Speaking of the impending doom of the Republican Party, Atrios says:
There's this sense that at any moment the damn will burst and they'll all be fighting over who hates Bush the most, but it hasn't happened yet.
I’ve read enough books on Watergate to know that this is exactly how things went for Nixon. It was obvious that he was going down, but it just never seemed to happen. Or that everything seemed to move in slow motion, and the surer you became that he was going down, the more it seemed he never would. And before you knew it, it was over and he was gone, and everything kept on going as if the slow-mo hadn’t happened at all. I was just a baby when all this happened, but the books certainly convey that idea fairly well.
Even on the day that Nixon planned to resign, they kept up a brave face and pretended to be on top of the world. They even went so far as to prepare a sham speech as a head-fake on why Nixon was making a speech. While Nixon’s resignation was entirely predictable, the actual event was still a surprise; including to many on the Whitehouse staff. And before that, Nixon played things so close to the vest that even his closest advisors feared he might not step down even if he had been impeached.
And I think this is the advantage of the Nixon-Cheney denial system. Never admit defeat. Never show a hint of weakness. Even at your lowest point, continue to show strength and pretend as if you’re always on the verge of crushing your foes and laughing on their graves. And it works. Especially as it’s very disconcerting and their foes have to stay a little on the defensive, even at their strongest.
People keep expecting Republicans to have their Moment of Truth moment, where they finally confess to everything, hang their head in shame, and wait for the bailiff to slap on the handcuffs and escort them out the door. But that just isn’t going to happen. Nixon held off his Moment of Truth moment until death. As will the rest of the Nixon gang. Even in their tell-alls, they never told all. Even as born-agains, they were still the same crooks. The rats went in their own direction when the ship finally went down, but they all continued to hold firm on the general principle that they hadn’t deserved what they got.
And it worked. To this day, most Republicans will insist that Watergate was a “third-rate burglary,” despite the fact that that was a laughable phrase when it was first uttered and only got funnier over time. My mom insists that G. Gordon Liddy masterminded the whole thing based on a misunderstanding and that Nixon got a bum rap for everything; and she was an adult at the time it all happened. But she’s heard Liddy give his story and she’s sticking to it.
And that involved a case where we’ve got Nixon on tape admitting to stuff, and we know a whole lot more than that. So we really shouldn’t expect some huge explosion while everyone gets out the long knives for Bush. It ain’t going to happen. Not unless he drops the charade and finally confesses to everything. But unless we can get Perry Mason out of retirement, that ain’t going to happen.
But fear not. Despite the fact that Nixon never confessed, and that wingnuts will remember him as a martyr unfairly smeared by a liberal cabal; the damage was done. Nixon will always be remembered as a stain on the presidency and the damage done to Republicans was both immediate and long-term. His stonewalling was enough to fool some of the people all of the time, but most of the people still know he’s a crook.
Even now, much of the Bush Administration’s activities can be seen as a desperate attempt to resurrect Nixon’s infamous legacy. And that includes some of their biggest mistakes and worst habits. And they’re failing now as they failed then. We might not get our big Moment of Truth, but the truth will come out all the same.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Dishonoring Abe
I’m going to start off today’s post with a prescient quote from a little known man you may have heard of…MR. ABRAHAM LINCOLN!!!
When I was a young man, we were always taught that the stupidest kind of fools were the Republican wingnuts who quoted any old damn thing and pretended it was the Word of God simply because it confirmed a position they wanted to hear. Yet if it perchance to be a statement they wouldn’t want to hear, they would make a pillory of the quote as if it had come from the Devil himself. Those, my friends and countrymen, are the people we are to murder.
--- President Abraham Lincoln
Well that’s it. We win. I mean, who is going to argue with Abraham Lincoln? Sure, that really doesn’t sound like Abraham Lincoln, and his attack on Republican wingnuts does seem a little dubious; Lincoln being a Republican and everything. But it was attributed to him, so I guess that wraps things up and we can begin murdering these fools; per Abe’s instructions.
And sure, I made it up. It’s not a real Lincoln quote at all, but rather one I placed into his mouth because it made it a lot more weighty. But isn’t it the kind of thing that Lincoln might have said? Of course. Because we all know that Lincoln hated stupid fools who placed too much importance on historical figures and wanted them all murdered. Sure, he never actually said that either, but you can read it between the lines. He couldn’t outright say this stuff, but it’s there. Trust me.
Blaming the Editors
And I’m still joking. This is all based upon a catch from the unsinkable Roger Ailes of a wingnut meme that they refuse to fact check, due to the fact that they want so badly to believe that it’s true.
Here it is, a quote invented “accidentally” by J. Michael Waller, a writer of Insight magazine:
Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged.
And that’s just crap. What a dumb quote. That doesn’t even sound like Lincoln at all, and is extremely dubious. But when you’re a wingnut and you want something to be true, it is true, at least until someone brings it to your attention with undeniable proof. But by then, the quote’s already infected enough other wingnuts to keep it going forever. Factcheck.org destroyed that quote in August of 2006, yet it continues to be cited by influential wingnuts over half a year later.
Waller has admitted that he was the source of the quote, but insists that it was an editor who put quotes around it to make it sound like it came from Lincoln. But even if we rewrite his quote according to what he says he wrote, it still isn’t much better.
Here’s my guess as to what the dude says he wrote in 2003:
Congressmen who willfully take action during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs, and should be arrested, exiled or hanged, that's what President Abraham Lincoln said during the Civil War.
I should note that, although Waller says he wrote “Civil War” the “editor” of Insight changed it to “War Between the States”. These people are so childish. I should also mention that Waller says that between December 2003 when he wrote it and August 2006 when Factcheck asked him about it, nobody questioned him about the quote. He says he asked Insight to run a correction of it immediately, but they wouldn’t. And the editor of Insight wouldn’t even take or cast the blame on how this quote was created. Thus is our conservative media: Nobody’s to blame, and no attempt at correction. Kind of like a certain presidential administration I know.
Jockeying Defeatism
And Roger cites two examples of this accidental quote being used. The first was Frank J. Gaffney Jr., who wrote a commentary in the Washington Times yesterday which used the Lincoln quote as a springboard to denounce Democrats in Congress. Gaffney thinks it’s bizarro that “scarcely anyone seems to consider the conduct of the Congress inappropriate,” while Lincoln so clearly disapproved of his critics. He also complains about Dems who “jockey to outbid one another in their defeatism.”
And just to show how wise Gaffney is, I’ll give you this little treasure from the same piece:
Doug Feith is an old friend of mine. He is among the most thoughtful, careful and conscientious public servants I have ever known. The only truly "inappropriate" behavior evident is the ongoing effort led by Sens. Levin and Rockefeller to impugn the integrity, quality and, yes, the appropriateness of policymakers' efforts to ensure that far-reaching national security decisions are made on the basis of the best information available.
Right.
The second citation is from The Strata-Sphere blog, where the wingnut updates his praise of the quote by informing us that it was fictitious. But in doing so, he repeatedly denounces a liberal blogger who caught his mistake and insulted him for it. In fact, Mr. Sphere would have given a sincere thanks to the “foul mouthed childish liberal nut,” if “the poor sap had shown some maturity”.
That’s right. The lib nut was foul mouthed, so that makes it perfectly acceptable to insult the guy, even though the “emotionally stunted blogger” was correct and Mr. Sphere was totally wrong. But at least Sphere wasn’t foul-mouthed about his repeated insults; and that makes all the difference. That’s maturity for you.
Unimpeachable Sources
And that takes us into our final chapter: How conservatives insist on taking a person’s authority to be more important than what the person is saying. In this case, Mr. Sphere insists that we can’t argue with Abe Lincoln because he’s Abe Fricking Lincoln.
Mr. Sphere, Mr. Gaffney, and all the other wingnuts who have used that quote insist that it is proof of something, because it came from Lincoln. But that’s entirely backwards. Because there are lots of quotes from lots of famous and weighty people which entirely contradict what wingnuts believe. Why don’t they consider those quotes to be definitive? Because the quotes don’t support their position.
In fact, as Factcheck.org suggests, it’s more likely that Lincoln believed the exact opposite of what this quote suggests. Does that mean that wingnuts everywhere will start supporting the right to dissent? Of course not. It means, back to the drawing board; trying to find some other quote to use. Because it wasn’t the weight of the person that made it important; but what the person said. And that’s how this is supposed to work. It was only when they then flip this around and insist that it’s Lincoln’s importance that makes the quote better that they lose it.
But in fact, the lame quote attributed to Lincoln isn’t even a persuasive argument, but rather a conclusion. Had it been an explanation of why such a policy was necessary, it could have been a weighty statement. But that’s not what the wingnuts wanted. They got a conclusion they wanted to hear, saw that it was supposedly spoken by somebody important, and then insisted that they had finally found the civil liberties-busting proof they’ve been waiting for.
Because they don’t do arguments; they do conclusions. For them, an argument is nothing but a conclusion waiting to happen. And so to find out that Lincoln wanted to hang morale-busting congressmen puts perspective on our own inaction at stopping our morale-busters. And now that the statement has been shown to be written by a no-name conservative, it’s lost its luster and will be tossed into the anti-lib scrapheap. They only found Lincoln unimpeachable because they liked the quote; but the quote was only useful if it came from Lincoln. That’s irony for you.
Blessed be the Deceivers
And we see this again, when he gives his excuse for how he made this embarrassing mistake. It’s not his fault you see. As he says “I cannot fact check the news media.” Of course not. I suppose Rathergate and all those boneheaded assertions of media malfeasance are entirely aberrations. And the fact that his source for this was an opinion piece in a newspaper with an explicit rightwing bias was all the more reason to not bother checking its authenticity.
But again, it wasn’t that. All it was is that Mr. Sphere saw a quote he liked and didn’t care whether it was real. Its realness was entirely supported by his desire for it to be real. Same goes with Gaffney and all the other wingnuts who cite it. Sure, a ten second search on Google brings up the Factcheck piece almost immediately, but why would anyone want to search for something that undermined their argument? That’s like aiding and abetting the enemy without them even knowing about it.
But this is a constant theme with conservatives: Their desire to find quotes they like which are then considered unimpeachable due to the fact that they want the quote to be true. But somehow, they never see it like that. They don’t obey every word that Lincoln, Washington, or Jefferson say; but if they find a quote they like, they’ll treat it as Gospel. Hell, they don’t even follow the Gospel like Gospel; but only pick the parts they like and ignore the rest.
But that doesn’t stop their deception-loving minds in its ability to deceive them yet again about the importance of any of it. At Sphere’s blog, almost every one of his commenters were proud to trumpet the Lincoln quote as definitive proof that Dems need to be treated more harshly. As do all other wingnuts who read it. And they’ll all insist that it’s Lincoln’s authority that makes it true; as the quote doesn’t even approximate a valid argument. And I can guarantee you that exactly 0% of those readers will reconsider their position, now that the quote’s been exposed as fraudulent. Nor will they allow Lincoln’s authority to override their position, even though it’s likely that Lincoln believed the opposite of them.
It was only because they liked the conclusion that they considered the source to be impeccable. And I have no doubt they’ll continue their quest for the unimpeachable proof forever. Perhaps someday, future wingnuts will have the glorious words of President Bush and Vice-Lord Cheney to vindicate their authoritarian bent. But until then, they’ll just have to satisfy themselves with the knowledge that they are so entirely right about everything that they don’t even require any proof. Which is quite convenient, as they never seem to find any.
When I was a young man, we were always taught that the stupidest kind of fools were the Republican wingnuts who quoted any old damn thing and pretended it was the Word of God simply because it confirmed a position they wanted to hear. Yet if it perchance to be a statement they wouldn’t want to hear, they would make a pillory of the quote as if it had come from the Devil himself. Those, my friends and countrymen, are the people we are to murder.
--- President Abraham Lincoln
Well that’s it. We win. I mean, who is going to argue with Abraham Lincoln? Sure, that really doesn’t sound like Abraham Lincoln, and his attack on Republican wingnuts does seem a little dubious; Lincoln being a Republican and everything. But it was attributed to him, so I guess that wraps things up and we can begin murdering these fools; per Abe’s instructions.
And sure, I made it up. It’s not a real Lincoln quote at all, but rather one I placed into his mouth because it made it a lot more weighty. But isn’t it the kind of thing that Lincoln might have said? Of course. Because we all know that Lincoln hated stupid fools who placed too much importance on historical figures and wanted them all murdered. Sure, he never actually said that either, but you can read it between the lines. He couldn’t outright say this stuff, but it’s there. Trust me.
Blaming the Editors
And I’m still joking. This is all based upon a catch from the unsinkable Roger Ailes of a wingnut meme that they refuse to fact check, due to the fact that they want so badly to believe that it’s true.
Here it is, a quote invented “accidentally” by J. Michael Waller, a writer of Insight magazine:
Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged.
And that’s just crap. What a dumb quote. That doesn’t even sound like Lincoln at all, and is extremely dubious. But when you’re a wingnut and you want something to be true, it is true, at least until someone brings it to your attention with undeniable proof. But by then, the quote’s already infected enough other wingnuts to keep it going forever. Factcheck.org destroyed that quote in August of 2006, yet it continues to be cited by influential wingnuts over half a year later.
Waller has admitted that he was the source of the quote, but insists that it was an editor who put quotes around it to make it sound like it came from Lincoln. But even if we rewrite his quote according to what he says he wrote, it still isn’t much better.
Here’s my guess as to what the dude says he wrote in 2003:
Congressmen who willfully take action during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs, and should be arrested, exiled or hanged, that's what President Abraham Lincoln said during the Civil War.
I should note that, although Waller says he wrote “Civil War” the “editor” of Insight changed it to “War Between the States”. These people are so childish. I should also mention that Waller says that between December 2003 when he wrote it and August 2006 when Factcheck asked him about it, nobody questioned him about the quote. He says he asked Insight to run a correction of it immediately, but they wouldn’t. And the editor of Insight wouldn’t even take or cast the blame on how this quote was created. Thus is our conservative media: Nobody’s to blame, and no attempt at correction. Kind of like a certain presidential administration I know.
Jockeying Defeatism
And Roger cites two examples of this accidental quote being used. The first was Frank J. Gaffney Jr., who wrote a commentary in the Washington Times yesterday which used the Lincoln quote as a springboard to denounce Democrats in Congress. Gaffney thinks it’s bizarro that “scarcely anyone seems to consider the conduct of the Congress inappropriate,” while Lincoln so clearly disapproved of his critics. He also complains about Dems who “jockey to outbid one another in their defeatism.”
And just to show how wise Gaffney is, I’ll give you this little treasure from the same piece:
Doug Feith is an old friend of mine. He is among the most thoughtful, careful and conscientious public servants I have ever known. The only truly "inappropriate" behavior evident is the ongoing effort led by Sens. Levin and Rockefeller to impugn the integrity, quality and, yes, the appropriateness of policymakers' efforts to ensure that far-reaching national security decisions are made on the basis of the best information available.
Right.
The second citation is from The Strata-Sphere blog, where the wingnut updates his praise of the quote by informing us that it was fictitious. But in doing so, he repeatedly denounces a liberal blogger who caught his mistake and insulted him for it. In fact, Mr. Sphere would have given a sincere thanks to the “foul mouthed childish liberal nut,” if “the poor sap had shown some maturity”.
That’s right. The lib nut was foul mouthed, so that makes it perfectly acceptable to insult the guy, even though the “emotionally stunted blogger” was correct and Mr. Sphere was totally wrong. But at least Sphere wasn’t foul-mouthed about his repeated insults; and that makes all the difference. That’s maturity for you.
Unimpeachable Sources
And that takes us into our final chapter: How conservatives insist on taking a person’s authority to be more important than what the person is saying. In this case, Mr. Sphere insists that we can’t argue with Abe Lincoln because he’s Abe Fricking Lincoln.
Mr. Sphere, Mr. Gaffney, and all the other wingnuts who have used that quote insist that it is proof of something, because it came from Lincoln. But that’s entirely backwards. Because there are lots of quotes from lots of famous and weighty people which entirely contradict what wingnuts believe. Why don’t they consider those quotes to be definitive? Because the quotes don’t support their position.
In fact, as Factcheck.org suggests, it’s more likely that Lincoln believed the exact opposite of what this quote suggests. Does that mean that wingnuts everywhere will start supporting the right to dissent? Of course not. It means, back to the drawing board; trying to find some other quote to use. Because it wasn’t the weight of the person that made it important; but what the person said. And that’s how this is supposed to work. It was only when they then flip this around and insist that it’s Lincoln’s importance that makes the quote better that they lose it.
But in fact, the lame quote attributed to Lincoln isn’t even a persuasive argument, but rather a conclusion. Had it been an explanation of why such a policy was necessary, it could have been a weighty statement. But that’s not what the wingnuts wanted. They got a conclusion they wanted to hear, saw that it was supposedly spoken by somebody important, and then insisted that they had finally found the civil liberties-busting proof they’ve been waiting for.
Because they don’t do arguments; they do conclusions. For them, an argument is nothing but a conclusion waiting to happen. And so to find out that Lincoln wanted to hang morale-busting congressmen puts perspective on our own inaction at stopping our morale-busters. And now that the statement has been shown to be written by a no-name conservative, it’s lost its luster and will be tossed into the anti-lib scrapheap. They only found Lincoln unimpeachable because they liked the quote; but the quote was only useful if it came from Lincoln. That’s irony for you.
Blessed be the Deceivers
And we see this again, when he gives his excuse for how he made this embarrassing mistake. It’s not his fault you see. As he says “I cannot fact check the news media.” Of course not. I suppose Rathergate and all those boneheaded assertions of media malfeasance are entirely aberrations. And the fact that his source for this was an opinion piece in a newspaper with an explicit rightwing bias was all the more reason to not bother checking its authenticity.
But again, it wasn’t that. All it was is that Mr. Sphere saw a quote he liked and didn’t care whether it was real. Its realness was entirely supported by his desire for it to be real. Same goes with Gaffney and all the other wingnuts who cite it. Sure, a ten second search on Google brings up the Factcheck piece almost immediately, but why would anyone want to search for something that undermined their argument? That’s like aiding and abetting the enemy without them even knowing about it.
But this is a constant theme with conservatives: Their desire to find quotes they like which are then considered unimpeachable due to the fact that they want the quote to be true. But somehow, they never see it like that. They don’t obey every word that Lincoln, Washington, or Jefferson say; but if they find a quote they like, they’ll treat it as Gospel. Hell, they don’t even follow the Gospel like Gospel; but only pick the parts they like and ignore the rest.
But that doesn’t stop their deception-loving minds in its ability to deceive them yet again about the importance of any of it. At Sphere’s blog, almost every one of his commenters were proud to trumpet the Lincoln quote as definitive proof that Dems need to be treated more harshly. As do all other wingnuts who read it. And they’ll all insist that it’s Lincoln’s authority that makes it true; as the quote doesn’t even approximate a valid argument. And I can guarantee you that exactly 0% of those readers will reconsider their position, now that the quote’s been exposed as fraudulent. Nor will they allow Lincoln’s authority to override their position, even though it’s likely that Lincoln believed the opposite of them.
It was only because they liked the conclusion that they considered the source to be impeccable. And I have no doubt they’ll continue their quest for the unimpeachable proof forever. Perhaps someday, future wingnuts will have the glorious words of President Bush and Vice-Lord Cheney to vindicate their authoritarian bent. But until then, they’ll just have to satisfy themselves with the knowledge that they are so entirely right about everything that they don’t even require any proof. Which is quite convenient, as they never seem to find any.
Forcing the Surge
Greg Sargent at TPM Election has a post on how dopehead GOP Reps. John Shadegg and Peter Hoekstra wrote a letter telling Republican congressmen to avoid defending the “surge” in Congress, but to focus instead on the threat posed by radical Islamists (how original). And it’s just too hilarious that this kind of thing got out. After all, there’s no better way to undermine your argument than to have a memo leak-out that shows that you didn’t even want to make it in the first place.
And my god are these guys dumb. I mean sure, there are probably quite a few congressmen quite relieved to be given marching orders of any kind, as they’re just not good at handling this stuff on their own. But there’s got to be at least a few Republican Congressmen and staffers who really do believe in this shit. They believe in the surge and the rightness of what America’s doing in Iraq, and for Shadegg and Hoekstra to insist that these are indefensible ideas that are traps set by the Democrats has got to sting.
Democrats could have said this stuff until they were blue in the face and these rightwingers would have called them anti-American. But to have a trickster-sounding memo from two Republican congressmen insist that the surge-debate is a sure loser for them; that’s got to hurt. Republicans didn’t use to make these kinds of mistakes.
Baby Steps
The other point I wanted to make is how shallow these people are, and how they think we’re just like them. I quote:
Democrats want to force us to focus on defending the surge, making the case that it will work and explaining why the President's new Iraq policy is different from prior efforts and therefore justified.
Is that really why the Dems are doing this? To make the Republicans defend it? I thought they were doing it because they opposed the surge. Or to take things more broadly, that they opposed Bush’s War. Or if you wanted to be cynical, that they want Bush’s War to be lost so they can pin it on the GOP forever.
But even at its most cynical, this isn’t about forcing the Republicans to defend anything. I don’t know about you, but I’d be perfectly happy if Republicans embraced an anti-surge position. Screw the non-binding resolution; I’ll gladly let them stop the surge right now. Or the whole war, for that matter. And they can keep the credit for themselves And if they got around to helping us impeach Bush and Cheney, I might even consider voting for them some day.
Because for as much as congressional Dems are playing a game, it’s a game to stop Bush’s dangerous actions. And it’s a game that Republicans are forcing us to play. It’d be best if we could outright stop Bush’s war, but that’s just not how the deck is stacked right now. While things are clearly swinging to our side, it’s still necessary to take baby steps with this stuff. Nixon wasn’t toppled in a day, and it’s often best to slowly build your support than to assume you’ve got it and be wrong.
But again, this isn’t about the debate or making Republicans look stupid. And we certainly don’t want them defending the surge. That’s the way they play things. Those are their games. They’re the ones who will rewrite any bill until it becomes unpalatable to most Democrats. They’re the ones who make phony rhetorical arguments to trap their opponents into defending bad positions. That’s how they did so well in the past, and why all hell has finally caught up with them.
And we’re the ones who want to finally bring all that to an end. Because that’s what this is about. We’re not doing this for the sake of cheap political theater. We’re trying to save America. And that’s clearly something that Republicans have shown themselves incapable of doing.
And my god are these guys dumb. I mean sure, there are probably quite a few congressmen quite relieved to be given marching orders of any kind, as they’re just not good at handling this stuff on their own. But there’s got to be at least a few Republican Congressmen and staffers who really do believe in this shit. They believe in the surge and the rightness of what America’s doing in Iraq, and for Shadegg and Hoekstra to insist that these are indefensible ideas that are traps set by the Democrats has got to sting.
Democrats could have said this stuff until they were blue in the face and these rightwingers would have called them anti-American. But to have a trickster-sounding memo from two Republican congressmen insist that the surge-debate is a sure loser for them; that’s got to hurt. Republicans didn’t use to make these kinds of mistakes.
Baby Steps
The other point I wanted to make is how shallow these people are, and how they think we’re just like them. I quote:
Democrats want to force us to focus on defending the surge, making the case that it will work and explaining why the President's new Iraq policy is different from prior efforts and therefore justified.
Is that really why the Dems are doing this? To make the Republicans defend it? I thought they were doing it because they opposed the surge. Or to take things more broadly, that they opposed Bush’s War. Or if you wanted to be cynical, that they want Bush’s War to be lost so they can pin it on the GOP forever.
But even at its most cynical, this isn’t about forcing the Republicans to defend anything. I don’t know about you, but I’d be perfectly happy if Republicans embraced an anti-surge position. Screw the non-binding resolution; I’ll gladly let them stop the surge right now. Or the whole war, for that matter. And they can keep the credit for themselves And if they got around to helping us impeach Bush and Cheney, I might even consider voting for them some day.
Because for as much as congressional Dems are playing a game, it’s a game to stop Bush’s dangerous actions. And it’s a game that Republicans are forcing us to play. It’d be best if we could outright stop Bush’s war, but that’s just not how the deck is stacked right now. While things are clearly swinging to our side, it’s still necessary to take baby steps with this stuff. Nixon wasn’t toppled in a day, and it’s often best to slowly build your support than to assume you’ve got it and be wrong.
But again, this isn’t about the debate or making Republicans look stupid. And we certainly don’t want them defending the surge. That’s the way they play things. Those are their games. They’re the ones who will rewrite any bill until it becomes unpalatable to most Democrats. They’re the ones who make phony rhetorical arguments to trap their opponents into defending bad positions. That’s how they did so well in the past, and why all hell has finally caught up with them.
And we’re the ones who want to finally bring all that to an end. Because that’s what this is about. We’re not doing this for the sake of cheap political theater. We’re trying to save America. And that’s clearly something that Republicans have shown themselves incapable of doing.
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Dopes in Suits
Wowwiewow! That’s dumb. Hullabaloo’s Poputonian cites a Hardball transcript featuring Congressman Cantor of Virginia, the man I hope is the dumbest person in Congress. I hope…
Sample quote:
…the Constitution gives the commander in chief the right to send our troops into battle.
When his Democratic counterpart, Congressman Israel (D-Sanity) insisted that the Constitution clearly gives Congress the authority to declare war, Cantor responds “Absolutely not.”
Ok, the guy’s clearly dumb. This is basic stuff that would get him laughed out of any history or civics class, even going down to the elementary school level. But he does have a point. Presidents do seem to be taking these authorities on their own, while using Congress as a rubberstamp for whatever they do; so it makes sense why he’s confused. But that rubberstamp shouldn’t be confused with a non-existent one, which is what Cantor seems to believe. As if asking Congress’s permission is a mere nicety, rather than a requirement.
But I suspect that this is how they’re trained. The Republican leadership didn’t want smart Congressmen who ask questions. They want dopes who can raise money and win office. And they do that by doing what they’re told and saying what they’re told to say. That’s a big reason why Republicans were so successful. Because they recruited dopes in suits who wanted to be told what to say and do.
And so that’s what they do, and that goes from everyone from minor Republicans in state legislatures all the way up to the big guy in the Whitehouse. Not that every Republican politician is like that, but mainly the new guys who gained office in the last decade or so. Wikipedia tells me that Congressman Cantor was first elected to Congress in 2000, which I don’t find surprising at all. He’s typical of the post-9/11 Congressman.
What I do find slightly surprising is that Cantor is a lawyer, which you’d think would make him a little more aware of how our Constitution was set-up. But looking at his picture, he seems just like the empty suit kind of guy who could say and believe anything he’d need to in order to get by in life. Whether it’s a law class, the bar exam, or a television interview; he doesn’t care what he says, he just wants something to say.
And so the Republicans fed him all kinds of stupid stuff to say, and he’s saying it; completely oblivious to how utterly stupid it makes him look. Before his bizarro lesson in separation of powers, Cantor continued to miscomprehend Chris Matthews’ question about whether he thought we should go to war in Iran, before finally blowing Matthews’ mind by insisting that the decision was up to the “commanders on the ground and those in our military…”
But I don’t think he meant that at all. He had a talking point, but wasn’t really sure how to use it. And he used it horribly. The same with his belief that the President has the authority to declare war. It’s not necessarily that he believes that. He was just misusing a talking point that he doesn’t really understand. Frankly, I almost think it’s better to have this dope in Congress, than to allow him to continue lawyering in the real world. After all, he’s just one vote in Congress, but in private practice, he’s a loose cannon.
But this isn’t just Cantor, but all the empty suits the Republicans have been filling for the past decade or so. Especially the empty suit in the Whitehouse. They don’t understand what they’re saying. They’re so dumb they don’t even understand that they don’t understand. They repeat what their betters tell them and just imagine themselves to be the cleverest people in the world. It’s like they’ve been handed their own team of math nerds to cheat off of all the time. Finally, someone’s giving them the answers they’ve been waiting for.
Just like Bush and The Pet Goat; these people are helpless little nobodies unless they’re told what to do. Not to be given orders, per se. But to have all the infinite options paired down to a small list of two or three; and one of the options must look obviously better than the others. They don’t want to be told what to do, but they hate choices and haven’t the intellect to make heads or tails of what’s going on around them. But explain it to them in black and white, tell them that they have or haven’t powers that they do or don’t want; and they can take it from there and imagine themselves to be deciders.
“I like good,” so they choose good. “I don’t want to make that decision,” so they give it to somebody else. It’s that easy. And I understand that and do it myself. At a restaurant or an ice cream parlor. If I make the decision to have a banana split, I hate having to decide what ice creams will go on it, or what toppings go on my waffle cone. I’ll just screw it up. Limit my options; I’ll go with what the experts say.
And unfortunately, we’re led by people who are stuck doing the same with our country’s future. They’re helpless little kids who were never given the tools to allow them to grasp reality on their own; and that’s exactly why the Republican leadership picked them. They were just empty suits ready to be filled. And they looove the talking points; even if they don’t know how to use them.
Sample quote:
…the Constitution gives the commander in chief the right to send our troops into battle.
When his Democratic counterpart, Congressman Israel (D-Sanity) insisted that the Constitution clearly gives Congress the authority to declare war, Cantor responds “Absolutely not.”
Ok, the guy’s clearly dumb. This is basic stuff that would get him laughed out of any history or civics class, even going down to the elementary school level. But he does have a point. Presidents do seem to be taking these authorities on their own, while using Congress as a rubberstamp for whatever they do; so it makes sense why he’s confused. But that rubberstamp shouldn’t be confused with a non-existent one, which is what Cantor seems to believe. As if asking Congress’s permission is a mere nicety, rather than a requirement.
But I suspect that this is how they’re trained. The Republican leadership didn’t want smart Congressmen who ask questions. They want dopes who can raise money and win office. And they do that by doing what they’re told and saying what they’re told to say. That’s a big reason why Republicans were so successful. Because they recruited dopes in suits who wanted to be told what to say and do.
And so that’s what they do, and that goes from everyone from minor Republicans in state legislatures all the way up to the big guy in the Whitehouse. Not that every Republican politician is like that, but mainly the new guys who gained office in the last decade or so. Wikipedia tells me that Congressman Cantor was first elected to Congress in 2000, which I don’t find surprising at all. He’s typical of the post-9/11 Congressman.
What I do find slightly surprising is that Cantor is a lawyer, which you’d think would make him a little more aware of how our Constitution was set-up. But looking at his picture, he seems just like the empty suit kind of guy who could say and believe anything he’d need to in order to get by in life. Whether it’s a law class, the bar exam, or a television interview; he doesn’t care what he says, he just wants something to say.
And so the Republicans fed him all kinds of stupid stuff to say, and he’s saying it; completely oblivious to how utterly stupid it makes him look. Before his bizarro lesson in separation of powers, Cantor continued to miscomprehend Chris Matthews’ question about whether he thought we should go to war in Iran, before finally blowing Matthews’ mind by insisting that the decision was up to the “commanders on the ground and those in our military…”
But I don’t think he meant that at all. He had a talking point, but wasn’t really sure how to use it. And he used it horribly. The same with his belief that the President has the authority to declare war. It’s not necessarily that he believes that. He was just misusing a talking point that he doesn’t really understand. Frankly, I almost think it’s better to have this dope in Congress, than to allow him to continue lawyering in the real world. After all, he’s just one vote in Congress, but in private practice, he’s a loose cannon.
But this isn’t just Cantor, but all the empty suits the Republicans have been filling for the past decade or so. Especially the empty suit in the Whitehouse. They don’t understand what they’re saying. They’re so dumb they don’t even understand that they don’t understand. They repeat what their betters tell them and just imagine themselves to be the cleverest people in the world. It’s like they’ve been handed their own team of math nerds to cheat off of all the time. Finally, someone’s giving them the answers they’ve been waiting for.
Just like Bush and The Pet Goat; these people are helpless little nobodies unless they’re told what to do. Not to be given orders, per se. But to have all the infinite options paired down to a small list of two or three; and one of the options must look obviously better than the others. They don’t want to be told what to do, but they hate choices and haven’t the intellect to make heads or tails of what’s going on around them. But explain it to them in black and white, tell them that they have or haven’t powers that they do or don’t want; and they can take it from there and imagine themselves to be deciders.
“I like good,” so they choose good. “I don’t want to make that decision,” so they give it to somebody else. It’s that easy. And I understand that and do it myself. At a restaurant or an ice cream parlor. If I make the decision to have a banana split, I hate having to decide what ice creams will go on it, or what toppings go on my waffle cone. I’ll just screw it up. Limit my options; I’ll go with what the experts say.
And unfortunately, we’re led by people who are stuck doing the same with our country’s future. They’re helpless little kids who were never given the tools to allow them to grasp reality on their own; and that’s exactly why the Republican leadership picked them. They were just empty suits ready to be filled. And they looove the talking points; even if they don’t know how to use them.
Monday, February 12, 2007
Switching-Hitting Joe
With some buzz about Joe Lieberman switching teams, I’ll just state my opinion that he won’t do it. Not necessarily because he’ll be screwing himself in the short and long term, as he’s never been one to avoid taking a losing position. But because it will totally screw him in Connecticut and he’ll never win office there again.
In 2006, he ran as a Democrat that was too mainstream for a Democratic primary. It was the whole Zell Miller thing of him not leaving the Democratic Party, but it leaving him. And it looks like a lot of people bought it, as he was able to pull-in 33% of the Democratic vote; while his Republican adversary could only manage 2%. And while Lieberman clearly benefited from his strong support from Republicans, without whom he couldn’t have won the election; he was much more heavily reliant on the Democrats.
And without a doubt, many Dems and independents would surely avoid him, were he to confirm everything the liberals have been saying about Joe being a Dem in wolf clothing. While he may enjoy his independent status, he clearly needs the Democrat after his name. As things are, I’m sure there are quite a few Connecticutians already feeling burned by Joe’s rightward pull after the election; and a full-on move to the Republican side would surely seal the deal.
Besides, Joe already got 70% of Republican voters in 2006, crushing the actual Republican by a margin of 49%; so there’s no real advantage to him getting the R after his name. Of course, all bets are off if he’s only worried about the presidential race, where he might try for a VP slot. But I don’t see why anyone would have him. His only real function is as the Dem Who Won’t Come Out of the Rain; and he’d lose that were he to switch sides, and be reduced to being no more important than the rest of the bums in the Bush Loyalist Scrapheap. Bush Loyalists are a dime a dozen in the Republican Party, but Joe stays a rarity as long as he has the D after his name.
And in that regard, I certainly hope he does switch sides. That’s assuming that Atrios’ analysis is correct and we wouldn’t lose the Senate. It’d make it easier to beat him in 2012, and get him out of our hair until then. As I said, he’d stop being a Lone Maverick attacking the Dems from the inside, and look like all the other dumb schmucks supporting Bush. So I say, thanks for playing and good riddance, Joe. Unless, of course, we do still need him, and I say thanks for staying and glad you could join the team. What can I say, I’m a whore for Democratic oversight.
In 2006, he ran as a Democrat that was too mainstream for a Democratic primary. It was the whole Zell Miller thing of him not leaving the Democratic Party, but it leaving him. And it looks like a lot of people bought it, as he was able to pull-in 33% of the Democratic vote; while his Republican adversary could only manage 2%. And while Lieberman clearly benefited from his strong support from Republicans, without whom he couldn’t have won the election; he was much more heavily reliant on the Democrats.
And without a doubt, many Dems and independents would surely avoid him, were he to confirm everything the liberals have been saying about Joe being a Dem in wolf clothing. While he may enjoy his independent status, he clearly needs the Democrat after his name. As things are, I’m sure there are quite a few Connecticutians already feeling burned by Joe’s rightward pull after the election; and a full-on move to the Republican side would surely seal the deal.
Besides, Joe already got 70% of Republican voters in 2006, crushing the actual Republican by a margin of 49%; so there’s no real advantage to him getting the R after his name. Of course, all bets are off if he’s only worried about the presidential race, where he might try for a VP slot. But I don’t see why anyone would have him. His only real function is as the Dem Who Won’t Come Out of the Rain; and he’d lose that were he to switch sides, and be reduced to being no more important than the rest of the bums in the Bush Loyalist Scrapheap. Bush Loyalists are a dime a dozen in the Republican Party, but Joe stays a rarity as long as he has the D after his name.
And in that regard, I certainly hope he does switch sides. That’s assuming that Atrios’ analysis is correct and we wouldn’t lose the Senate. It’d make it easier to beat him in 2012, and get him out of our hair until then. As I said, he’d stop being a Lone Maverick attacking the Dems from the inside, and look like all the other dumb schmucks supporting Bush. So I say, thanks for playing and good riddance, Joe. Unless, of course, we do still need him, and I say thanks for staying and glad you could join the team. What can I say, I’m a whore for Democratic oversight.
Striking Out for America
In response to President Putin’s “tough talk” (which as I pointed out, was merely a reality-based version of the neo-cons’ own tough talk), newbie Secretary of Defense Gates tries to suggest that this is Putin’s attempt to restart the Cold War. Again, Putin’s merely paraphrasing from the neo-cons’ own handbook, so I’m not sure why they’re so offended, but at least Gates suggests that he wants to deescalate things, which would indicate that his neo-con masters aren’t completely stupid. Let’s see how he does.
He starts with a joke, saying:
As an old Cold Warrior, one of yesterday's speeches almost filled me with nostalgia for a less complex time. Almost.
Yes, it’s amazing how simple nuclear annihilation makes things. Except, it really wasn’t. The neo-cons saw Soviet conspiracies all over the world, including many places where they didn’t exist, and it really fucked with our foreign policy. We supported ruthless dictators, stomped down democratic movements, and did all kinds of mean and nasty things that we should all be ashamed of. And let’s not forget that simple of all wars, Vietnam; where we just kept stumbling from bad to worse and created a communist threat where there didn’t need to be one. How simple was that?
Overall, I’d have to say that our terrorists don’t even approach the complexity and, dare I say, mindfuckability of our old Soviet enemies. So we’ll count that little joke of his as Strike One.
Partnership with Russia
Let’s move on to his next quote:
We all face many common problems and challenges that must be addressed in partnership with other countries, including Russia. One Cold War was quite enough.
This would seem to be a repudiation of the neo-cons’ unilateral, unipolar policies; and if taken seriously, an indication that he has understood Putin’s underlying complaint by suggesting that we’ll adapt accordingly. But without any kind of explicit admission that this is a change in policy, I fear that this is merely empty rhetoric, designed to undercut Putin’s criticism by pretending it was incorrect. So we’ll count that as a foul-tip, which all you baseball fans should know, puts us firmly at Strike Two.
Stumbling Goodness
So we move on to a third quote:
For the past century, he said, most people believed that "while we might from time to time do something stupid, that we were a force for good in the world."
While not a solid hit, I have to agree with that remark. That has been our policy in the past; that we make mistakes, but usually strive for goodness. I once had a German teacher who was from Germany, and he often remarked how odd the whole Vietnam thing was from their perspective. Germans loved us, thanks to our post-WWII good-guyness; but he and his people just couldn’t fathom how we became such bad guys in Vietnam.
But we recovered from that, and mostly stayed on a path of good. As much as we stumbled, it was often due to bad elements within our government (eg, the neo-cons), and didn’t represent us as a whole. But acknowledging our past policy of stumbling goodness isn’t necessarily an acknowledgement that this policy remains in effect, so I’ll have to count this as yet another foul-tip; a little straighter than the last one, but still not a fair ball. And that keeps us at Strike Two.
Lipsticking the Pig
Let’s see the next pitch:
I think we also have made some mistakes and have not presented our case as well as we might in many instances. I think we have to work on that.
Omigod, it looks like Gates struck out swinging. And what a mistake. Rather than admitting real error, Gates thinks he can placate us by suggesting that a better PR campaign is all that’s needed to waylay our fears that our government is acting unilaterally in a unipolar world.
And that’s exactly how we got into this mess in the first place; being led by people who believe they can do anything they want, just as long as the marketing campaign is good enough. And long after they are forced to admit that their policies failed, all they can do is to continue to blame their marketing people for not doing a better job in sales.
But as we all know, putting lipstick on a pig ain’t going to make it more attractive, and the people of the world aren’t nearly as stupid as these jerks like to believe. We know when we’re seeing one-sided aggression and a dismissal of international norms. And as I said in my previous post on this subject, these are exact policies the neo-cons insist they’re doing. They don’t think they need to follow international standards. They don’t think they’re accountable to anyone but themselves, and that they have power simply because they believe they have it. And that’s the exact kind of thing Putin was talking about.
The Mighty Gates Struck Out
And so it looks like Gates completely blew this at-bat. Putin is a mighty tough pitcher and Gates didn’t even come close to getting a solid hit. The closest Gates got was an acknowledgement of America’s old foreign policy, of allowing neo-cons to screw up our nice-guy policy; which naturally is no longer applicable now that the neo-cons have hijacked our government. We changed from being good guys who occasionally screw-up to bad guys who screw-up everything, and Gates said nothing to indicate any change in that policy.
And perhaps this is an example of the media filtering out the good stuff, but I have yet to hear anyone even try to dispute Putin’s claims. Instead, they merely attack him for denouncing our policies, without even addressing anything he said. But how could they dispute what he said, when it was nothing but a rewording of the neo-cons’ stated agenda? They can’t. So they just attack Putin for “talking tough”, which is yet another of the blunders that these boobs continue to make.
And because of that, they can’t even handle a simple diplomatic mission. Their SOP is to attack anyone who criticizes them, and still haven’t learned that it almost always makes things worse. Even in this case, where Gates admits that he’d like to deescalate tensions, he can’t do it. Hell, he didn’t even have to change policies; but rather just admit to mistakes and pretend we’re doing things differently now. But he couldn’t even perform that simple lie, but rather had to resort to obvious deceptions that only make him look even more foolish.
Gates and the neo-cons know perfectly well that Putin’s criticisms were correct, as it’s something the neo-cons brag about. For them, it’s immoral to not use America’s position of dominance to our advantage. They thought we should do it back when there were two superpowers, and they think it even more now that we’re the only one. And so for as much as Gates may have wanted to “rebuke” Putin’s tough talk, he did nothing but confirm it. And this becomes all the more obvious as we watch the marketing campaign for the next war ramp-up. Gates may have wanted to knock one out for the hometeam, but as long as he’s taking orders from the neo-cons, we’ll all keep striking out.
He starts with a joke, saying:
As an old Cold Warrior, one of yesterday's speeches almost filled me with nostalgia for a less complex time. Almost.
Yes, it’s amazing how simple nuclear annihilation makes things. Except, it really wasn’t. The neo-cons saw Soviet conspiracies all over the world, including many places where they didn’t exist, and it really fucked with our foreign policy. We supported ruthless dictators, stomped down democratic movements, and did all kinds of mean and nasty things that we should all be ashamed of. And let’s not forget that simple of all wars, Vietnam; where we just kept stumbling from bad to worse and created a communist threat where there didn’t need to be one. How simple was that?
Overall, I’d have to say that our terrorists don’t even approach the complexity and, dare I say, mindfuckability of our old Soviet enemies. So we’ll count that little joke of his as Strike One.
Partnership with Russia
Let’s move on to his next quote:
We all face many common problems and challenges that must be addressed in partnership with other countries, including Russia. One Cold War was quite enough.
This would seem to be a repudiation of the neo-cons’ unilateral, unipolar policies; and if taken seriously, an indication that he has understood Putin’s underlying complaint by suggesting that we’ll adapt accordingly. But without any kind of explicit admission that this is a change in policy, I fear that this is merely empty rhetoric, designed to undercut Putin’s criticism by pretending it was incorrect. So we’ll count that as a foul-tip, which all you baseball fans should know, puts us firmly at Strike Two.
Stumbling Goodness
So we move on to a third quote:
For the past century, he said, most people believed that "while we might from time to time do something stupid, that we were a force for good in the world."
While not a solid hit, I have to agree with that remark. That has been our policy in the past; that we make mistakes, but usually strive for goodness. I once had a German teacher who was from Germany, and he often remarked how odd the whole Vietnam thing was from their perspective. Germans loved us, thanks to our post-WWII good-guyness; but he and his people just couldn’t fathom how we became such bad guys in Vietnam.
But we recovered from that, and mostly stayed on a path of good. As much as we stumbled, it was often due to bad elements within our government (eg, the neo-cons), and didn’t represent us as a whole. But acknowledging our past policy of stumbling goodness isn’t necessarily an acknowledgement that this policy remains in effect, so I’ll have to count this as yet another foul-tip; a little straighter than the last one, but still not a fair ball. And that keeps us at Strike Two.
Lipsticking the Pig
Let’s see the next pitch:
I think we also have made some mistakes and have not presented our case as well as we might in many instances. I think we have to work on that.
Omigod, it looks like Gates struck out swinging. And what a mistake. Rather than admitting real error, Gates thinks he can placate us by suggesting that a better PR campaign is all that’s needed to waylay our fears that our government is acting unilaterally in a unipolar world.
And that’s exactly how we got into this mess in the first place; being led by people who believe they can do anything they want, just as long as the marketing campaign is good enough. And long after they are forced to admit that their policies failed, all they can do is to continue to blame their marketing people for not doing a better job in sales.
But as we all know, putting lipstick on a pig ain’t going to make it more attractive, and the people of the world aren’t nearly as stupid as these jerks like to believe. We know when we’re seeing one-sided aggression and a dismissal of international norms. And as I said in my previous post on this subject, these are exact policies the neo-cons insist they’re doing. They don’t think they need to follow international standards. They don’t think they’re accountable to anyone but themselves, and that they have power simply because they believe they have it. And that’s the exact kind of thing Putin was talking about.
The Mighty Gates Struck Out
And so it looks like Gates completely blew this at-bat. Putin is a mighty tough pitcher and Gates didn’t even come close to getting a solid hit. The closest Gates got was an acknowledgement of America’s old foreign policy, of allowing neo-cons to screw up our nice-guy policy; which naturally is no longer applicable now that the neo-cons have hijacked our government. We changed from being good guys who occasionally screw-up to bad guys who screw-up everything, and Gates said nothing to indicate any change in that policy.
And perhaps this is an example of the media filtering out the good stuff, but I have yet to hear anyone even try to dispute Putin’s claims. Instead, they merely attack him for denouncing our policies, without even addressing anything he said. But how could they dispute what he said, when it was nothing but a rewording of the neo-cons’ stated agenda? They can’t. So they just attack Putin for “talking tough”, which is yet another of the blunders that these boobs continue to make.
And because of that, they can’t even handle a simple diplomatic mission. Their SOP is to attack anyone who criticizes them, and still haven’t learned that it almost always makes things worse. Even in this case, where Gates admits that he’d like to deescalate tensions, he can’t do it. Hell, he didn’t even have to change policies; but rather just admit to mistakes and pretend we’re doing things differently now. But he couldn’t even perform that simple lie, but rather had to resort to obvious deceptions that only make him look even more foolish.
Gates and the neo-cons know perfectly well that Putin’s criticisms were correct, as it’s something the neo-cons brag about. For them, it’s immoral to not use America’s position of dominance to our advantage. They thought we should do it back when there were two superpowers, and they think it even more now that we’re the only one. And so for as much as Gates may have wanted to “rebuke” Putin’s tough talk, he did nothing but confirm it. And this becomes all the more obvious as we watch the marketing campaign for the next war ramp-up. Gates may have wanted to knock one out for the hometeam, but as long as he’s taking orders from the neo-cons, we’ll all keep striking out.
Saturday, February 10, 2007
World Domination; Like It's a Bad Thing
I suppose everything really is about how you say something, and not what you’re saying. I just read about Russian President Putin and his “accusations” that our government wants to be the sole superpower in the world so as to force other nations to do what we want.
I quote:
In a speech in Germany, which one U.S. senator said smacked of Cold War rhetoric, Putin accused the United States of making the world a more dangerous place by pursuing policies aimed at making it "one single master."
Attacking the concept of a "unipolar" world in which the United States was the sole superpower, he said: "What is a unipolar world? No matter how we beautify this term it means one single center of power, one single center of force and one single master."
He also said:
Nobody feels secure any more because nobody can hide behind international law."
Huh?? Is any of this the least bit controversial? I mean, this is the exact crap the neo-cons have been spewing for years. They think America should use its position of economic and military dominance to shape the world in their image. And they don’t think that international laws should constrain us from doing so.
How is this controversial, when it’s the very basis of what they insist we should be doing? If anything, the controversy should be that they’re doing this crap, not that Putin’s mentioning it. And again, it’s not just that the neo-cons think we can do this, but they insist that we must. That it’s our duty to reshape the world as we see fit, and they attack anyone as cowardly and anti-American for not agreeing with them.
And who was that one U.S. senator who complained about Putin’s speech? Why, none other than Joe Lieberman, one of the punk-asses who think we should be invading everyone who looks at us funny. Does he really think we need to obey international standards? Does he think we need to ask permission before enacting our plans upon the world? Would he prefer other nations to stand up against our decisions? Of course not. And neither do any of the neo-cons. That’s what makes them neo-cons.
And let’s face it, these jerkoffs really did have a more realistic agenda back in the Cold War days and probably could use a dousing of cold water to help sober them up. Because Putin’s also correct in saying that these “unipolar” policies are dangerous, and it would be nice for there to be some other power structure to put a check on the neo-cons’ goal of world domination. Back then, they at least had the respectable goal of stopping the Soviets when they played their game of Risk. But these days, it’s like they get to make-up whatever the hell rules they want and refuse to allow reality to even slow them down. And while they were dangerously wrong before, they’ve really pulled-out all the stops this time.
But I guess it’s just no fun when they hear this stuff from other people. Sort of how it’s ok for a fat dude to make fun of his weight, but not ok for the rest of us. It’s like the stuff that Cheney spews out just sounds weird coming from Putin’s mouth. But I suspect their real complaint isn’t that he’s saying these things about America, but only that he’s saying it like it’s a bad thing. They wouldn’t disagree with a word he’s saying, if only he didn’t make it sound so negative.
I quote:
In a speech in Germany, which one U.S. senator said smacked of Cold War rhetoric, Putin accused the United States of making the world a more dangerous place by pursuing policies aimed at making it "one single master."
Attacking the concept of a "unipolar" world in which the United States was the sole superpower, he said: "What is a unipolar world? No matter how we beautify this term it means one single center of power, one single center of force and one single master."
He also said:
Nobody feels secure any more because nobody can hide behind international law."
Huh?? Is any of this the least bit controversial? I mean, this is the exact crap the neo-cons have been spewing for years. They think America should use its position of economic and military dominance to shape the world in their image. And they don’t think that international laws should constrain us from doing so.
How is this controversial, when it’s the very basis of what they insist we should be doing? If anything, the controversy should be that they’re doing this crap, not that Putin’s mentioning it. And again, it’s not just that the neo-cons think we can do this, but they insist that we must. That it’s our duty to reshape the world as we see fit, and they attack anyone as cowardly and anti-American for not agreeing with them.
And who was that one U.S. senator who complained about Putin’s speech? Why, none other than Joe Lieberman, one of the punk-asses who think we should be invading everyone who looks at us funny. Does he really think we need to obey international standards? Does he think we need to ask permission before enacting our plans upon the world? Would he prefer other nations to stand up against our decisions? Of course not. And neither do any of the neo-cons. That’s what makes them neo-cons.
And let’s face it, these jerkoffs really did have a more realistic agenda back in the Cold War days and probably could use a dousing of cold water to help sober them up. Because Putin’s also correct in saying that these “unipolar” policies are dangerous, and it would be nice for there to be some other power structure to put a check on the neo-cons’ goal of world domination. Back then, they at least had the respectable goal of stopping the Soviets when they played their game of Risk. But these days, it’s like they get to make-up whatever the hell rules they want and refuse to allow reality to even slow them down. And while they were dangerously wrong before, they’ve really pulled-out all the stops this time.
But I guess it’s just no fun when they hear this stuff from other people. Sort of how it’s ok for a fat dude to make fun of his weight, but not ok for the rest of us. It’s like the stuff that Cheney spews out just sounds weird coming from Putin’s mouth. But I suspect their real complaint isn’t that he’s saying these things about America, but only that he’s saying it like it’s a bad thing. They wouldn’t disagree with a word he’s saying, if only he didn’t make it sound so negative.
News for Sale
Something I don’t understand about the media’s penchant for pimping propaganda is how often they seem to be willfully ignoring the truth and only want to repeat what others say; even if it means their story is less interesting. I was thinking about this while reading Brad DeLong’s takedown of Mike Allen’s anti-Barack propaganda piece.
Allen’s piece is a rundown of what Barack’s numerous, yet unnamed critics suggest are weaknesses in Barack’s armor. And he has a largish section on Barrack’s name. You see, Barack once said that his name is an Arabic word for “blessed”. Yet he now says it’s a Swahili word for “blessed by God”. And DeLong goes ahead and spoils the joke by pointing out that it’s the same word that means both things in both languages, as well as being a similar word in Hebrew that many Jews say as part of a standard prayer.
But the thing is, why did Allen leave it at that? He implies that Barack is being deceitful about his name, but the better story would have been to prove it. If it’s worth mentioning that Barack has contradicted himself, it’s even better if Allen could tell us what the word really means and prove to us that Barack is being deceitful. That would turn a fairly lame story into a slightly better one.
But Allen doesn’t go there. It wouldn’t have taken much research at all, yet Allen would prefer to just recite what Barack’s critics are saying, without doing the least bit of work. Yet had he done a little work, he would have realized how foolish the whole thing was, and not made an idiot of himself. And beyond that, he would have had a slightly better story, had the criticism been correct.
So in either case, it behooved Allen to do the five minutes of research to settle the matter. But it seems this happens all too often with reporters. They’d be better at their jobs and not look like idiots, were they to do the least bit of investigating. I’m not even talking about fact-checking, so much as digging out the bigger story. After all, if Allen’s claims against Barack’s supposed name-change were correct, then it’d be even better for him to have told us what the name really meant and settled the matter.
But no. That doesn’t happen and I don’t even know why. Could they just fear that further research might undermine their lame story? Is it just laziness? It seems more likely that they just don’t even understand how to do their jobs and have been trained as stenographers, because they never seem to want to do any research. Again, if Allen believed these claims had merit, it’s only natural that he’d take one tiny step further and prove it.
And I suspect this might be the fault of editors, who are supposed to make their reporters dig deeper (ala Perry White, and that dickhead editor of Spiderman), but are perhaps more concerned with deadlines and getting out product. And in that regard, extra research only means extra delays, even if it can be done in a matter of two minutes on Google. So perhaps at fault is the corporatization of the media, and the conflict between doing their job and making profits. And it’s far more profitable for them to outsource their research to Republicans who will do the work for free. Not only is it easier, but it’s more pleasing to their corporate masters.
On the whole, I’m not one to bash corporations and the profit-motive, but when it comes to journalism, profits shouldn’t be a consideration. The free-market system is more efficient in many cases, but journalism should be about truth, not efficiency. And in this case, not only have journalists allowed themselves to be played like suckers, they’re not even doing their jobs. But I guess gossip and empty smears are easier and more fun. Perhaps someday they’ll all just accept jobs at the tabloids they want to work at and leave our newspapers to the real journalists.
Allen’s piece is a rundown of what Barack’s numerous, yet unnamed critics suggest are weaknesses in Barack’s armor. And he has a largish section on Barrack’s name. You see, Barack once said that his name is an Arabic word for “blessed”. Yet he now says it’s a Swahili word for “blessed by God”. And DeLong goes ahead and spoils the joke by pointing out that it’s the same word that means both things in both languages, as well as being a similar word in Hebrew that many Jews say as part of a standard prayer.
But the thing is, why did Allen leave it at that? He implies that Barack is being deceitful about his name, but the better story would have been to prove it. If it’s worth mentioning that Barack has contradicted himself, it’s even better if Allen could tell us what the word really means and prove to us that Barack is being deceitful. That would turn a fairly lame story into a slightly better one.
But Allen doesn’t go there. It wouldn’t have taken much research at all, yet Allen would prefer to just recite what Barack’s critics are saying, without doing the least bit of work. Yet had he done a little work, he would have realized how foolish the whole thing was, and not made an idiot of himself. And beyond that, he would have had a slightly better story, had the criticism been correct.
So in either case, it behooved Allen to do the five minutes of research to settle the matter. But it seems this happens all too often with reporters. They’d be better at their jobs and not look like idiots, were they to do the least bit of investigating. I’m not even talking about fact-checking, so much as digging out the bigger story. After all, if Allen’s claims against Barack’s supposed name-change were correct, then it’d be even better for him to have told us what the name really meant and settled the matter.
But no. That doesn’t happen and I don’t even know why. Could they just fear that further research might undermine their lame story? Is it just laziness? It seems more likely that they just don’t even understand how to do their jobs and have been trained as stenographers, because they never seem to want to do any research. Again, if Allen believed these claims had merit, it’s only natural that he’d take one tiny step further and prove it.
And I suspect this might be the fault of editors, who are supposed to make their reporters dig deeper (ala Perry White, and that dickhead editor of Spiderman), but are perhaps more concerned with deadlines and getting out product. And in that regard, extra research only means extra delays, even if it can be done in a matter of two minutes on Google. So perhaps at fault is the corporatization of the media, and the conflict between doing their job and making profits. And it’s far more profitable for them to outsource their research to Republicans who will do the work for free. Not only is it easier, but it’s more pleasing to their corporate masters.
On the whole, I’m not one to bash corporations and the profit-motive, but when it comes to journalism, profits shouldn’t be a consideration. The free-market system is more efficient in many cases, but journalism should be about truth, not efficiency. And in this case, not only have journalists allowed themselves to be played like suckers, they’re not even doing their jobs. But I guess gossip and empty smears are easier and more fun. Perhaps someday they’ll all just accept jobs at the tabloids they want to work at and leave our newspapers to the real journalists.
Fool Me Twice, Just Shoot Me
For as much as I couldn’t believe we went through this the first time, I really, really can’t believe we’re going through this again.
Yet, government officials say there is some disagreement about how much to make public to support the administration's case. Intelligence officials worry the sources of their information could dry up.
Among the evidence the administration will present are weapons that were seized in U.S.-led raids on caches around Iraq, one military official in Washington said on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly.
Oh my fucking god. I can’t believe I just read this. Yes, that poor fucking military official. He’d soooo like to tell us everything he knows, if only those bastards in the Whitehouse would let him. But no. He has to remain nameless while being unable to offer even a tiny bit of his excellent evidence. That’s it. I’m convinced. I mean, if the proof was so bland that even I could hear about it, it wouldn’t be very special. But this proof must be good; because we can’t be told what it is or who’s telling us about it. Of course.
This shit wasn’t even believable the first time, and it’s a proven recipe for disaster now. But it’s not supposed to be believable. It’s supposed to be so mind-bogglingly obviously stupid that you just sit there and stutter at the insanity of it. It was crap the first time they pulled this shit, and it’s even worse crap now. But again, that’s the point. If it almost made sense, you could debate it. You’d find some point to start on, work your way through, and demolish it. But this argument doesn’t even have any semblance of sense to it; and thus, you can’t even figure out where to start. Every bit’s as nonsensical as the last, and to even begin to debate it is to already fall under its spell. Yet to ignore it is to end up in the same position we were last time.
And so we’re screwed. The real problem here isn’t the dangerous dumbshits in the government pushing this garbage, because they’re dumbshits who shouldn’t be expected to know any better. The real problem is that they can continue to find reporters so desperate for an “inside” tip that they’ll repeat anything the government says. Oh, but I’m mistaken. This isn’t coming from the government. This is some poor military official who isn’t even authorized to be saying it. Right.
Just so you know, my money’s on Congress being able to stop this. But then again, I didn’t think they’d go to war with Iraq or bother getting this far with Iran. Sorry to say this, but some things go beyond rational thought. And while I can even understand irrationality, I’ve found that even I can’t predict how where it will lead. But I really think Congress can stop this.
Yet, government officials say there is some disagreement about how much to make public to support the administration's case. Intelligence officials worry the sources of their information could dry up.
Among the evidence the administration will present are weapons that were seized in U.S.-led raids on caches around Iraq, one military official in Washington said on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly.
Oh my fucking god. I can’t believe I just read this. Yes, that poor fucking military official. He’d soooo like to tell us everything he knows, if only those bastards in the Whitehouse would let him. But no. He has to remain nameless while being unable to offer even a tiny bit of his excellent evidence. That’s it. I’m convinced. I mean, if the proof was so bland that even I could hear about it, it wouldn’t be very special. But this proof must be good; because we can’t be told what it is or who’s telling us about it. Of course.
This shit wasn’t even believable the first time, and it’s a proven recipe for disaster now. But it’s not supposed to be believable. It’s supposed to be so mind-bogglingly obviously stupid that you just sit there and stutter at the insanity of it. It was crap the first time they pulled this shit, and it’s even worse crap now. But again, that’s the point. If it almost made sense, you could debate it. You’d find some point to start on, work your way through, and demolish it. But this argument doesn’t even have any semblance of sense to it; and thus, you can’t even figure out where to start. Every bit’s as nonsensical as the last, and to even begin to debate it is to already fall under its spell. Yet to ignore it is to end up in the same position we were last time.
And so we’re screwed. The real problem here isn’t the dangerous dumbshits in the government pushing this garbage, because they’re dumbshits who shouldn’t be expected to know any better. The real problem is that they can continue to find reporters so desperate for an “inside” tip that they’ll repeat anything the government says. Oh, but I’m mistaken. This isn’t coming from the government. This is some poor military official who isn’t even authorized to be saying it. Right.
Just so you know, my money’s on Congress being able to stop this. But then again, I didn’t think they’d go to war with Iraq or bother getting this far with Iran. Sorry to say this, but some things go beyond rational thought. And while I can even understand irrationality, I’ve found that even I can’t predict how where it will lead. But I really think Congress can stop this.
Friday, February 09, 2007
Moral Equality
Atrios’ quote of the day was good enough that I’d like to repeat it here:
The gay community has yet to apologize to straight people for all the damage that they have done.
That’s the Catholic League’s William Donohue, referring to the damage gays have done to America’s blood supply by being promiscuous and giving everyone AIDS.
But that’s not the quote I was interested in. Here’s mine:
And I find it amazing that, when people are acting so morally delinquent, that they're asking for more rights at the same time.
Is that really how this works? That to be given equal rights in this country, you have to act morally? Does this mean that he’s granting equal rights to monogamous gays (who are the likely ones to want gay marriage)? Or do all the gays have to start being monogamous before we give any of them these rights? And what about immoral heteros? Are we going to start denying them rights? And are we going to enforce collective punishment on all the heteros until the bad ones get their act together?
And of course, he’s really just full of shit. He doesn’t actually believe there’s a link between morality and rights, and was just talking through his ass; desperate to find some argument to rationalize discrimination against gay people and grasping on to that embarrassing argument. Especially as it’s not too difficult to see how racists could use such a policy to reinforce discrimination against blacks (an argument I believe they did make, in fact).
And really, there is no good argument for the continued discrimination of gay people. And so when you’re at that level, one bogus rationalization is just as good as any other. Whether it’s the perceived destruction of the family unit or the contamination of our blood supply, they don’t really care. They’ve got an irrational bigotry to rationalize and they’ll take anything they can get. And in the meantime, it does nothing but discredit their own position and show us how these “moral” people can continue to act so immorally.
And honestly, I don’t think this is a bad time to go for Donohue’s scalp. I’m not really into that kind of thing, but it wouldn’t be such a bad thing to keep the pressure on by alerting Catholics everywhere of what Donohue is saying in their name. I think Atrios is already on this, and think it should continue. Donohue represents a group that is quite tiny, compared with the large number of Catholics nationwide; and I strongly doubt they’d approve of what he’s saying in their name. And I wouldn’t doubt if many of the members of his own group are only faintly aware of what he’s saying either.
If he wants to be the national spokesmen for Catholics, that’s fine. But I’ve known enough Catholics to believe that they probably aren’t going to like him. Besides, the Catholic Church has a pretty strong hierarchy when it comes to who represents them publicly, and I’m fairly sure that being President of the Catholic League isn’t part of it.
The gay community has yet to apologize to straight people for all the damage that they have done.
That’s the Catholic League’s William Donohue, referring to the damage gays have done to America’s blood supply by being promiscuous and giving everyone AIDS.
But that’s not the quote I was interested in. Here’s mine:
And I find it amazing that, when people are acting so morally delinquent, that they're asking for more rights at the same time.
Is that really how this works? That to be given equal rights in this country, you have to act morally? Does this mean that he’s granting equal rights to monogamous gays (who are the likely ones to want gay marriage)? Or do all the gays have to start being monogamous before we give any of them these rights? And what about immoral heteros? Are we going to start denying them rights? And are we going to enforce collective punishment on all the heteros until the bad ones get their act together?
And of course, he’s really just full of shit. He doesn’t actually believe there’s a link between morality and rights, and was just talking through his ass; desperate to find some argument to rationalize discrimination against gay people and grasping on to that embarrassing argument. Especially as it’s not too difficult to see how racists could use such a policy to reinforce discrimination against blacks (an argument I believe they did make, in fact).
And really, there is no good argument for the continued discrimination of gay people. And so when you’re at that level, one bogus rationalization is just as good as any other. Whether it’s the perceived destruction of the family unit or the contamination of our blood supply, they don’t really care. They’ve got an irrational bigotry to rationalize and they’ll take anything they can get. And in the meantime, it does nothing but discredit their own position and show us how these “moral” people can continue to act so immorally.
And honestly, I don’t think this is a bad time to go for Donohue’s scalp. I’m not really into that kind of thing, but it wouldn’t be such a bad thing to keep the pressure on by alerting Catholics everywhere of what Donohue is saying in their name. I think Atrios is already on this, and think it should continue. Donohue represents a group that is quite tiny, compared with the large number of Catholics nationwide; and I strongly doubt they’d approve of what he’s saying in their name. And I wouldn’t doubt if many of the members of his own group are only faintly aware of what he’s saying either.
If he wants to be the national spokesmen for Catholics, that’s fine. But I’ve known enough Catholics to believe that they probably aren’t going to like him. Besides, the Catholic Church has a pretty strong hierarchy when it comes to who represents them publicly, and I’m fairly sure that being President of the Catholic League isn’t part of it.
Thursday, February 08, 2007
Hate the Policies, Not the Person
Although I’ve read a few things about the whole Edwards’ Bloggers thing, I hadn’t seen what the two bloggers actually wrote. The blogs I read never gave specifics and I never bothered looking for them. Needless to say, I was surprised when the only piece I’ve seen thus far said this:
For instance, Marcotte had written that the church wants "to force women to bear more tithing Catholics" and McEwen had written that the pope is among those who "regularly speak out against gay tolerance." Other postings used more graphic language.
Holy cannoli! If that’s what counts as anti-Catholic bigotry, I suppose I have been a bit bigoted against religion. I mean, that first remark sounds like nothing but a bit of snark, while the second quote should be considered a point of pride for traditional Catholics. Hell, even the first quote is utterly undeniable, assuming you pulled the snarky “tithing” part out; which, while true, is still snarky. And in either case, a simple rewording would surely get any Pope-loving Catholic nodding their head in agreement.
So if that’s what people find offensive, I suppose no political campaign is likely to want to knock on my door. I personally don’t think I’ve ever said anything offensive about religion, but if the above quotes are any kind of standard of offensiveness, then I guess I’m just wrong. Because it sounds like the offense is merely that of irreverence towards religion and having a snarky tone.
And while I respect and understand religions, I’ve never really been into the whole reverence thing. Even back in the day when I attended church as a kid, I’d always goof-off and sing using a silly voice. I’d get a few dirty looks from the older folks, but dirty looks I can take. It was the boredom that was killing me. And that’s the way it is with our generation: Irreverence isn’t an insult; it’s a way of life. And if that’s the mighty sin that Catholics need to fear, than I guess the religion’s in a lot more trouble than I had imagined.
Of course, Donohue’s cries of bigotry are fairly misplaced anyway. You’re bigoted for hating people who belong to a specific group. Like Dohohue’s hatred of secular Jews in Hollywood. But you’re not bigoted for denouncing the policies or views of a group; unless, of course, your denouncement is based solely on your hatred for them. But there’s absolutely nothing bigoted about disagreeing with the Catholic Church or any other church; and snark is certainly not an original sin. But I suspect that Dohohue really doesn’t care about that anyway and is just looking for something to complain about.
Oh, and for the record, as a lapsed Catholic and son of a deacon, I’m automatically immune from any charge of anti-Catholic bigotry. I’m open to attacks from all the other religions, but you papal agents are completely at my mercy. That’s just how this shit works, apparently.
For instance, Marcotte had written that the church wants "to force women to bear more tithing Catholics" and McEwen had written that the pope is among those who "regularly speak out against gay tolerance." Other postings used more graphic language.
Holy cannoli! If that’s what counts as anti-Catholic bigotry, I suppose I have been a bit bigoted against religion. I mean, that first remark sounds like nothing but a bit of snark, while the second quote should be considered a point of pride for traditional Catholics. Hell, even the first quote is utterly undeniable, assuming you pulled the snarky “tithing” part out; which, while true, is still snarky. And in either case, a simple rewording would surely get any Pope-loving Catholic nodding their head in agreement.
So if that’s what people find offensive, I suppose no political campaign is likely to want to knock on my door. I personally don’t think I’ve ever said anything offensive about religion, but if the above quotes are any kind of standard of offensiveness, then I guess I’m just wrong. Because it sounds like the offense is merely that of irreverence towards religion and having a snarky tone.
And while I respect and understand religions, I’ve never really been into the whole reverence thing. Even back in the day when I attended church as a kid, I’d always goof-off and sing using a silly voice. I’d get a few dirty looks from the older folks, but dirty looks I can take. It was the boredom that was killing me. And that’s the way it is with our generation: Irreverence isn’t an insult; it’s a way of life. And if that’s the mighty sin that Catholics need to fear, than I guess the religion’s in a lot more trouble than I had imagined.
Of course, Donohue’s cries of bigotry are fairly misplaced anyway. You’re bigoted for hating people who belong to a specific group. Like Dohohue’s hatred of secular Jews in Hollywood. But you’re not bigoted for denouncing the policies or views of a group; unless, of course, your denouncement is based solely on your hatred for them. But there’s absolutely nothing bigoted about disagreeing with the Catholic Church or any other church; and snark is certainly not an original sin. But I suspect that Dohohue really doesn’t care about that anyway and is just looking for something to complain about.
Oh, and for the record, as a lapsed Catholic and son of a deacon, I’m automatically immune from any charge of anti-Catholic bigotry. I’m open to attacks from all the other religions, but you papal agents are completely at my mercy. That’s just how this shit works, apparently.
Good for Edwards
Via Glenn Greenwald, I see that John Edwards did the right thing and didn’t buckle under to the rightwing scream machine. Those jerkoffs don’t care about offensive language and were just using it as an excuse to take Edwards off-message and smear Dems and leftwing bloggers in general. But I don’t care if Pope John Paul II rose up from the grave to protest the hiring of those two bloggers, that’s just not how this works. (Thus said, I would have a new found respect for the afterlife, were that to happen).
I was really worried that Edwards was going to screw this up, especially after the “exclusive” from Salon which said they were already fired. I always thought Edwards was smarter than that and found it hard to believe he would have given up on this so easily. For him to have buckled under would have been a clear signal that Edwards really didn’t get it. As Greenwald suggests, nobody’s going to cast their vote based upon the hiring of two bloggers that even I’m only barely familiar with.
But that’s part of the problem with all this: How do you walk the line between ignoring the cries of the rightwing jackals, without allowing a political-insider story to become a national story by allowing the “scandal” to fester? Because this story was quite a few layers from being anywhere close to something that most Americans would care about. Even a few days of CNN and NY Times coverage isn’t enough to blast through the typical American’s blasé attitude about political stories; and that goes for the people who regularly vote, too.
So normally, it’s enough to give a decent response and weather through the storm than to either buckle-under or fight full-on. Because the “storm” is usually only effective on the thin layer of people who follow politics regularly, but don’t get in-depth enough to find out the truth for themselves. And that’s a very thin layer, indeed. Particularly now that the blogosphere has allowed people more access to quickie insider knowledge than was previously ever known. Just my daily reading of a handful of bloggers is enough to keep me abreast of almost all political stories.
And this is something that Republicans have been banking on for years, but that Dems are only now picking up on. And that only deepened the impression that Republicans were stoic leaders who were ready to fight and that Dems were cowardly pussies always ready to run. And while Republican stonewalling of scandals they should have backed-down from (Foley, Plame, Watergate) lead to tremendous downfalls; the Dems’ constant retreat from every scandal does far more to bring down the party.
Sure, the specific Republican scandals are remembered longer, but the overall effect of the Democrats’ cowardice is felt more. As soon as you start discussing a scandal on its merits, you’ve already undermined your own case, and ironically, made it a bigger story than it was before. And that’s what we saw during the Clinton Administration. And when we see Dick Cheney stonewalling everything down to his personnel choices, that’s not because he’s a complete nutjob (though he is one); but because he knows how to play the game. Even the stonewalling itself should be a big scandal, but it’s not; because he’s so good at it. And while we shouldn’t go to that extreme, it’s almost better to face-off against any scandal than to flinch or buckle-under. And even addressing a scandal on its merits is considered flinching.
So it’s good to see that Edwards stared down this fake controversy. I honestly thought this is what he did, but I’ve been disappointed in the past. Particularly as the Edwards campaign seemed somewhat flatfooted with this one. In this day and age of relentless rightwing attacks and 24-hour news, there’s no excuse that we should go so long with only the support of fellow bloggers to hold us through. Edwards did the right thing, but I certainly hope he’ll do it a little more quickly next time.
P.S. For any political campaign out there looking for a tough-ass blogger who has consistently refused to smear any major religions, my email address isn’t too hard to find. That is assuming you don’t mind the fact that I’m unofficially running for president. But don’t worry, CPA’s are famous for their objectiveness and independence. And if you pay me enough, I’ll drop-out and endorse your candidate. That’s a win-win for everyone.
I was really worried that Edwards was going to screw this up, especially after the “exclusive” from Salon which said they were already fired. I always thought Edwards was smarter than that and found it hard to believe he would have given up on this so easily. For him to have buckled under would have been a clear signal that Edwards really didn’t get it. As Greenwald suggests, nobody’s going to cast their vote based upon the hiring of two bloggers that even I’m only barely familiar with.
But that’s part of the problem with all this: How do you walk the line between ignoring the cries of the rightwing jackals, without allowing a political-insider story to become a national story by allowing the “scandal” to fester? Because this story was quite a few layers from being anywhere close to something that most Americans would care about. Even a few days of CNN and NY Times coverage isn’t enough to blast through the typical American’s blasé attitude about political stories; and that goes for the people who regularly vote, too.
So normally, it’s enough to give a decent response and weather through the storm than to either buckle-under or fight full-on. Because the “storm” is usually only effective on the thin layer of people who follow politics regularly, but don’t get in-depth enough to find out the truth for themselves. And that’s a very thin layer, indeed. Particularly now that the blogosphere has allowed people more access to quickie insider knowledge than was previously ever known. Just my daily reading of a handful of bloggers is enough to keep me abreast of almost all political stories.
And this is something that Republicans have been banking on for years, but that Dems are only now picking up on. And that only deepened the impression that Republicans were stoic leaders who were ready to fight and that Dems were cowardly pussies always ready to run. And while Republican stonewalling of scandals they should have backed-down from (Foley, Plame, Watergate) lead to tremendous downfalls; the Dems’ constant retreat from every scandal does far more to bring down the party.
Sure, the specific Republican scandals are remembered longer, but the overall effect of the Democrats’ cowardice is felt more. As soon as you start discussing a scandal on its merits, you’ve already undermined your own case, and ironically, made it a bigger story than it was before. And that’s what we saw during the Clinton Administration. And when we see Dick Cheney stonewalling everything down to his personnel choices, that’s not because he’s a complete nutjob (though he is one); but because he knows how to play the game. Even the stonewalling itself should be a big scandal, but it’s not; because he’s so good at it. And while we shouldn’t go to that extreme, it’s almost better to face-off against any scandal than to flinch or buckle-under. And even addressing a scandal on its merits is considered flinching.
So it’s good to see that Edwards stared down this fake controversy. I honestly thought this is what he did, but I’ve been disappointed in the past. Particularly as the Edwards campaign seemed somewhat flatfooted with this one. In this day and age of relentless rightwing attacks and 24-hour news, there’s no excuse that we should go so long with only the support of fellow bloggers to hold us through. Edwards did the right thing, but I certainly hope he’ll do it a little more quickly next time.
P.S. For any political campaign out there looking for a tough-ass blogger who has consistently refused to smear any major religions, my email address isn’t too hard to find. That is assuming you don’t mind the fact that I’m unofficially running for president. But don’t worry, CPA’s are famous for their objectiveness and independence. And if you pay me enough, I’ll drop-out and endorse your candidate. That’s a win-win for everyone.
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
Auditing Iraq
Before I became a CPA, I spent quite a few years as that asshole accountant guy who goes over your expense reports to make sure that every penny was spent properly. I’d check over every receipt, use a map to make sure mileage was within the expected level, and made sure that every per diem meal was absolutely required based upon their travel times. And if a conference included meals, you can bet I made sure the jerks didn’t try to claim a meal for the same period. Nothing got past me.
I didn’t have to do that. Nobody double-checked my work. It wasn’t my money. I didn’t even get a percentage of the money I saved the company, and I did save the company money. I even did this for a city government, and nobody cares about saving money in a city government. Why should they? There’s no profit in it. In fact, I strongly suspect that excessive travel claims was one of the unspoken perks of government service, as they had some of the worst travel abuses. But not the politicians’. Their stuff was spotless. As a side note, I once bled on a future mayor’s expense report while removing a staple. I guess that shows how determined I was.
But I didn’t do this because I needed to, but because I enjoyed it. It made me feel important to make sure that the money was spent properly, and I can assure you that any good accountant feels the same way. We don’t do it because we’re forced to or because we’re loyal to the company. We do it because it’s fun. And processing expense reports was one of my favorite things to do; right up there with reconciling bank statements. And if that doesn’t sound fun to you, then don’t be an accountant, because you won’t enjoy it.
Not Important
And so it’s quite shameful for me to read that David Oliver, the former Director of Management and Budget for the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq, said that he doesn’t think it’s important to track billions of dollars.
Or in his words:
"I have no idea, I can't tell you whether or not the money went to the right things or didn't - nor do I actually think it is important," Oliver says on the tape . "Billions of dollars of their money disappeared, yes I understand, I'm saying what difference does it make?"
Holy shit! Here I was, some lowly accountant tracking down each Big Mac purchase and hotel stay, and this idiot doesn’t think billions of dollars are important. And sure, his excuse is that his quote was taken out of context, and that he was only referring to what happened to the money after it left his office, and that his office didn’t have enough people to track the money after that.
But that’s no better. They teach us in auditing to do what’s necessary to ensure that everything’s being accounted for properly. And if your firm doesn’t have enough manpower to do the job, then you either need to get more manpower or you can’t take the job. If his office wasn’t big enough, it was his responsibility to make it bigger. But no. That asshole just let billions of dollars go out and didn’t give a damn.
I could be wrong, but it’s the obvious guess that Oliver’s a conservative. And conservatives have this weird-ass worldview that people can be trusted to do the right thing, just as long as the government doesn’t try to stop them. And that it’s government regulation that make people try to game the system to their advantage, rather than the thing that stops it from being worse. And that’s why conservatives should never be auditors. Because when common decency doesn’t force a bookkeeper or money manager to do the right thing, the fear of an auditor certainly will. And that doesn’t work unless the auditor plans to do his job.
But in this case, they didn’t need auditors. They just needed some good old fashioned bookkeepers. Like me. You can bet I would have tracked down every penny of that nine billion dollars, had they let me. And I’m sure there are lots of good bookkeepers all over America that would have gladly done the same. Not because it was our jobs, but because we love checking over expenses. It makes normally milquetoast bookkeepers into real ballbusters. And our government has people doing that all the time. Conservatives call it “redtape”, but I call it a good day’s work.
But I really think that was the whole point: They didn’t want anyone tracking down the money. They also don’t think we need auditors. They just wanted to throw a bunch of money around (bribes, corruption, and more bribes) and can’t figure out why things didn’t work out better. But the problem isn’t just that we didn’t have proper auditors in Iraq. The problem is that Congress gave up their audit function all together, and with that, the entire Executive Branch had no reason to give a damn.
So when Oliver was expressing his disinterest in where the money went, he was just parroting the Big Boss. But now that Americans hired new auditors last November, you can bet Oliver cares a whole lot more about where that money went.
I didn’t have to do that. Nobody double-checked my work. It wasn’t my money. I didn’t even get a percentage of the money I saved the company, and I did save the company money. I even did this for a city government, and nobody cares about saving money in a city government. Why should they? There’s no profit in it. In fact, I strongly suspect that excessive travel claims was one of the unspoken perks of government service, as they had some of the worst travel abuses. But not the politicians’. Their stuff was spotless. As a side note, I once bled on a future mayor’s expense report while removing a staple. I guess that shows how determined I was.
But I didn’t do this because I needed to, but because I enjoyed it. It made me feel important to make sure that the money was spent properly, and I can assure you that any good accountant feels the same way. We don’t do it because we’re forced to or because we’re loyal to the company. We do it because it’s fun. And processing expense reports was one of my favorite things to do; right up there with reconciling bank statements. And if that doesn’t sound fun to you, then don’t be an accountant, because you won’t enjoy it.
Not Important
And so it’s quite shameful for me to read that David Oliver, the former Director of Management and Budget for the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq, said that he doesn’t think it’s important to track billions of dollars.
Or in his words:
"I have no idea, I can't tell you whether or not the money went to the right things or didn't - nor do I actually think it is important," Oliver says on the tape . "Billions of dollars of their money disappeared, yes I understand, I'm saying what difference does it make?"
Holy shit! Here I was, some lowly accountant tracking down each Big Mac purchase and hotel stay, and this idiot doesn’t think billions of dollars are important. And sure, his excuse is that his quote was taken out of context, and that he was only referring to what happened to the money after it left his office, and that his office didn’t have enough people to track the money after that.
But that’s no better. They teach us in auditing to do what’s necessary to ensure that everything’s being accounted for properly. And if your firm doesn’t have enough manpower to do the job, then you either need to get more manpower or you can’t take the job. If his office wasn’t big enough, it was his responsibility to make it bigger. But no. That asshole just let billions of dollars go out and didn’t give a damn.
I could be wrong, but it’s the obvious guess that Oliver’s a conservative. And conservatives have this weird-ass worldview that people can be trusted to do the right thing, just as long as the government doesn’t try to stop them. And that it’s government regulation that make people try to game the system to their advantage, rather than the thing that stops it from being worse. And that’s why conservatives should never be auditors. Because when common decency doesn’t force a bookkeeper or money manager to do the right thing, the fear of an auditor certainly will. And that doesn’t work unless the auditor plans to do his job.
But in this case, they didn’t need auditors. They just needed some good old fashioned bookkeepers. Like me. You can bet I would have tracked down every penny of that nine billion dollars, had they let me. And I’m sure there are lots of good bookkeepers all over America that would have gladly done the same. Not because it was our jobs, but because we love checking over expenses. It makes normally milquetoast bookkeepers into real ballbusters. And our government has people doing that all the time. Conservatives call it “redtape”, but I call it a good day’s work.
But I really think that was the whole point: They didn’t want anyone tracking down the money. They also don’t think we need auditors. They just wanted to throw a bunch of money around (bribes, corruption, and more bribes) and can’t figure out why things didn’t work out better. But the problem isn’t just that we didn’t have proper auditors in Iraq. The problem is that Congress gave up their audit function all together, and with that, the entire Executive Branch had no reason to give a damn.
So when Oliver was expressing his disinterest in where the money went, he was just parroting the Big Boss. But now that Americans hired new auditors last November, you can bet Oliver cares a whole lot more about where that money went.
Rove's Republican Fiefdom
As a follow-up to my previous post on the problems Giuliani will face in the presidential race, I just thought of another one: Religious leaders don’t need him. In fact, if they were honest, they’d all admit that befriending the Bush Administration was a huge mistake that did little more than allow the Bushies to screw them over. But it didn’t give them real power, and certainly never amounted to the giant shift in religious policy that the Bushies had hinted at for the past eight years.
And if anything, by giving their support too early, they threw away all their cards and were left to rely on Rove’s benevolence to get anything. And Rove is not a benevolent man. Sure, the Bushies gave them more than they should have, and did quite a few things that reasonable people should find offensive. But that’s not what the religious right wants. They don’t want a few favors, or a humble abstinence-only program, or a handful of unnoticed appointments. They want the world. They think God gave it to them, and can’t understand why the Bushies keep holding back. And now they feel burned.
Besides, Bush just wasn’t good for business. With Clinton, religious leaders were holy crusaders sent by the Lord to save America from the tyranny of liberalism. But under Bush, they were little more than a small part of Rove’s Republican Fiefdom. Just one of a handful of special interests that Rove paid lip service to and gave a few bones. And while business leaders and neo-cons can be satisfied with a sympathetic ear and some old-fashioned favors, that doesn’t do anything for the religious conservatives. They don’t want a measly war and tax savings. They’re trying to save the soul of humanity, as well as their own.
And so why should religious leaders offer their support to any of these candidates? Once it’s been given, it’s somewhat awkward to retract it. Yet the only thing a candidate can offer is unproven promises, which Bush has shown can be offered much more easily than they can be fulfilled. Besides, any Republican who becomes president will still need the religious right. And that’s the time to start wheeling and dealing; when they’ve got all the power, yet the luster of election day has been left behind for the reality of having to do stuff. By then, they’re not waiting for the president to make good on promises, but are in a position to demand it. And that’s something they totally screwed-up last time.
And again, it’d be better for them to allow the Democrats to win, and then demonize the Democrat. The Christian Coalition survived only because they could feast on Clinton’s unholy carcass, but under Bush, it became a debt-burdened joke. And I betcha the rest of the religious leaders would say the same, were they being honest. The religious right is heavily motivated by being an underdog. As Christians, it’s part of their ideological DNA. And it’s kind of hard to act like an underdog when your religious leader gets to speak to the president every week.
So there’s no reason for religious leaders to offer their support to any Republican candidate, unless it was a candidate with a proven record of supporting religion and who will gladly give the religious right everything they want. And Rudy’s clearly not that guy. And without the religious leadership, it’s almost impossible to get the religious vote. And without the religious vote, it’s almost impossible to get the nomination. And with the religious vote, it’s almost impossible to win the general election. As a pretend Born Again Christian who avoided overt religious messages, Bush was able to thread that needle. But as I said in the last post, he sucked that gravytrain dry, and it’s unlikely to work for anyone else for a long time.
Overall, I think the Republican leadership is going to learn to regret their pro-Southern, pro-Religious strategy. It helped out in the short term, but the rest of the country is now catching up with what happened and shifting accordingly. The GOP thought they had tapped some brand new oil field, but now they’re stuck with a gusher that keeps scaring everyone else away.
And if anything, by giving their support too early, they threw away all their cards and were left to rely on Rove’s benevolence to get anything. And Rove is not a benevolent man. Sure, the Bushies gave them more than they should have, and did quite a few things that reasonable people should find offensive. But that’s not what the religious right wants. They don’t want a few favors, or a humble abstinence-only program, or a handful of unnoticed appointments. They want the world. They think God gave it to them, and can’t understand why the Bushies keep holding back. And now they feel burned.
Besides, Bush just wasn’t good for business. With Clinton, religious leaders were holy crusaders sent by the Lord to save America from the tyranny of liberalism. But under Bush, they were little more than a small part of Rove’s Republican Fiefdom. Just one of a handful of special interests that Rove paid lip service to and gave a few bones. And while business leaders and neo-cons can be satisfied with a sympathetic ear and some old-fashioned favors, that doesn’t do anything for the religious conservatives. They don’t want a measly war and tax savings. They’re trying to save the soul of humanity, as well as their own.
And so why should religious leaders offer their support to any of these candidates? Once it’s been given, it’s somewhat awkward to retract it. Yet the only thing a candidate can offer is unproven promises, which Bush has shown can be offered much more easily than they can be fulfilled. Besides, any Republican who becomes president will still need the religious right. And that’s the time to start wheeling and dealing; when they’ve got all the power, yet the luster of election day has been left behind for the reality of having to do stuff. By then, they’re not waiting for the president to make good on promises, but are in a position to demand it. And that’s something they totally screwed-up last time.
And again, it’d be better for them to allow the Democrats to win, and then demonize the Democrat. The Christian Coalition survived only because they could feast on Clinton’s unholy carcass, but under Bush, it became a debt-burdened joke. And I betcha the rest of the religious leaders would say the same, were they being honest. The religious right is heavily motivated by being an underdog. As Christians, it’s part of their ideological DNA. And it’s kind of hard to act like an underdog when your religious leader gets to speak to the president every week.
So there’s no reason for religious leaders to offer their support to any Republican candidate, unless it was a candidate with a proven record of supporting religion and who will gladly give the religious right everything they want. And Rudy’s clearly not that guy. And without the religious leadership, it’s almost impossible to get the religious vote. And without the religious vote, it’s almost impossible to get the nomination. And with the religious vote, it’s almost impossible to win the general election. As a pretend Born Again Christian who avoided overt religious messages, Bush was able to thread that needle. But as I said in the last post, he sucked that gravytrain dry, and it’s unlikely to work for anyone else for a long time.
Overall, I think the Republican leadership is going to learn to regret their pro-Southern, pro-Religious strategy. It helped out in the short term, but the rest of the country is now catching up with what happened and shifting accordingly. The GOP thought they had tapped some brand new oil field, but now they’re stuck with a gusher that keeps scaring everyone else away.
Rudy's Ghost
As usual, I agree with most of what Greenwald says regarding Giuliani’s liberal past, but I think he’s making this too clear-cut. Because it is possible that the religious right won’t find a better nominee and will look past Giuliani’s liberalism. But it’s more likely that a few religious right candidates will stand-up who will insist on making Rudy’s liberalism a prime issue. As has been pointed out before, many conservatives who support Rudy don’t really know much about him, and change their tune once they learn more. And with Rudy looking like the candidate to beat, it won’t take long until a few conservativer-than-thou candidates step-up to make a name for themselves.
Secondly, even if Giuliani gets past the nomination stage, the religious right won’t support him as whole-heartedly as they did Bush. Partly because he’ll never be as palatable to them, and partly because Rove largely sucked that gravytrain dry. They’ve been used and abused for over a decade now, and have little to show for it. And for as much as liberals believe these people are stupid sheep, they’re not. They’ve just been too trusting of authority. But their trust isn’t limitless or unconditional. Even Bush is now suffering because their trust for him died, and they’ll never accept Rudy the way they accepted Bush.
And this leads us to our third point: That Rudy’s going to have to work a whole lot harder than Bush ever did to woe these people. Where Bush could get away with coded language and sly non-promises, Rudy will have to get explicit. It’s not enough for him to use bible words and pretend to be promising things he’s not; Rudy’s going to have to promise real stuff. And the more he promises, the more he’ll ruin his chances in the general election. It won’t even end with the primary. If he wants their vote on election day, he’ll have to keep making those promises. It’s not that they’ll vote for the Democrat, but after eight years of being duped by Bush, they’ll surely stay home if they don’t like what they see. And Rudy’s got to know all this, and is going to be reluctant to give those promises, and that’s going to burn him for the nomination. And in either case, they’re still not going to like him much.
And so that’s why I think Rudy’s presidential campaign isn’t going anywhere. And sure, no other candidate looks as promising, but we’re still a long way off until the nomination season actually kicks in. I remember a Saturday Night Live skit from before the 1992 election, in which all the Democratic nominees didn’t want to run against Bush Sr., and kept insisting that the other candidates were better suited to losing against him. Unless I’m mistaken, the skit didn’t even have Clinton in it; though it did have future Senator Franken as now-forgotten Senator Paul Simon. Needless to say, history has shown that skit to be far more hilarious than originally intended; particularly that people thought Bush Sr. was a formidable candidate who couldn’t be beat.
And we’re still further out from the election than that skit was. Anything can happen, and I think that Giuliani, while not locked-out, has a much steeper hill to climb than Greenwald suggests. Get back to me after Rudy has withstood several months of severe criticism from far-right Republicans, and I might change my tune. But Rudy’s reign as “America’s Mayor” has long since ended and the rightwing attack machine might just blow him away if he doesn’t dance the right dance with every step. And the more he dances, the less he’ll be able to win the general election. But after eight years of Bush’s incompetence, even that might not be enough anymore.
Update: I wrote more about this in my follow-up post: Rove's Republican Fiefdom.
Secondly, even if Giuliani gets past the nomination stage, the religious right won’t support him as whole-heartedly as they did Bush. Partly because he’ll never be as palatable to them, and partly because Rove largely sucked that gravytrain dry. They’ve been used and abused for over a decade now, and have little to show for it. And for as much as liberals believe these people are stupid sheep, they’re not. They’ve just been too trusting of authority. But their trust isn’t limitless or unconditional. Even Bush is now suffering because their trust for him died, and they’ll never accept Rudy the way they accepted Bush.
And this leads us to our third point: That Rudy’s going to have to work a whole lot harder than Bush ever did to woe these people. Where Bush could get away with coded language and sly non-promises, Rudy will have to get explicit. It’s not enough for him to use bible words and pretend to be promising things he’s not; Rudy’s going to have to promise real stuff. And the more he promises, the more he’ll ruin his chances in the general election. It won’t even end with the primary. If he wants their vote on election day, he’ll have to keep making those promises. It’s not that they’ll vote for the Democrat, but after eight years of being duped by Bush, they’ll surely stay home if they don’t like what they see. And Rudy’s got to know all this, and is going to be reluctant to give those promises, and that’s going to burn him for the nomination. And in either case, they’re still not going to like him much.
And so that’s why I think Rudy’s presidential campaign isn’t going anywhere. And sure, no other candidate looks as promising, but we’re still a long way off until the nomination season actually kicks in. I remember a Saturday Night Live skit from before the 1992 election, in which all the Democratic nominees didn’t want to run against Bush Sr., and kept insisting that the other candidates were better suited to losing against him. Unless I’m mistaken, the skit didn’t even have Clinton in it; though it did have future Senator Franken as now-forgotten Senator Paul Simon. Needless to say, history has shown that skit to be far more hilarious than originally intended; particularly that people thought Bush Sr. was a formidable candidate who couldn’t be beat.
And we’re still further out from the election than that skit was. Anything can happen, and I think that Giuliani, while not locked-out, has a much steeper hill to climb than Greenwald suggests. Get back to me after Rudy has withstood several months of severe criticism from far-right Republicans, and I might change my tune. But Rudy’s reign as “America’s Mayor” has long since ended and the rightwing attack machine might just blow him away if he doesn’t dance the right dance with every step. And the more he dances, the less he’ll be able to win the general election. But after eight years of Bush’s incompetence, even that might not be enough anymore.
Update: I wrote more about this in my follow-up post: Rove's Republican Fiefdom.
Monday, February 05, 2007
Vote Mean
The glorious Carpetbagger quotes for us Republican Congressional Chief of Staff Michelle Presson on her idea of why the Democrats trounced them in November saying:
“They stole our ideas, they ran as Republicans.”
Carpetbagger doubts that, but I don’t for a second. Because the Republicans didn’t really have any ideas besides rolling back everything good. But that’s not what they ran on. What kept helping them win was attitude, pure and simple. They had a tough talking attitude that didn’t back down or take no shit, and it worked. And in that regard, the Democrats stole the GOP’s one and only good idea.
And to back that point up, allow me to cite the Beltway pundits’ reaction to that election. To them, the Democratic win in November was a sign that Americans wanted bipartisanship and niceness. Why? Because people elected the Nice Guy Party. They elect Republicans when they want bastards, and they elect Democrats when they want nice guys. And the fact that Dems didn’t run as the Nice Guy Party just shows how out of touch those Beltway types are. But that conventional wisdom was so ingrained in their thinking that they’d rather doubt the words they heard than the outdated wisdom.
But this is the Democratic Party that people want. Not the watered-down, “bipartisan” shitheap the Beltway Pundits want to see, but real people who stand-up for what they believe and don’t have to retrace their steps every time they talk. That’s what people have been saying they want for years, and finally the Democrats gave it to them. That was the one thing Republicans did well, and we beat them at their own game. We ran war heros, finger-missing freaks, and ex-quarterbacks, and it worked. They sounded as liberal as they wanted to be, but they looked and acted tough.
That’s how this works. And if Republicans can win elections with their unpopular and dangerous agenda, just imagine how well it’ll work for us. People like winners, and if you want to be a winner, you have to act like a winner. And that’s the idea Dems stole from the Republicans last November. It was their one and only play, and we did it better. And with every new election, it should just keep getting easier. Who knows, if this keeps up, it might get to the point that Republicans actually start coming up with real ideas to run on for a change. Wonders never cease.
“They stole our ideas, they ran as Republicans.”
Carpetbagger doubts that, but I don’t for a second. Because the Republicans didn’t really have any ideas besides rolling back everything good. But that’s not what they ran on. What kept helping them win was attitude, pure and simple. They had a tough talking attitude that didn’t back down or take no shit, and it worked. And in that regard, the Democrats stole the GOP’s one and only good idea.
And to back that point up, allow me to cite the Beltway pundits’ reaction to that election. To them, the Democratic win in November was a sign that Americans wanted bipartisanship and niceness. Why? Because people elected the Nice Guy Party. They elect Republicans when they want bastards, and they elect Democrats when they want nice guys. And the fact that Dems didn’t run as the Nice Guy Party just shows how out of touch those Beltway types are. But that conventional wisdom was so ingrained in their thinking that they’d rather doubt the words they heard than the outdated wisdom.
But this is the Democratic Party that people want. Not the watered-down, “bipartisan” shitheap the Beltway Pundits want to see, but real people who stand-up for what they believe and don’t have to retrace their steps every time they talk. That’s what people have been saying they want for years, and finally the Democrats gave it to them. That was the one thing Republicans did well, and we beat them at their own game. We ran war heros, finger-missing freaks, and ex-quarterbacks, and it worked. They sounded as liberal as they wanted to be, but they looked and acted tough.
That’s how this works. And if Republicans can win elections with their unpopular and dangerous agenda, just imagine how well it’ll work for us. People like winners, and if you want to be a winner, you have to act like a winner. And that’s the idea Dems stole from the Republicans last November. It was their one and only play, and we did it better. And with every new election, it should just keep getting easier. Who knows, if this keeps up, it might get to the point that Republicans actually start coming up with real ideas to run on for a change. Wonders never cease.
Conservatives Against Change
Conservatives just never change. I just read of Orango Island off the African coast that has remained relatively isolated for a long time. Apparently, Orango is one of the few places where it is the long established custom that women propose marriage to men by bringing them a special fish dish; and that it is considered improper for a man to propose to a woman. The story cites an old dude who was courted when he was 14, and even though he didn’t love the girl before he ate the dish, all that changed after he ate it. He was in love. As a side note, let me just say that I don’t think I’m ever eating at her restaurant.
Well it seems like modern society is finally catching up with these islanders, and now upstart modernists are turning the island topsy-turvy with their radical ideas and perverse courting rituals.
As the article says:
"Now the world is upside down," complained 90-year-old Cesar Okrane, his eyes obscured by a cloud of cataracts. "Men are running after women, instead of waiting for them to come to them."
For a man to go so far as to openly propose marriage is dangerous, say traditionalists on this island of 2,000 people.
"The choice of a woman is much more stable," explains Okrane. "Rarely were there divorces before. Now, with men choosing, divorce has become common."
Records are not readily available, but islanders agree that there are significantly more divorces now than in the years when men waited patiently for a proposal on a plate.
Sound familiar? Of course. Change is bad. Natural order must prevail. Tradition trumps all. But who’s to blame for the divorces now? Christians. Christians and their radical ideas of marriage. What’s next? That they introduce teh gay to these poor islanders? All is lost.
Paper Clips of the World
And what it all comes down to is ritual and comfort zones. People settle down to a convenient way of doing things and it just bothers them when things change. Once upon a time, a group decides to start doing something new, and before you know it, it becomes a critical practice which must be continued forever, or risk destroying everything. Perhaps there was once a good reason for the practice, or perhaps it was arbitrary. But it’s now set in stone and it is the sheerest folly to stop doing it.
And there’s nothing necessarily wrong with that kind of thing. I myself have stupid weird quirks of how I like things to be done. Like paperclips. I hate them. I’ll use them when I don’t want things permanently fastened, but can’t stand it when people paperclip things that should obviously be stapled. And if the papers aren’t straight enough, I will unstaple them and do it again, just to get them straight. And I’m a CPA, so you know that’s a lot of paper clips and a lot of staples. And I hate wasting paper. It’s like a sin for me. I could go on and on.
But the point is that these people take things beyond the level of quirks, and want to make a religion out of their personal pet peeves and preferences. Something bothers them and they don’t even like the idea of having to explain it. It is as it must be, and no other argument will suffice.
Rationalizing Resistence
And I think that’s what makes someone a conservative. When you get past the point of organizing your own life, and insist on organizing everyone else’s to match your personal preferences. Not for the good of society, but for your own personal well-being. Not because it needs to be that way, but because it feels better. There’s some part of their brains that makes them want things to be a certain way, and they’re just not very good at dealing with it when things aren’t that way.
And I think it’s because they just aren’t good at organizing their lives. Things don’t make sense for them because they just don’t make sense. And so they insist on organizing the entire planet to their liking, rather than learning to adapt to what the rest of the planet wants. It’s like they just lack the ability to adapt. Their brains can’t adjust and it all just freaks them out.
And so they classify the world into two groups: The people with enough commonsense to agree with them, and the Bad People. And the Bad People group is always much larger than the group that agrees with them. But for them, that’s not evidence that they’re doing anything wrong, but rather a clear indication of how crazy the world is.
And so they invent all kinds of stupid-ass justifications of why things shouldn’t change. Because the Founding Fathers didn’t say we should. Or skyrocketing divorce rates, which can be attributed to feminists or masculinists, depending on which conservative’s life is changing. Or God’s punishing us. Or whatever. It doesn’t matter. If they can’t find a good-sounding reason, they’ll settle on a bad one. They don’t care. All they care about is making sure that the world works the way they want it.
And frankly, I think Orango Island’s courting ritual is kind of cute. But if enough people want a change, the change is going to happen. And the more conservatives use their institutional power to stop change, the worse things are going to be once that change finally happens. And too often, the violence and disorder that conservatives use as evidence of the dangers of change, should really be attributed to those same conservatives, for having delayed the change for too long and created a situation in which violence and disorder became the only effective outlet for change. But I guess that’s yet another facet of conservatives which will never change.
Well it seems like modern society is finally catching up with these islanders, and now upstart modernists are turning the island topsy-turvy with their radical ideas and perverse courting rituals.
As the article says:
"Now the world is upside down," complained 90-year-old Cesar Okrane, his eyes obscured by a cloud of cataracts. "Men are running after women, instead of waiting for them to come to them."
For a man to go so far as to openly propose marriage is dangerous, say traditionalists on this island of 2,000 people.
"The choice of a woman is much more stable," explains Okrane. "Rarely were there divorces before. Now, with men choosing, divorce has become common."
Records are not readily available, but islanders agree that there are significantly more divorces now than in the years when men waited patiently for a proposal on a plate.
Sound familiar? Of course. Change is bad. Natural order must prevail. Tradition trumps all. But who’s to blame for the divorces now? Christians. Christians and their radical ideas of marriage. What’s next? That they introduce teh gay to these poor islanders? All is lost.
Paper Clips of the World
And what it all comes down to is ritual and comfort zones. People settle down to a convenient way of doing things and it just bothers them when things change. Once upon a time, a group decides to start doing something new, and before you know it, it becomes a critical practice which must be continued forever, or risk destroying everything. Perhaps there was once a good reason for the practice, or perhaps it was arbitrary. But it’s now set in stone and it is the sheerest folly to stop doing it.
And there’s nothing necessarily wrong with that kind of thing. I myself have stupid weird quirks of how I like things to be done. Like paperclips. I hate them. I’ll use them when I don’t want things permanently fastened, but can’t stand it when people paperclip things that should obviously be stapled. And if the papers aren’t straight enough, I will unstaple them and do it again, just to get them straight. And I’m a CPA, so you know that’s a lot of paper clips and a lot of staples. And I hate wasting paper. It’s like a sin for me. I could go on and on.
But the point is that these people take things beyond the level of quirks, and want to make a religion out of their personal pet peeves and preferences. Something bothers them and they don’t even like the idea of having to explain it. It is as it must be, and no other argument will suffice.
Rationalizing Resistence
And I think that’s what makes someone a conservative. When you get past the point of organizing your own life, and insist on organizing everyone else’s to match your personal preferences. Not for the good of society, but for your own personal well-being. Not because it needs to be that way, but because it feels better. There’s some part of their brains that makes them want things to be a certain way, and they’re just not very good at dealing with it when things aren’t that way.
And I think it’s because they just aren’t good at organizing their lives. Things don’t make sense for them because they just don’t make sense. And so they insist on organizing the entire planet to their liking, rather than learning to adapt to what the rest of the planet wants. It’s like they just lack the ability to adapt. Their brains can’t adjust and it all just freaks them out.
And so they classify the world into two groups: The people with enough commonsense to agree with them, and the Bad People. And the Bad People group is always much larger than the group that agrees with them. But for them, that’s not evidence that they’re doing anything wrong, but rather a clear indication of how crazy the world is.
And so they invent all kinds of stupid-ass justifications of why things shouldn’t change. Because the Founding Fathers didn’t say we should. Or skyrocketing divorce rates, which can be attributed to feminists or masculinists, depending on which conservative’s life is changing. Or God’s punishing us. Or whatever. It doesn’t matter. If they can’t find a good-sounding reason, they’ll settle on a bad one. They don’t care. All they care about is making sure that the world works the way they want it.
And frankly, I think Orango Island’s courting ritual is kind of cute. But if enough people want a change, the change is going to happen. And the more conservatives use their institutional power to stop change, the worse things are going to be once that change finally happens. And too often, the violence and disorder that conservatives use as evidence of the dangers of change, should really be attributed to those same conservatives, for having delayed the change for too long and created a situation in which violence and disorder became the only effective outlet for change. But I guess that’s yet another facet of conservatives which will never change.
Sunday, February 04, 2007
Impressionist Terror
Propaganda. It’s all the conservatives think about, and how they think the world works. It’s not about doing things. It’s about giving the impression of doing things. It’s not about being tough. It’s about looking tough. It’s not about reality. It’s about what people think of reality. And that’s just bull dooky.
I was reminded of this while reading this from Bill Kristol:
Look, if I were a Sunni extremist and was worried, which I would be, about a doubling of U.S. forces in Baghdad, what would I do? I would try to convey an impression of chaos. I would get the biggest truck bomb possible and drive it into a market in a Shiite area. If that’s going to drive us out of Iraq, that’s just ridiculous.
That’s right. They’re going to kill lots of innocent people, just to convey an impression. He goes on to suggest that we shouldn’t leave Iraq because it would “send a message” to ruthless terrorists worldwide that we’ll run away if attacked. Because that’s what it’s all about. It’s not about human lives being lost. It’s not about grand strategy. It’s about impressions and messages. And nothing is more impressive than standing your ground when you’re in a bad situation that keeps getting worse.
But if there’s a message coming from the Iraqi terrorists, it’s not that they’re desperate. It’s that they can blow-up anything they want and we can’t stop them. That’s the message being sent. And that’s not one of desperation but of strength. That’s what terrorism is all about. It’s not about killing people. It’s about scaring people with a reminder of strength. To remind their enemies that the terrorists have the ability to hurt them whenever they want. And the purpose is to force a stronger enemy to negotiate or compromise with the weaker enemy.
And in reality, they’re not trying to send a message at all. As Juan Cole suggests, they’re just trying to make the Shiites furious and create more chaos in Iraq. As things stand, the Sunnis obviously lose on a level playing field (though it didn’t have to be that way); and so the Sunnis want to make things unlevel. But that’s not an impression they’re giving for our sake. It’s to make their plans into reality.
And I’m sure Kristol knows all this, as he can’t be nearly as dumb as the people he’s trying to fool. And if we take his idea of impressions and messages seriously, then we’d automatically know that Kristol has to say these things because he doesn’t want to give the wrong impression. He knows reality isn’t working so well for him, and so he’s just trying to send a message that he’s not scared and won’t back down. But he’s already told us how important it is to deny reality, so there’s no reason we should take him seriously. And so his real message can be taken that he’s scared and full of shit. And that’s the exact message that we’re receiving.
And that brings me to one of the few things I don’t understand: If someone continues to insist that propaganda is more important than reality, why does anyone listen to them? They’re already admitting that they’re liars, and that it would be unpatriotic and stupid to say the truth. What else needs to be said?
I was reminded of this while reading this from Bill Kristol:
Look, if I were a Sunni extremist and was worried, which I would be, about a doubling of U.S. forces in Baghdad, what would I do? I would try to convey an impression of chaos. I would get the biggest truck bomb possible and drive it into a market in a Shiite area. If that’s going to drive us out of Iraq, that’s just ridiculous.
That’s right. They’re going to kill lots of innocent people, just to convey an impression. He goes on to suggest that we shouldn’t leave Iraq because it would “send a message” to ruthless terrorists worldwide that we’ll run away if attacked. Because that’s what it’s all about. It’s not about human lives being lost. It’s not about grand strategy. It’s about impressions and messages. And nothing is more impressive than standing your ground when you’re in a bad situation that keeps getting worse.
But if there’s a message coming from the Iraqi terrorists, it’s not that they’re desperate. It’s that they can blow-up anything they want and we can’t stop them. That’s the message being sent. And that’s not one of desperation but of strength. That’s what terrorism is all about. It’s not about killing people. It’s about scaring people with a reminder of strength. To remind their enemies that the terrorists have the ability to hurt them whenever they want. And the purpose is to force a stronger enemy to negotiate or compromise with the weaker enemy.
And in reality, they’re not trying to send a message at all. As Juan Cole suggests, they’re just trying to make the Shiites furious and create more chaos in Iraq. As things stand, the Sunnis obviously lose on a level playing field (though it didn’t have to be that way); and so the Sunnis want to make things unlevel. But that’s not an impression they’re giving for our sake. It’s to make their plans into reality.
And I’m sure Kristol knows all this, as he can’t be nearly as dumb as the people he’s trying to fool. And if we take his idea of impressions and messages seriously, then we’d automatically know that Kristol has to say these things because he doesn’t want to give the wrong impression. He knows reality isn’t working so well for him, and so he’s just trying to send a message that he’s not scared and won’t back down. But he’s already told us how important it is to deny reality, so there’s no reason we should take him seriously. And so his real message can be taken that he’s scared and full of shit. And that’s the exact message that we’re receiving.
And that brings me to one of the few things I don’t understand: If someone continues to insist that propaganda is more important than reality, why does anyone listen to them? They’re already admitting that they’re liars, and that it would be unpatriotic and stupid to say the truth. What else needs to be said?
How Cheney Stole America
Speaking of Cheney’s unconstitutional power-grab of presidential powers, TPM’s David Kurtz asks “How is it that Bush, who is so caught up in macho public demonstrations of his own personal strength and courage, can tolerate a shadow presidency within his own White House?”
Well I happen to know the answer to that one: Bush doesn’t know and Bush doesn’t care. Bush doesn’t know because Cheney placed his own men in key positions in the Bush Administration, who are loyal to him and filter everything through Cheney’s office. I heard about that on NPR awhile back. Cheney’s had a lot of experience in various administrations and knew where to put these key people.
And so there’s almost nothing that Bush hears or sees that hasn’t already been filtered by Cheney and his people. So if Cheney wants something done, he just has his people dress-up the facts so the only attractive option is the one he wants picked. And for creepy ideologues like them, that’s what they’d be doing even if Cheney were president. But it’s all the more necessary if they want to influence Bush into choosing the “right” options.
And then there’s the fact that Bush, Rove, and their like-minded minions only see policy matters as a means of manipulating politics. But they don’t see it as a critical thing on its own, so they don’t really focus on it. They just want anything that makes the Republican Party stronger.
But Cheney’s not like that. His concern for the Republican Party only extends as far as it can be used to help him. Because that’s what he does. He’s a power-hungry parasite that latches on to any powerful person or group and sucks them dry for all they’re worth. His bio simply reeks of this. He’s never earned any position he’s had. He’s simply BS’d his way to the top, by convincing important people to give him important responsibilities that would normally take years of loyal service to acquire. But the only person Cheney is loyal to is himself.
And another reason for this was simply that Bush abhors work; especially the boring and complicated kind. He always expected everything to be handed to him, simply because he deserved it. And he never really liked being president. He liked running for president, and meeting people, and making speeches, and being adored; but he doesn’t like the actual presidenting part. He especially liked the political maneuvering aspects of it all and winning, but when it came to reading reports and making mundane decisions, he’d rather be on vacation.
And so that explains how “macho” Bush could allow this to happen. He didn’t want the powers Cheney took, and didn’t even know that they were taken. He saw it as “delegating”. All the power-grabbing happened at the staff level, before anything appeared on Bush’s radar, and Bush trusts his staff completely. Why wouldn’t he? They always told him what he wanted to hear.
Trusting the Experts
And about that, let me just say that as a CPA, not one of my clients doubts anything I put on a tax return. When I tell them what their tax situation is and what the tax laws are, they have no other choice than to sign the return and hope for the best. But they don’t hope. They trust me. Some of the better ones will go page-by-page looking over it, but even they wouldn’t know the first thing to question me about. And most of them don’t even want to bother looking at it. They just sign it and give it back to me to mail. And while I’d like for them to know more about the tax return, this stuff really is too complex for the average layman to pick up. That’s why they hired me in the first place.
And that’s exactly what Bush has done. He doesn’t know anything about constitutional powers. He doesn’t know the Geneva Conventions. He doesn’t understand environmental concerns and his grasp of economics is probably limited to a few entry-level classes he took many decades ago…that he got C’s in. In other words, he is totally at their mercy.
But so are most presidents. Clinton, Bush Sr., and others are likely to have been at the mercy of their experts, but the difference is that they understood their limitations. And more importantly, they knew how to ask questions to uncover bullshit. But Bush can’t do that. Not only is he an uncurious person who only hears what he wants to hear, but he’s so ignorant that he surrounded himself with non-experts. People who believe that “expertise” is a con-game that anyone can play. If you act like an expert, you are one. And besides, Bush resents real experts, because he doesn’t like the idea of people being better than him at anything.
So they feed him all kinds of bullshit about the powers he has and the best policy options, and he believes it. Not necessarily because he wanted to (though he did), but because that’s what Cheney’s people told him. His “experts” were Cheney’s men telling him what Cheney wanted them to hear.
Fooling Bush’s Brain
And so that’s how Cheney took these powers. It’s not some grand conspiracy or magic spell. Cheney just out-smarted them all at a game they didn’t even know they were playing. Bush, Rove, and the non-Cheney’s were so busy trying to con the American people into voting Republican that they hadn’t realized how much power Cheney really wielded, or that all of their political calculations were being undermined by Cheney’s dangerous policies.
And that’s the way that most con-games are played. You can’t be conned unless you want to be, and so con-artists play to your greedy side and make you so interested in making money or ripping someone else off that you don’t even notice you’re getting ripped off.
Sure, Cheney’s cherry-picked information fit nicely into what Rove wanted for his political maneuverings, but he surely would have chosen differently, had he had real experts to rely upon, instead of Cheney’s handpicked goons. The disaster in Iraq is the biggest example of this, as it has essentially destroyed Bush, and ruined Rove’s reputation; and real experts would have told them they were playing with fire. If nothing else, Rove should have picked a smaller target for his “War President” to attack. I believe Afghanistan would have done quite nicely; and Cheney helped Bush even blow that one.
But we see the same in every case. Rove was misled about what their policy options were and repeatedly backed the wrong horse. He’s a very intelligent man when it comes to politics and playing dirty, but he got completely skunked on the policy front. Because the disaster of the war, our huge deficits, and everything else Cheney-esque has only served to set back Rove’s Republican Revolution for decades. Rove’s mentor, Nixon, had no problems with pimping liberal policies when it suited his political interests, but Rove has been duped by conservatives who conned their way into representing all Republican policy interests.
And sure, Rove fully understood that, but that only shows how little he really understood about how utterly disastrous those policies were. Had he real experts to rely upon, Rove would surely have picked more successful policies. But again, he only understood politics, not policy. Now imagine if Rove had been convinced of the dangers of Iraq and deficits. Bush would surely be above 50% in the approval ratings.
Cheney Clone
Oh, and one last point: Even what Kurtz suggests is Bush’s “macho public demonstrations of his own personal strength and courage” is just what seeped through from Cheney. Sure, he’d like to believe it, but this is yet another of Cheney’s policy ideas that Bush has unwittingly adopted. Cheney’s the one who projects total confidence in even his most obviously incompetent dealings, and Bush was the boob who had always gotten by in life as a nice-guy joker.
Sure, he was always a selfish prick underneath it all, but he knew how to project his prickiness into self-deprecating humor and a veneer of nice-guyness. That’s how he was when he was my governor those many years ago. It was only once Darth Cheney’s influence was put on him that he restructured his self-image to see himself as strong and decisive.
So beyond merely stealing the country for his own benefit; Dick Cheney has stolen the president’s personality and replaced it with his own. And with everything else going on in the country, Bush will again be the last to know.
Well I happen to know the answer to that one: Bush doesn’t know and Bush doesn’t care. Bush doesn’t know because Cheney placed his own men in key positions in the Bush Administration, who are loyal to him and filter everything through Cheney’s office. I heard about that on NPR awhile back. Cheney’s had a lot of experience in various administrations and knew where to put these key people.
And so there’s almost nothing that Bush hears or sees that hasn’t already been filtered by Cheney and his people. So if Cheney wants something done, he just has his people dress-up the facts so the only attractive option is the one he wants picked. And for creepy ideologues like them, that’s what they’d be doing even if Cheney were president. But it’s all the more necessary if they want to influence Bush into choosing the “right” options.
And then there’s the fact that Bush, Rove, and their like-minded minions only see policy matters as a means of manipulating politics. But they don’t see it as a critical thing on its own, so they don’t really focus on it. They just want anything that makes the Republican Party stronger.
But Cheney’s not like that. His concern for the Republican Party only extends as far as it can be used to help him. Because that’s what he does. He’s a power-hungry parasite that latches on to any powerful person or group and sucks them dry for all they’re worth. His bio simply reeks of this. He’s never earned any position he’s had. He’s simply BS’d his way to the top, by convincing important people to give him important responsibilities that would normally take years of loyal service to acquire. But the only person Cheney is loyal to is himself.
And another reason for this was simply that Bush abhors work; especially the boring and complicated kind. He always expected everything to be handed to him, simply because he deserved it. And he never really liked being president. He liked running for president, and meeting people, and making speeches, and being adored; but he doesn’t like the actual presidenting part. He especially liked the political maneuvering aspects of it all and winning, but when it came to reading reports and making mundane decisions, he’d rather be on vacation.
And so that explains how “macho” Bush could allow this to happen. He didn’t want the powers Cheney took, and didn’t even know that they were taken. He saw it as “delegating”. All the power-grabbing happened at the staff level, before anything appeared on Bush’s radar, and Bush trusts his staff completely. Why wouldn’t he? They always told him what he wanted to hear.
Trusting the Experts
And about that, let me just say that as a CPA, not one of my clients doubts anything I put on a tax return. When I tell them what their tax situation is and what the tax laws are, they have no other choice than to sign the return and hope for the best. But they don’t hope. They trust me. Some of the better ones will go page-by-page looking over it, but even they wouldn’t know the first thing to question me about. And most of them don’t even want to bother looking at it. They just sign it and give it back to me to mail. And while I’d like for them to know more about the tax return, this stuff really is too complex for the average layman to pick up. That’s why they hired me in the first place.
And that’s exactly what Bush has done. He doesn’t know anything about constitutional powers. He doesn’t know the Geneva Conventions. He doesn’t understand environmental concerns and his grasp of economics is probably limited to a few entry-level classes he took many decades ago…that he got C’s in. In other words, he is totally at their mercy.
But so are most presidents. Clinton, Bush Sr., and others are likely to have been at the mercy of their experts, but the difference is that they understood their limitations. And more importantly, they knew how to ask questions to uncover bullshit. But Bush can’t do that. Not only is he an uncurious person who only hears what he wants to hear, but he’s so ignorant that he surrounded himself with non-experts. People who believe that “expertise” is a con-game that anyone can play. If you act like an expert, you are one. And besides, Bush resents real experts, because he doesn’t like the idea of people being better than him at anything.
So they feed him all kinds of bullshit about the powers he has and the best policy options, and he believes it. Not necessarily because he wanted to (though he did), but because that’s what Cheney’s people told him. His “experts” were Cheney’s men telling him what Cheney wanted them to hear.
Fooling Bush’s Brain
And so that’s how Cheney took these powers. It’s not some grand conspiracy or magic spell. Cheney just out-smarted them all at a game they didn’t even know they were playing. Bush, Rove, and the non-Cheney’s were so busy trying to con the American people into voting Republican that they hadn’t realized how much power Cheney really wielded, or that all of their political calculations were being undermined by Cheney’s dangerous policies.
And that’s the way that most con-games are played. You can’t be conned unless you want to be, and so con-artists play to your greedy side and make you so interested in making money or ripping someone else off that you don’t even notice you’re getting ripped off.
Sure, Cheney’s cherry-picked information fit nicely into what Rove wanted for his political maneuverings, but he surely would have chosen differently, had he had real experts to rely upon, instead of Cheney’s handpicked goons. The disaster in Iraq is the biggest example of this, as it has essentially destroyed Bush, and ruined Rove’s reputation; and real experts would have told them they were playing with fire. If nothing else, Rove should have picked a smaller target for his “War President” to attack. I believe Afghanistan would have done quite nicely; and Cheney helped Bush even blow that one.
But we see the same in every case. Rove was misled about what their policy options were and repeatedly backed the wrong horse. He’s a very intelligent man when it comes to politics and playing dirty, but he got completely skunked on the policy front. Because the disaster of the war, our huge deficits, and everything else Cheney-esque has only served to set back Rove’s Republican Revolution for decades. Rove’s mentor, Nixon, had no problems with pimping liberal policies when it suited his political interests, but Rove has been duped by conservatives who conned their way into representing all Republican policy interests.
And sure, Rove fully understood that, but that only shows how little he really understood about how utterly disastrous those policies were. Had he real experts to rely upon, Rove would surely have picked more successful policies. But again, he only understood politics, not policy. Now imagine if Rove had been convinced of the dangers of Iraq and deficits. Bush would surely be above 50% in the approval ratings.
Cheney Clone
Oh, and one last point: Even what Kurtz suggests is Bush’s “macho public demonstrations of his own personal strength and courage” is just what seeped through from Cheney. Sure, he’d like to believe it, but this is yet another of Cheney’s policy ideas that Bush has unwittingly adopted. Cheney’s the one who projects total confidence in even his most obviously incompetent dealings, and Bush was the boob who had always gotten by in life as a nice-guy joker.
Sure, he was always a selfish prick underneath it all, but he knew how to project his prickiness into self-deprecating humor and a veneer of nice-guyness. That’s how he was when he was my governor those many years ago. It was only once Darth Cheney’s influence was put on him that he restructured his self-image to see himself as strong and decisive.
So beyond merely stealing the country for his own benefit; Dick Cheney has stolen the president’s personality and replaced it with his own. And with everything else going on in the country, Bush will again be the last to know.
Friday, February 02, 2007
No Plan
Great! I just saw this headline from the AP:
Gates says U.S. not planning Iran war.
God dammit. That was the problem with the last war. They didn’t plan it. They just went ahead and did it. and look what a mess that turned out to be. If there’s one lesson to be learned from Iraq, it’s that you should plan for war before you do them. Dumb asses.
Gates says U.S. not planning Iran war.
God dammit. That was the problem with the last war. They didn’t plan it. They just went ahead and did it. and look what a mess that turned out to be. If there’s one lesson to be learned from Iraq, it’s that you should plan for war before you do them. Dumb asses.
Thursday, February 01, 2007
Speaking Truth to Carnivals
To answer your questions, no, I didn’t really lose the most recent Carnival of the Liberals. I’m just boycotting them because they’re scum-sucking leaches who wouldn’t know a good blog post if it bit them in the ass. And so that’s why I refused to submit my best posts, but rather intentionally threw one of my more mundane bric-a-brac at them; intending to lose, so that their readers would know what a fraud the whole thing was. And that’s exactly what happened, as evidenced by their slumping readership. So in reality, I won. It’s that simple.
But it doesn’t end there. My lawyers forbid me from going into any more details, but needless to say, I’ll be owning that damn carnival by the end of March. And after that, I’m turning it into a parking lot.
Doctor Biobrain has spoken.
But it doesn’t end there. My lawyers forbid me from going into any more details, but needless to say, I’ll be owning that damn carnival by the end of March. And after that, I’m turning it into a parking lot.
Doctor Biobrain has spoken.
Dr. Limbaugh to the Rescue
I’m too busy right now to rewrite this, but Bibblesnæð at Drummondtown Ramblings wants to know why Rush Limbaugh keeps doing what he’s doing. And so I wrote a comment to put on his blog, but decided to screw him over and just post it here instead. You people deserve it. So why does Rush keep doing what he’s doing?
Three words: Oxycon, Oxycon, Oxycon.
Beyond that, what choice does he have? He's a paid shill. Were he to stop shilling, he won't be paid and he’d quickly slip into the world of forgotten has-beens. He was a no-name DJ before he became the Voice of America, and were he to stop shilling, he might not even be able to get the DJ job back. Even now, with the Republican Party slipping ever deeper into oblivion than ever, Rush Limbaugh remains more important and powerful than he had any hopes of being.
And I don't know if he ever mentions this (as I never listen to his hellish show), but he used to blame himself for bad-mouthing Bush Sr., and thus helping get Clinton in the Whitehouse. And he vowed to never do that again. But he used to be a lot more independent, back in the day. It wasn't until he went BIGTIME that he became such a whore for the GOP. They give him his marching orders, and he still takes them. And while I've never had such a soul-sucking job as Limbaugh's, I've never gotten paid the same either. And honestly, if someone offered me the millions that he gets, I might just take them up on it (hint, hint).
But that one’s just too easy. People sell-out. It happens. But the real question is why anyone listens to that crap. But I guess that one’s pretty easy too. It feels good. Rush and most of his supporters are whiney-assed titty babies who are upset that their lives aren’t living up to how they were led to believe they would be. White men used to roam the range, picking off Injuns and Negros to their heart’s content. That’s how it happened in those movies and TV shows they watched as children, and now they’ve been led to believe that that’s how things really were...back before everyone got all uppity and started demanding equal rights.
Everything used to be all Leave it to Beaver and Lone Ranger, with prosperity and justice for everyone (white), and now they’ve got some crappy job mixing paint at Home Depot or a dead-end job sorting mail in the mailroom (not to knock either profession). And their wives are bitches and their husbands are lazy bastards, and they want to know why.
Well Rush Limbaugh tells them why and assures them that it’s not their fault at all. It’s someone else’s fault. Always. And if that someone would finally be denied the power they hold, order would be restored to the universe and everything would work out a whole lot better than they do now. It’s always someone else. And it doesn’t matter how irrelevant the guilty party is; it only takes a single monkeywrench to mess-up the whole works.
That’s a pile of crap, of course; but that’s it. Life sucks and they want to know why. And they simply can’t allow themselves to admit that it’s their own damn fault and that life can be as good as they want it to be, if only they’d stop trying to change everyone else and start trying to fix themselves. But that’s not what they want to hear, so they listen to Limbaugh instead. Think of it as the conservative version of therapy, where the therapist does all the talking and the patients nod in agreement. They feel powerless and angry, and Limbaugh can tell them why. And no one likes that system more than blowhard Limbaugh himself. He’s still an important man, just as long as he keeps on talking.
Three words: Oxycon, Oxycon, Oxycon.
Beyond that, what choice does he have? He's a paid shill. Were he to stop shilling, he won't be paid and he’d quickly slip into the world of forgotten has-beens. He was a no-name DJ before he became the Voice of America, and were he to stop shilling, he might not even be able to get the DJ job back. Even now, with the Republican Party slipping ever deeper into oblivion than ever, Rush Limbaugh remains more important and powerful than he had any hopes of being.
And I don't know if he ever mentions this (as I never listen to his hellish show), but he used to blame himself for bad-mouthing Bush Sr., and thus helping get Clinton in the Whitehouse. And he vowed to never do that again. But he used to be a lot more independent, back in the day. It wasn't until he went BIGTIME that he became such a whore for the GOP. They give him his marching orders, and he still takes them. And while I've never had such a soul-sucking job as Limbaugh's, I've never gotten paid the same either. And honestly, if someone offered me the millions that he gets, I might just take them up on it (hint, hint).
But that one’s just too easy. People sell-out. It happens. But the real question is why anyone listens to that crap. But I guess that one’s pretty easy too. It feels good. Rush and most of his supporters are whiney-assed titty babies who are upset that their lives aren’t living up to how they were led to believe they would be. White men used to roam the range, picking off Injuns and Negros to their heart’s content. That’s how it happened in those movies and TV shows they watched as children, and now they’ve been led to believe that that’s how things really were...back before everyone got all uppity and started demanding equal rights.
Everything used to be all Leave it to Beaver and Lone Ranger, with prosperity and justice for everyone (white), and now they’ve got some crappy job mixing paint at Home Depot or a dead-end job sorting mail in the mailroom (not to knock either profession). And their wives are bitches and their husbands are lazy bastards, and they want to know why.
Well Rush Limbaugh tells them why and assures them that it’s not their fault at all. It’s someone else’s fault. Always. And if that someone would finally be denied the power they hold, order would be restored to the universe and everything would work out a whole lot better than they do now. It’s always someone else. And it doesn’t matter how irrelevant the guilty party is; it only takes a single monkeywrench to mess-up the whole works.
That’s a pile of crap, of course; but that’s it. Life sucks and they want to know why. And they simply can’t allow themselves to admit that it’s their own damn fault and that life can be as good as they want it to be, if only they’d stop trying to change everyone else and start trying to fix themselves. But that’s not what they want to hear, so they listen to Limbaugh instead. Think of it as the conservative version of therapy, where the therapist does all the talking and the patients nod in agreement. They feel powerless and angry, and Limbaugh can tell them why. And no one likes that system more than blowhard Limbaugh himself. He’s still an important man, just as long as he keeps on talking.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
