being one of the most onerous and hate-filled periods in modern history. Things got so bad he was impeached, for christ’s sake, and I can’t imagine why historians haven’t already agreed to strike that period from our memories. I know I have. Perhaps they’re in on the fix too! I shudder to think what the world will come to if we lose the historians, which is why I’ve taken the precaution of hiring my own.
And so it’s obvious that this jobs report is nothing short of the biggest sham ever pulled on the American people. Yes, even worse than Algore’s attempt at stealing the 2000 election from the true Americans who actually deserve to elect their leaders. The only real surprise in all this is that the Bush Administration hasn’t been more successful in squashing this dangerous report which clearly aides and abets America’s enemies. But I guess that just goes to show us how truly dangerous and irrational the enemy within is and why we need to not listen to a word they say while we drag them into the streets and avenge ourselves upon them in America’s honor. It’s the least we can do for Lady Liberty.
Dragging Down the Economy
And as a sign of how totally desperate and dangerous the liberal-extremist freaks like Atrios are, it’s not enough for them that this communistic report is created in the first place. Oh no. Sure, libs sic their bigdog bureaucrats to totally muck-up the job picture, but that’s still not enough. No. They have to cast their voodoo curse upon it, in a futile attempt to drag down the economy and get us one step closer to the “worker’s paradise” they imagine would best serve their Islamofascist gay overlords and their plans to annihilate the world’s populations to appease their bitter and impotent god, Allah. Looks like someone could use a god who can actually smite his own enemies.
And so each month, Atrios deigns to wish down these meaningless numbers further by insisting that the job report will show fewer jobs than had been estimated by people whose sole job it is to undercut the employment figures by giving such poor estimates in the first place. And it works. Rather than showing the massive growth in employment due to Bush’s magnificent taxcuts and other economic stimulus programs (like the Iraq war), which liberals are all too happy to take advantage of; these reports show anemic growth.
Were they to ask for my estimates, I’d certainly put each month in the 500k range, at least. I mean, how could it be otherwise? Republicans have been in charge of Washington for over five years now, and their policies have surely paid off. I myself have seen a huge jump in business to my pawnshops, and have become inundated with volunteers for my medical experiments. What can I say, life is good.
But none of that is reflected in these so-called “job” reports. Instead, they blather on about “nonfarm payrolls” and unemployed persons. And sure, if you keep prattling about the unemployed, you’ll freak people out enough that they’ll fire all their employees and move their operations to one of those utopian factory islands in the Philippines, where all the natives dress in their traditional loincloths while happily sewing together my shoes. Or so I would imagine, as my recent trip to one of these idyllic islands was cancelled after my good friend Jack Abramoff decided to confront his critics regarding his awesome lobbying prowess. That’s an American hero we’re talking about, and I’m sure he’ll end-up having clearly bested his foes. Go Jack!
The True Numbers
But back to that jobs report. What a crock! As I said, the economy has been bustling at a blinding clip for five years now, yet these make-work crackers in Washington would have us believe that a mere 128,000 jobs were created last month. And sure, that’s 128,000 more jobs than any liberal has ever created (excepting that indentured servitude they obliquely refer to as the “Public Sector”), but I have few doubts that the true number isn’t five or six times that amount. And while they undeniably demonstrate that Bush’s economic miracle is continuing unabated, they’re still not reflecting the true picture. If only there was some way to actually calculate these numbers…
And let’s face-it, while these numbers could have been worse, it’s obvious that Atrios has achieved some success. How else to explain how paltry they are? Perhaps Atrios might argue that he can’t actually influence these numbers because they were determined by the prior month’s activities, and had already been finalized long before his prediction was made; but he can just save it. Despite all of his protestations that he’s just a stupid blogger that has as much influence on the economy as a flea has on a dog, I’m just not having it. Because why else would he do it? He’s going to waste his precious fifteen minutes of fame in order to have no influence? That makes no sense. It’s obvious that he’s working his damnedest to bring down these numbers each month, and it’s equally obvious that he’s succeeding. Again, why else would he bother?
So we can take it as a given that Atrios is sabotaging these numbers, which has got to be good for at least 60,000 jobs or so. And if we factor-out the effects of the doom-mongering estimators who could only peg their naysaying at a lowly 125k without making it too obvious of what they were doing; then it’s clear that the true numbers are higher. Much much higher, I imagine. According to my back-of-the-napkin calculations, the actual job growth in August was 782,983. And that’s just the private sector. With the recent spate of unannounced terrorist catching Bush has been up to, I’d say that overall job growth, adjusted for seasonal employment, is at a cool million.
That’s right. You heard it here first. And when historians go back and recalculate all of these numbers, they’ll certainly bear out what I’m saying. I mean, Bush’s awesomeness alone is easily worth 250,000 jobs a month, and with Cheney constantly adding to his super-top-secret shadow government, I’d say the Whitehouse is directly responsible for almost half a million jobs a month. That’s just common sense. And while the biased perceptions of today’s heated political scene make it absolutely impossible to comprehend all of the intricacies of what’s actually going on around us, I’m confident that future history books will confirm everything I’ve said.
SABOTAGE!
And one last facet of this tepid (though still awesome) job growth is how much direct influence the evil liberal minority has over all of this. I’m not just talking about evil-doers like Atrios who strive to influence these numbers in a futile bid to convince his Islamofascist overlords that he belongs in the caves with them, and not toiling away in the Great Satan which continues, despite his best efforts, to pull at the spot where his heart used to be. No, I’m talking about liberals who intentionally sabotage our awesome economic growth by quitting their jobs at the coffeeshops and bookstores in order to injure our economic well-being.
According to Table A-8. Unemployed persons by reason for unemployment, 13.6% of the unemployed people are unemployed because they quit their jobs. Now, anyone paying attention will surely notice that 13.6% is almost the exact number of liberal scumbags currently residing in our country. The implications are obvious. This works out to 935,000 people. And what would happen if these 935,000 people hadn’t left their jobs? Rather than a measly 128,000 jobs added, we’d have seen that number at over one million. One million jobs. The exact amount, I might add, that I had just predicted we’d find for job growth in August. Simply amazing.
And with that piece of the puzzle in place, it’s obvious to see what’s really going on here. This isn’t a sign of economic distress. This is sabotage. Economic sabotage by angry, irrational people who would rather suck at the government’s teat than to work harder at making George Bush look like the success that we all really know he is.
It’s the same thing with Bush’s “low” approval ratings. Sure, they’re low, on a historical comparison. But how much of that number is merely liberals expressing their displeasure at living in the greatest country in the world? And then there are the me-too people, who are simply pretending to be upset with Bush because they see it as the trendy thing to do. And so when you factor out the traitors who want to ruin America and other mindless miscreants, we’d clearly see Bush’s approval ratings in the high 90’s. Possibly higher.
So rather than these numbers being indicators of trouble for Bush, commonsense tells us that they just demonstrate how terribly desperate liberals are; that they waste all their energies trying to defeat Bush, and the best they can do is alter a few meaningless numbers that they invented. These are clearly the last throes of a desperate enemy.
God’s Plan
So isn’t it obvious what this is about? Of course. Libs don’t care about our successes. How else to explain why they never see it? For them, life since Bush took over has been an ever-spiraling descent into oblivion, and this is just another futile attempt at bringing the rest of us down with them. That’s why they’re always so obsessed with “unemployment figures” and “median wages”, when all the important numbers are positive. GDP growth is gangbusters. Productivity is better than it’s ever been in history. And the double-secret stock portfolio of my Bimini-based mutual fund business is just bursting with success; or so I’ve been told by the conch fisherman who agreed to “own” it.
Yet for all this, liberals incessantly whine about how bad things are doing for the “common” man. Hogwash. If a college-educated super-genius from an affluent family like me can succeed, what’s stopping anyone else? This isn’t an issue of equality, but of perspective. Where others decry lowering standards of living and deepening hardships, I see opportunity. Sure, not everyone can just start-up their own interest-only loan business, but that makes it all the better for those of us who can. After all, had God not wanted some people to fail, he would never have invented Supply & Demand.
And so what if the losers fail? That’s what losers are supposed to do; hence the word “loser”. And if we could all be winners, it would really detract from all the times that I won; which is all the time. I’m a clear beneficiary of Bush’s economic plan, and I get very angry when people try to knock my success by suggesting that my business model is “immoral”, as if there’s something inherently wrong with coercing desperate people into usurious contracts which are intentionally designed to suck as much money from them as possible, while denying them the ability to actually pay-off the original debt. Hey, if I didn’t think it was a good way to make money, I wouldn’t do it.
Zero-Sum Game
And so that’s what this is all about. Atrios doesn’t give a flip about jobs. Hell, he’d have to have had one first for this to be of any concern to him. No, this is about revenge. Revenge against Bush and revenge against America. These people are all self-haters who would rather destroy everything good in the world than to try to take advantage of it. Who see exploitation where we see opportunity. And who would rather lament the poor fortunes of the common-man than to lift a finger to show him the way to the Day Laborers site where I get my volunteers.
Shame on you, Atrios. And shame on your infamous legions. They may hate America with all their souls, but they’re really only hating themselves. And for all the time they waste whining about poor conditions for the “working man” as an attempt to harm America, they could be taking advantage of these grand opportunities. Just try hiring a manservant during periods of high employment. Impossible. But these days, they’re a dime a dozen. Literally. You just have to visit the right countries.
And so it’s no wonder that ignoramuses like Atrios are so angry and rude. Life must be pretty tough when you have to wash your own ballsack. They say that economics is a “zero-sum game”, which can be roughly translated as meaning that libs are trying to screw me over. And the longer the angry Atrios’ of the world continue to spew-out their obscene traitorisms about low job growth and depressed wages, one thing will be certain: I’ll be doing good.
And in the end, isn’t that what it’s really all about? Libs can rely on their meaninglessly subjective reports if they want to, but I think I’ll just stick with my gut. And right now, my gut is full.
Well it looks like Atrios’ voodoo curse on the unemployed didn’t work this month. For those unable to stomach the filthy and virulent pus-mongering that Atrios peddles on a regular basis, I’ll explain.
Each month, some governmental-type bureaucrats release a report ostensibly called The Employment Situation, which they presume is some kind of indicator of how the job markets are performing. Naturally, this is a crock of turds, as government bureaucrats are the absolute last people to even understand what the concept of work entails, and would surely fail in cataloging how workers are succeeding under Bush. Why else would they have to resort to make-work jobs with the government instead of putting their economics degrees to better use in the private sector?
And just to show you how utterly absurd this report is, if it were to be taken seriously, one would have to somehow believe that job growth under Bill Clinton’s disastrous presidency was somehow better than under George W. Bush’s glorious reign. Yes, it’s true. Now, this is clearly an absurdity that can’t be easily dismissed as coincidental. I mean, come on! Perhaps these rubes believe we were born yesterday, but I was alive during the 90’s and remember the time spent under Billary’s boot-heel as being one of the most onerous and hate-filled periods in modern history. Things got so bad he was impeached, for christ’s sake, and I can’t imagine why historians haven’t already agreed to strike that period from our memories. I know I have. Perhaps they’re in on the fix too! I shudder to think what the world will come to if we lose the historians, which is why I’ve taken the precaution of hiring my own.
And so it’s obvious that this jobs report is nothing short of the biggest sham ever pulled on the American people. Yes, even worse than Algore’s attempt at stealing the 2000 election from the true Americans who actually deserve to elect their leaders. The only real surprise in all this is that the Bush Administration hasn’t been more successful in squashing this dangerous report which clearly aides and abets America’s enemies. But I guess that just goes to show us how truly dangerous and irrational the enemy within is and why we need to not listen to a word they say while we drag them into the streets and avenge ourselves upon them in America’s honor. It’s the least we can do for Lady Liberty.
Dragging Down the Economy
And as a sign of how totally desperate and dangerous the liberal-extremist freaks like Atrios are, it’s not enough for them that this communistic report is created in the first place. Oh no. Sure, libs sic their bigdog bureaucrats to totally muck-up the job picture, but that’s still not enough. No. They have to cast their voodoo curse upon it, in a futile attempt to drag down the economy and get us one step closer to the “worker’s paradise” they imagine would best serve their Islamofascist gay overlords and their plans to annihilate the world’s populations to appease their bitter and impotent god, Allah. Looks like someone could use a god who can actually smite his own enemies.
And so each month, Atrios deigns to wish down these meaningless numbers further by insisting that the job report will show fewer jobs than had been estimated by people whose sole job it is to undercut the employment figures by giving such poor estimates in the first place. And it works. Rather than showing the massive growth in employment due to Bush’s magnificent taxcuts and other economic stimulus programs (like the Iraq war), which liberals are all too happy to take advantage of; these reports show anemic growth.
Were they to ask for my estimates, I’d certainly put each month in the 500k range, at least. I mean, how could it be otherwise? Republicans have been in charge of Washington for over five years now, and their policies have surely paid off. I myself have seen a huge jump in business to my pawnshops, and have become inundated with volunteers for my medical experiments. What can I say, life is good.
But none of that is reflected in these so-called “job” reports. Instead, they blather on about “nonfarm payrolls” and unemployed persons. And sure, if you keep prattling about the unemployed, you’ll freak people out enough that they’ll fire all their employees and move their operations to one of those utopian factory islands in the Philippines, where all the natives dress in their traditional loincloths while happily sewing together my shoes. Or so I would imagine, as my recent trip to one of these idyllic islands was cancelled after my good friend Jack Abramoff decided to confront his critics regarding his awesome lobbying prowess. That’s an American hero we’re talking about, and I’m sure he’ll end-up having clearly bested his foes. Go Jack!
The True Numbers
But back to that jobs report. What a crock! As I said, the economy has been bustling at a blinding clip for five years now, yet these make-work crackers in Washington would have us believe that a mere 128,000 jobs were created last month. And sure, that’s 128,000 more jobs than any liberal has ever created (excepting that indentured servitude they obliquely refer to as the “Public Sector”), but I have few doubts that the true number isn’t five or six times that amount. And while they undeniably demonstrate that Bush’s economic miracle is continuing unabated, they’re still not reflecting the true picture. If only there was some way to actually calculate these numbers…
And let’s face-it, while these numbers could have been worse, it’s obvious that Atrios has achieved some success. How else to explain how paltry they are? Perhaps Atrios might argue that he can’t actually influence these numbers because they were determined by the prior month’s activities, and had already been finalized long before his prediction was made; but he can just save it. Despite all of his protestations that he’s just a stupid blogger that has as much influence on the economy as a flea has on a dog, I’m just not having it. Because why else would he do it? He’s going to waste his precious fifteen minutes of fame in order to have no influence? That makes no sense. It’s obvious that he’s working his damnedest to bring down these numbers each month, and it’s equally obvious that he’s succeeding. Again, why else would he bother?
So we can take it as a given that Atrios is sabotaging these numbers, which has got to be good for at least 60,000 jobs or so. And if we factor-out the effects of the doom-mongering estimators who could only peg their naysaying at a lowly 125k without making it too obvious of what they were doing; then it’s clear that the true numbers are higher. Much much higher, I imagine. According to my back-of-the-napkin calculations, the actual job growth in August was 782,983. And that’s just the private sector. With the recent spate of unannounced terrorist catching Bush has been up to, I’d say that overall job growth, adjusted for seasonal employment, is at a cool million.
That’s right. You heard it here first. And when historians go back and recalculate all of these numbers, they’ll certainly bear out what I’m saying. I mean, Bush’s awesomeness alone is easily worth 250,000 jobs a month, and with Cheney constantly adding to his super-top-secret shadow government, I’d say the Whitehouse is directly responsible for almost half a million jobs a month. That’s just common sense. And while the biased perceptions of today’s heated political scene make it absolutely impossible to comprehend all of the intricacies of what’s actually going on around us, I’m confident that future history books will confirm everything I’ve said.
SABOTAGE!
And one last facet of this tepid (though still awesome) job growth is how much direct influence the evil liberal minority has over all of this. I’m not just talking about evil-doers like Atrios who strive to influence these numbers in a futile bid to convince his Islamofascist overlords that he belongs in the caves with them, and not toiling away in the Great Satan which continues, despite his best efforts, to pull at the spot where his heart used to be. No, I’m talking about liberals who intentionally sabotage our awesome economic growth by quitting their jobs at the coffeeshops and bookstores in order to injure our economic well-being.
According to Table A-8. Unemployed persons by reason for unemployment, 13.6% of the unemployed people are unemployed because they quit their jobs. Now, anyone paying attention will surely notice that 13.6% is almost the exact number of liberal scumbags currently residing in our country. The implications are obvious. This works out to 935,000 people. And what would happen if these 935,000 people hadn’t left their jobs? Rather than a measly 128,000 jobs added, we’d have seen that number at over one million. One million jobs. The exact amount, I might add, that I had just predicted we’d find for job growth in August. Simply amazing.
And with that piece of the puzzle in place, it’s obvious to see what’s really going on here. This isn’t a sign of economic distress. This is sabotage. Economic sabotage by angry, irrational people who would rather suck at the government’s teat than to work harder at making George Bush look like the success that we all really know he is.
It’s the same thing with Bush’s “low” approval ratings. Sure, they’re low, on a historical comparison. But how much of that number is merely liberals expressing their displeasure at living in the greatest country in the world? And then there are the me-too people, who are simply pretending to be upset with Bush because they see it as the trendy thing to do. And so when you factor out the traitors who want to ruin America and other mindless miscreants, we’d clearly see Bush’s approval ratings in the high 90’s. Possibly higher.
So rather than these numbers being indicators of trouble for Bush, commonsense tells us that they just demonstrate how terribly desperate liberals are; that they waste all their energies trying to defeat Bush, and the best they can do is alter a few meaningless numbers that they invented. These are clearly the last throes of a desperate enemy.
God’s Plan
So isn’t it obvious what this is about? Of course. Libs don’t care about our successes. How else to explain why they never see it? For them, life since Bush took over has been an ever-spiraling descent into oblivion, and this is just another futile attempt at bringing the rest of us down with them. That’s why they’re always so obsessed with “unemployment figures” and “median wages”, when all the important numbers are positive. GDP growth is gangbusters. Productivity is better than it’s ever been in history. And the double-secret stock portfolio of my Bimini-based mutual fund business is just bursting with success; or so I’ve been told by the conch fisherman who agreed to “own” it.
Yet for all this, liberals incessantly whine about how bad things are doing for the “common” man. Hogwash. If a college-educated super-genius from an affluent family like me can succeed, what’s stopping anyone else? This isn’t an issue of equality, but of perspective. Where others decry lowering standards of living and deepening hardships, I see opportunity. Sure, not everyone can just start-up their own interest-only loan business, but that makes it all the better for those of us who can. After all, had God not wanted some people to fail, he would never have invented Supply & Demand.
And so what if the losers fail? That’s what losers are supposed to do; hence the word “loser”. And if we could all be winners, it would really detract from all the times that I won; which is all the time. I’m a clear beneficiary of Bush’s economic plan, and I get very angry when people try to knock my success by suggesting that my business model is “immoral”, as if there’s something inherently wrong with coercing desperate people into usurious contracts which are intentionally designed to suck as much money from them as possible, while denying them the ability to actually pay-off the original debt. Hey, if I didn’t think it was a good way to make money, I wouldn’t do it.
Zero-Sum Game
And so that’s what this is all about. Atrios doesn’t give a flip about jobs. Hell, he’d have to have had one first for this to be of any concern to him. No, this is about revenge. Revenge against Bush and revenge against America. These people are all self-haters who would rather destroy everything good in the world than to try to take advantage of it. Who see exploitation where we see opportunity. And who would rather lament the poor fortunes of the common-man than to lift a finger to show him the way to the Day Laborers site where I get my volunteers.
Shame on you, Atrios. And shame on your infamous legions. They may hate America with all their souls, but they’re really only hating themselves. And for all the time they waste whining about poor conditions for the “working man” as an attempt to harm America, they could be taking advantage of these grand opportunities. Just try hiring a manservant during periods of high employment. Impossible. But these days, they’re a dime a dozen. Literally. You just have to visit the right countries.
And so it’s no wonder that ignoramuses like Atrios are so angry and rude. Life must be pretty tough when you have to wash your own ballsack. They say that economics is a “zero-sum game”, which can be roughly translated as meaning that libs are trying to screw me over. And the longer the angry Atrios’ of the world continue to spew-out their obscene traitorisms about low job growth and depressed wages, one thing will be certain: I’ll be doing good.
And in the end, isn’t that what it’s really all about? Libs can rely on their meaninglessly subjective reports if they want to, but I think I’ll just stick with my gut. And right now, my gut is full.
Bestowing Thanks
Here’s a belated congratulations to myself for once again winning the Carnival of the Liberals on Wednesday. I had given it a rest for the past several competitions to allow other people the opportunity to finally win something for once in their lives, but now I’m back. And while my entry wasn’t listed on the top of the list, it’s quite obvious that I was clearly the top selection of the group. How could it be otherwise?
I’d also like to make note of Whig of Cannablog (which I believe is some sort of blog for cannibals) who wisely choose me as Blog of the Day. I personally think that my blog is always the blog of the day, but I thank Whig for making this more explicit. It may seem as if I would tire of all the honor and praise bestowed upon me on a daily basis, but I remain stoic about it and understand why so many people desire to worship at my feet. I would too, if I weren’t already standing on them; which is probably the greatest honor that I can give.
And for all you people out there who read my posts and enjoy what you see, you’re welcome.
I’d also like to make note of Whig of Cannablog (which I believe is some sort of blog for cannibals) who wisely choose me as Blog of the Day. I personally think that my blog is always the blog of the day, but I thank Whig for making this more explicit. It may seem as if I would tire of all the honor and praise bestowed upon me on a daily basis, but I remain stoic about it and understand why so many people desire to worship at my feet. I would too, if I weren’t already standing on them; which is probably the greatest honor that I can give.
And for all you people out there who read my posts and enjoy what you see, you’re welcome.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
