So, am I just too sensitive or is the reference to “Cartoon Protestors” in many news headlines simply wrong? News editors can’t be oblivious to the silly nature of that phrase, which always brings to mind Yogi Bear and Fred Flintstone among an angry mob of fellow animations. I mean, this is a very serious issue, and yet that reference seems intended to emphasize how absurd these “cartoon protestors” are regarding their anger.
So what’s up with this? Is this really the best they could come up with, or is this an underhanded slam at folks they deem as being anti-free-speech? And if it is a slam, I wonder if it’s possible to get more professional news editors who don’t abuse their position of power in order to attack those they don’t like. But it’s not just the editors. It seems as if any semblance of objectivism flies out the window whenever a journalist-type becomes part of the story. Or am I just reading too much into this?
Friday, February 17, 2006
Thursday, February 16, 2006
Bush Empowered Vices
Regarding the Executive Order letting Cheney classify stuff, is it just me, or is there something wrong about this? I’ve always thought it was a bit stupid that the vice presidency is traditionally such a useless position; in that we’ve got somebody that we’ve deemed worthy to substitute for the Prez, and yet we don’t use him for anything. And after all, idle hands are tools for the Devil; so I don’t have a problem with Bush giving Cheney a few things to do. I’d hate to imagine the trouble he’d get into otherwise. But this classification stuff really seems a bit much.
And I’m not going to pretend to be some Constitution expert, as I’m a blogger and I don’t need expertise; but exactly how many of his job duties can a president sign-over to the VP? Could Bush allow Cheney to sign legislation for him? Or to give him authority over the nukes? Or maybe even something important, like letting Cheney clear some of that Crawford brush for him? Are these Executive Order things limitless in terms of giving the VP the powers of the President? Can Bush start giving us some of these powers too? And are there more of these Executive Orders floating around for Cheney to spring on us? Will it turn out that Bush has already made us all Cheney’s love slaves, or will they finally tell us that Cheney is allowed to shoot people in the face? These are all rhetorical questions, btw; as nothing kills the speculation-buzz quicker than actual answers.
And I’m not going to pretend to be some Constitution expert, as I’m a blogger and I don’t need expertise; but exactly how many of his job duties can a president sign-over to the VP? Could Bush allow Cheney to sign legislation for him? Or to give him authority over the nukes? Or maybe even something important, like letting Cheney clear some of that Crawford brush for him? Are these Executive Order things limitless in terms of giving the VP the powers of the President? Can Bush start giving us some of these powers too? And are there more of these Executive Orders floating around for Cheney to spring on us? Will it turn out that Bush has already made us all Cheney’s love slaves, or will they finally tell us that Cheney is allowed to shoot people in the face? These are all rhetorical questions, btw; as nothing kills the speculation-buzz quicker than actual answers.
Scaring the Bushies
Via the all-powerful Carpetbagger we read this from the LA Times:
Perhaps inadvertently, Barnes also includes plenty of evidence likely to horrify those who oppose Bush (for instance, Barnes reports that the president fundamentally doesn't accept the theory of global warming and was reinforced in that belief by a private meeting not with any scientist but rather with novelist Michael Crichton, whose novel "State of Fear" revolves around the issue).
I’m hoping the writer meant that as a joke, but shouldn’t this also horrify those who support Bush, too? In fact, if I were a Bush supporter, this kind of thing would bother me more than if I hated him. But I guess that’s part of the problem; that nothing he does seems to bother them.
But what bothers me even more is Brownstein’s use of “those who oppose Bush”. Because that’s the exact framing that the Bushies use. That if you’re scared by Bush, it’s because you already didn’t like him. But that’s not how it works. Because Bush really is scary, and this Crichton thing should be yet another warning sign. And the only folks who aren’t scared by this are the Bush loyalists and the folks who didn’t hear about it. But all sensible people should be scared. And the fact that even an obvious “Bush opposer” like Brownstein uses this framing is disturbing, and is a sign that the Bushies have won.
For the record, there are novelists like Arthur C. Clarke who did effectively influence science on the political scene. But Clarke was a science-minded guy who used his writings to argue in support of science, and did so from a science-based perspective; while Crichton is an anti-science guy who uses his writings to scare people away from science. So while Arthur C. Clarke was a brilliant mind (and perhaps the greatest of science fiction writers) who strove to further science; Crichton is a hack who likes to scare people. I should mention that I’ve never read any Crichton books (though I have seen some of the movies); but I really don’t like anyone who tries to warn us away from science. While science can lead to dangerous things, the idea of scaring people away from science is an offense to all intelligent people.
Perhaps inadvertently, Barnes also includes plenty of evidence likely to horrify those who oppose Bush (for instance, Barnes reports that the president fundamentally doesn't accept the theory of global warming and was reinforced in that belief by a private meeting not with any scientist but rather with novelist Michael Crichton, whose novel "State of Fear" revolves around the issue).
I’m hoping the writer meant that as a joke, but shouldn’t this also horrify those who support Bush, too? In fact, if I were a Bush supporter, this kind of thing would bother me more than if I hated him. But I guess that’s part of the problem; that nothing he does seems to bother them.
But what bothers me even more is Brownstein’s use of “those who oppose Bush”. Because that’s the exact framing that the Bushies use. That if you’re scared by Bush, it’s because you already didn’t like him. But that’s not how it works. Because Bush really is scary, and this Crichton thing should be yet another warning sign. And the only folks who aren’t scared by this are the Bush loyalists and the folks who didn’t hear about it. But all sensible people should be scared. And the fact that even an obvious “Bush opposer” like Brownstein uses this framing is disturbing, and is a sign that the Bushies have won.
For the record, there are novelists like Arthur C. Clarke who did effectively influence science on the political scene. But Clarke was a science-minded guy who used his writings to argue in support of science, and did so from a science-based perspective; while Crichton is an anti-science guy who uses his writings to scare people away from science. So while Arthur C. Clarke was a brilliant mind (and perhaps the greatest of science fiction writers) who strove to further science; Crichton is a hack who likes to scare people. I should mention that I’ve never read any Crichton books (though I have seen some of the movies); but I really don’t like anyone who tries to warn us away from science. While science can lead to dangerous things, the idea of scaring people away from science is an offense to all intelligent people.
Thinking Like an Idiot
Upfront, let me say that I was totally wrong about Iraq. Before June of 2002, I was positive that the Bush Admin wouldn’t be stupid or crazy enough to want to invade Iraq; and I was wrong on both counts. Even in the fall of 2002, I continued to believe that we wouldn’t actually do it. That cooler heads would prevail and the Bush Admin would quietly pack away their war rhetoric. And I was wrong about that too. It wasn’t until Novemberish or so that I realized that it was a done deal and that almost nothing could stop the war. It could be said in my defense that Bush had said even much later than that that the decision for war had still not been made; but I’m not one to rely on the GOP’s much used Idiot Defense to defend myself, so I’m not going to go there.
Thus said, I really really think that this Iran thing is going to blow-up in the Bush Admin’s collective face. Because to me, the more they emphasize how dangerous Iran is, the more they’ll remind people how dangerous they said Iraq was; and now a majority clearly thinks that invasion was kind of a flop. And if Republicans were more honest and didn’t want to cover-up for Dear Leader, that would be a strong majority; probably approaching the 85% mark. And even worse for the Bushies, the more they emphasize how dire the situation is, the more people will remember that we can’t really take strong action; again, because of the blunder in Iraq.
It’s kind of like a fire fighter who expended almost all his water putting out a small campfire, now insisting that they combat a raging forest-fire. And either you think the guy’s wrong again and it’s just another campfire, or you believe him that it really is dangerous, but that you can’t possibly combat it effectively; thanks to his earlier boobery. But in this case, the campfire is just as dangerous to fight as the forest-fire; and has been made far more dangerous due to the prior mistake. This just sounds like a lose-lose for the Bush Admin.
And so I just don’t see how this is supposed to work for them. Sure, the Bushies will still have much of the media on their side, so that helps. But Bush is already fairly unpopular, in large part due to the current war, and so it would seem to me that all this works heavily against war in Iran; no matter how much the media wants to push it. Particularly during a mid-term election year, when Republican Congressmen can no longer rely on the “I’m with Bush” platform to pull them through anymore. But I was wrong on the last war, so I’m not going to stake too much on my reasoning on this one. Logic can only take you so far where the Bush Admin is concerned, and sometimes, you just have to think like an idiot.
One note, there is the possibility that the Bush Admin is only talking tough to: A) Bluff Iran into submitting, and B) Distract from the world of hurt they’re now suffering from politically. But, we are talking about the Bush Administration, and despite all of the “Karl Rove: Supergenius” talk, they really don’t seem to use these sorts of subtle techniques. Their idea of “subtle” is using a cruise missile to crack a walnut, while loudly denouncing the walnut on all the cable news networks. But there is the unlikely possibility that they’ve learned from their mistakes and have now taken a smarter course of action. We can hope, anyway.
Thus said, I really really think that this Iran thing is going to blow-up in the Bush Admin’s collective face. Because to me, the more they emphasize how dangerous Iran is, the more they’ll remind people how dangerous they said Iraq was; and now a majority clearly thinks that invasion was kind of a flop. And if Republicans were more honest and didn’t want to cover-up for Dear Leader, that would be a strong majority; probably approaching the 85% mark. And even worse for the Bushies, the more they emphasize how dire the situation is, the more people will remember that we can’t really take strong action; again, because of the blunder in Iraq.
It’s kind of like a fire fighter who expended almost all his water putting out a small campfire, now insisting that they combat a raging forest-fire. And either you think the guy’s wrong again and it’s just another campfire, or you believe him that it really is dangerous, but that you can’t possibly combat it effectively; thanks to his earlier boobery. But in this case, the campfire is just as dangerous to fight as the forest-fire; and has been made far more dangerous due to the prior mistake. This just sounds like a lose-lose for the Bush Admin.
And so I just don’t see how this is supposed to work for them. Sure, the Bushies will still have much of the media on their side, so that helps. But Bush is already fairly unpopular, in large part due to the current war, and so it would seem to me that all this works heavily against war in Iran; no matter how much the media wants to push it. Particularly during a mid-term election year, when Republican Congressmen can no longer rely on the “I’m with Bush” platform to pull them through anymore. But I was wrong on the last war, so I’m not going to stake too much on my reasoning on this one. Logic can only take you so far where the Bush Admin is concerned, and sometimes, you just have to think like an idiot.
One note, there is the possibility that the Bush Admin is only talking tough to: A) Bluff Iran into submitting, and B) Distract from the world of hurt they’re now suffering from politically. But, we are talking about the Bush Administration, and despite all of the “Karl Rove: Supergenius” talk, they really don’t seem to use these sorts of subtle techniques. Their idea of “subtle” is using a cruise missile to crack a walnut, while loudly denouncing the walnut on all the cable news networks. But there is the unlikely possibility that they’ve learned from their mistakes and have now taken a smarter course of action. We can hope, anyway.
Vader for President
Why does Cheney supposedly say that he doesn’t want to be president? Does that really make any sense, or is it just the same politics that make all contenders pretend to not be contending? The media has always immediately bought into that story, but I never saw how it made any sense.
Sure, he shouldn’t be president, but he shouldn’t have been vice-president either. And sure, he’s kind of a weird ogre sort of guy; better for scaring the kids on Halloween than at leading them into battle. But why would that stop him? He’s a power-hungry creep, and power-hungry creeps love to be president; particularly those of the Republican persuasion. Besides, maybe he doesn’t see the ogre connection, and might actually believe himself to be handsome. Like maybe he’s seen Shrek too many times and wrongly applied that message to himself; not realizing that it only applied to good-guy ogres voiced by Mike Myers. And sure, he already has many of the powers of the presidency without any of the responsibility; but that will surely end after 2008. Or could he possibly try to stay on indefinitely as the VP (I’m sure he could find that somewhere in the constitution)?
But I just don’t see it. I don’t see why he wouldn’t run for president, nor do I understand why the media continues to repeat that line. Are they delusional enough to see him as someone too honest to lie? Is it just wishful thinking on their part? Or is he the real Darth Vader, using the Force on the weak minds in the media?
And might this shooting incident have increased his presidential chances; giving him a real toughguy aura? It worked for Vader with his whole choking thing in Star Wars. Not that that made any sense to me either. Sure, I suppose it’s cooler to choke someone using the Force, but I really don’t see how that kind of thing was at all acceptable. Imagine if someone made fun of Cheney’s ancient religion and he started choking the dude with his hand? Totally uncool. It would certainly require a lot more than a Brit Hume interview for him to recover from that.
But maybe that’s what Cheney’s going for: The jerk who over-reacts to everything and gets unnecessarily violent. There are certainly a lot of action movie heros who use that method of getting results; and look what that did for them. And that would explain the shooting thing. Not necessarily that he had anything against the guy; he just wanted to make a point. I’m just joking of course, as the drunken-medicated guy with shotgun makes a lot more sense; and certainly far more impeachable; assuming that Bush hasn’t just banned impeachments as being terrorist in nature. And with these guys in charge, nothing is safe anymore.
Sure, he shouldn’t be president, but he shouldn’t have been vice-president either. And sure, he’s kind of a weird ogre sort of guy; better for scaring the kids on Halloween than at leading them into battle. But why would that stop him? He’s a power-hungry creep, and power-hungry creeps love to be president; particularly those of the Republican persuasion. Besides, maybe he doesn’t see the ogre connection, and might actually believe himself to be handsome. Like maybe he’s seen Shrek too many times and wrongly applied that message to himself; not realizing that it only applied to good-guy ogres voiced by Mike Myers. And sure, he already has many of the powers of the presidency without any of the responsibility; but that will surely end after 2008. Or could he possibly try to stay on indefinitely as the VP (I’m sure he could find that somewhere in the constitution)?
But I just don’t see it. I don’t see why he wouldn’t run for president, nor do I understand why the media continues to repeat that line. Are they delusional enough to see him as someone too honest to lie? Is it just wishful thinking on their part? Or is he the real Darth Vader, using the Force on the weak minds in the media?
And might this shooting incident have increased his presidential chances; giving him a real toughguy aura? It worked for Vader with his whole choking thing in Star Wars. Not that that made any sense to me either. Sure, I suppose it’s cooler to choke someone using the Force, but I really don’t see how that kind of thing was at all acceptable. Imagine if someone made fun of Cheney’s ancient religion and he started choking the dude with his hand? Totally uncool. It would certainly require a lot more than a Brit Hume interview for him to recover from that.
But maybe that’s what Cheney’s going for: The jerk who over-reacts to everything and gets unnecessarily violent. There are certainly a lot of action movie heros who use that method of getting results; and look what that did for them. And that would explain the shooting thing. Not necessarily that he had anything against the guy; he just wanted to make a point. I’m just joking of course, as the drunken-medicated guy with shotgun makes a lot more sense; and certainly far more impeachable; assuming that Bush hasn’t just banned impeachments as being terrorist in nature. And with these guys in charge, nothing is safe anymore.
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
CotL: Five-Peat!!!
Cah-ching! Cah-ching! How does he do it? Senor Biobrain wins again! It's like money in the bank. Well, except it's not so good at paying the bills. But I'm sure that Carnival sponsorship money will be coming in momentarily.
Once again, I'd like to thank all the little people out there who hadn't already written what I wrote, so it seemed a lot more original when I wrote it. I'd also like to thank the nimrod conservatives who make this stuff easier than eating fish in a barrel. Of course, I'd like to thank myself, for being so damn clever. And finally, for all those wonderful people out there who read my post and liked what they saw: You're welcome.
And as a reminder to all you losers out there who didn’t win; there’s always another Carnival. And if nothing else, just rewrite one of my old posts and submit it as your own. The worst that can happen is that you get exposed as a plagiarizing fraud and get laughed out of the left-blogosphere. But what the hell, there’s always the right-blogosphere, and they have no standards whatsoever. Or you could just invent a centrist-blogosphere and get shit from both sides. Your choice.
Once again, I'd like to thank all the little people out there who hadn't already written what I wrote, so it seemed a lot more original when I wrote it. I'd also like to thank the nimrod conservatives who make this stuff easier than eating fish in a barrel. Of course, I'd like to thank myself, for being so damn clever. And finally, for all those wonderful people out there who read my post and liked what they saw: You're welcome.
And as a reminder to all you losers out there who didn’t win; there’s always another Carnival. And if nothing else, just rewrite one of my old posts and submit it as your own. The worst that can happen is that you get exposed as a plagiarizing fraud and get laughed out of the left-blogosphere. But what the hell, there’s always the right-blogosphere, and they have no standards whatsoever. Or you could just invent a centrist-blogosphere and get shit from both sides. Your choice.
Social Standards
I guess there are some things worse than American social conservatives. Namely Indian social conservatives:
A mother of two, Khushboo is recovering from a major controversy after she said there was nothing wrong with pre-marital sex as long as the girl protected herself against sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy.
Although she apologised for the comments made last year, conservative social and political groups have physically attacked her, including hurling eggs, sandals and tomatoes whenever she steps from her house.
Hurling eggs, sandals, and tomatoes? Simply for suggesting that pre-martial sex was ok? Wow. Kind of makes Fred Phelps’ “God hates fags” thing seem a little quaint.
A mother of two, Khushboo is recovering from a major controversy after she said there was nothing wrong with pre-marital sex as long as the girl protected herself against sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy.
Although she apologised for the comments made last year, conservative social and political groups have physically attacked her, including hurling eggs, sandals and tomatoes whenever she steps from her house.
Hurling eggs, sandals, and tomatoes? Simply for suggesting that pre-martial sex was ok? Wow. Kind of makes Fred Phelps’ “God hates fags” thing seem a little quaint.
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
Dissing Hackett
Regarding news of Paul Hackett’s withdrawal from the Democrats, I think that he’s just being kind of stupid. I liked Paul Hackett, and his House campaign against Mean Jean Schmidt was the first that I ever gave money to (I had intended to give to Kerry, but funds were always too tight). I liked Hackett’s message and thought he was certainly a good addition to the Dem line-up.
Thus said, I wasn’t so sure about his Senate campaign. He had a good message, but I really thought he was a bit rough around the edges and needed more political experience. It wasn’t that he lacked political savvy, it was like maybe he sometimes got overwhelmed with the campaigning. I’m too lazy to look for the links, but I remember him freaking out during the Schmidt campaign, complaining about too much media coverage (or something like that). And that just wasn’t cool.
And then during the recent campaign, I believe he used the “F-word” when confronted by an angry Republican. Not that I haven’t been known to use that word interspersed randomly in my posts; but it’s not really the coolest of behavior in a Senate campaign. One note on this, I actually tried to find a link to this, and couldn’t find anything; so it’s possible that I’ve invented it. If anyone else remembers this, please let me know.
And another thing I didn’t like was how much he was knocking his Dem opponent Sherrod Brown. Dems knocking Dems is really something I don’t like. It’s one thing if they’re a Lieberman-type who’s selling us out at every turn. But Brown really doesn’t seem so bad. Here’s a recent interview with him and he seemed to say the right things, and never once dissed Hackett; but he did knock Bush a lot. And I just think that Dem primaries should solely focus on a positive agenda, and not on attacking the Dem opponent. Because in the longrun, that just hurts the party overall.
But overall, he seemed a tad rough around the edges. Sure, that’s a good thing in some respects. But it can really screw things up. Overall, I think he just needed a little more time to get used to the harried political life. Even from the start, I thought that the Senate was too big a game for a guy who’s only had a losing House campaign under his belt (though it was a good campaign).
And so I thought that Brown was the better candidate for the Senate campaign, and that Hackett would have been better in a House campaign. That’s what I thought back when they first announced, and it appears that the Dem leadership agreed with me. And while I don’t agree with the way that the Dem leadership supposedly dissed him, he really should have taken it in stride and rolled with the punches. He’s probably right for being pissed, but I think he’s really screwing up by going public about it. Sometimes, getting mad is the right thing to do, and sometimes it just screws everything up. And in this case, I believe that denouncing the Dems is a really bad screw-up. Not that this will necessarily hurt him personally, but that it hurts the Dems. As it is, many broderliners are suggesting that they won’t vote Democrat because they’re so upset at what happened to Hackett; and that does nothing but help the Republicans. I’m just hoping that Hackett changes his mind and makes a House run after all.
Thus said, I wasn’t so sure about his Senate campaign. He had a good message, but I really thought he was a bit rough around the edges and needed more political experience. It wasn’t that he lacked political savvy, it was like maybe he sometimes got overwhelmed with the campaigning. I’m too lazy to look for the links, but I remember him freaking out during the Schmidt campaign, complaining about too much media coverage (or something like that). And that just wasn’t cool.
And then during the recent campaign, I believe he used the “F-word” when confronted by an angry Republican. Not that I haven’t been known to use that word interspersed randomly in my posts; but it’s not really the coolest of behavior in a Senate campaign. One note on this, I actually tried to find a link to this, and couldn’t find anything; so it’s possible that I’ve invented it. If anyone else remembers this, please let me know.
And another thing I didn’t like was how much he was knocking his Dem opponent Sherrod Brown. Dems knocking Dems is really something I don’t like. It’s one thing if they’re a Lieberman-type who’s selling us out at every turn. But Brown really doesn’t seem so bad. Here’s a recent interview with him and he seemed to say the right things, and never once dissed Hackett; but he did knock Bush a lot. And I just think that Dem primaries should solely focus on a positive agenda, and not on attacking the Dem opponent. Because in the longrun, that just hurts the party overall.
But overall, he seemed a tad rough around the edges. Sure, that’s a good thing in some respects. But it can really screw things up. Overall, I think he just needed a little more time to get used to the harried political life. Even from the start, I thought that the Senate was too big a game for a guy who’s only had a losing House campaign under his belt (though it was a good campaign).
And so I thought that Brown was the better candidate for the Senate campaign, and that Hackett would have been better in a House campaign. That’s what I thought back when they first announced, and it appears that the Dem leadership agreed with me. And while I don’t agree with the way that the Dem leadership supposedly dissed him, he really should have taken it in stride and rolled with the punches. He’s probably right for being pissed, but I think he’s really screwing up by going public about it. Sometimes, getting mad is the right thing to do, and sometimes it just screws everything up. And in this case, I believe that denouncing the Dems is a really bad screw-up. Not that this will necessarily hurt him personally, but that it hurts the Dems. As it is, many broderliners are suggesting that they won’t vote Democrat because they’re so upset at what happened to Hackett; and that does nothing but help the Republicans. I’m just hoping that Hackett changes his mind and makes a House run after all.
Comedian Coulter
Regarding Ann Coulter, I’ve always thought of her as a comedian, in the same way that George Carlin is a comedian. You’re laughing with Carlin, not necessarily because it’s funny; but because you agree with him. That’s what makes his stuff funny. If you didn’t agree with Carlin, you wouldn’t think he was funny.
And to be honest, I’ve never really liked Carlin’s stuff. Some of it was definitely funny, but too much of it relied upon you agreeing with him; and not enough on him telling actual jokes. It was all about the manner that he said things, rather than what he said. He’d bug out his eyes a little and use an exaggerated voice, and that might have been the only funny part to an otherwise serious statement. Not that I’m knocking anyone who likes him, but he’s just not my thing. I usually agreed with what he said, but wasn’t laughing. Maybe I just wasn’t stoned enough.
Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not making any kind of moral equivalence here. Even as equals, Carlin never said the over-the-top stupid shit like Coulter does. Like wanting people assassinated or anything. Nor am I making a humor equivalence. While I didn’t think Carlin was super-funny; Coulter’s humor is pure bottom of the barrel stuff. And finally, I’m not making an intelligence equivalence. Even at his worst, Carlin’s material is far more intelligent than anything that Coulter does. And overall, even if you don’t laugh, Carlin’s stuff stands-up waaaay better than Coulter’s.
But it’s the same kind of stuff. She’s trying to be funny. Not necessarily by telling jokes; but by saying edgy stuff that the wingnuts agree with. And just like with Carlin, her fans are supposed to learn stuff from it. It’s not just humor for humor’s sake. She is influencing them just as Carlin influenced his fans. And similarly, if you don’t agree with what Coulter says, you’ll never think it’s funny. The humor relies solely on the fact that you think it’s correct. Had things worked out differently, both of them would have been that cool professor who the smart kids like (though I’m not exactly sure what class Coulter could possibly teach). Similarly, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz would have been those tightass history or economics professors you couldn’t stand. I’ve often wondered if those second two dudes haven’t often wished they had gone that route instead.
But you should have no doubts that Coulter is trying to be funny and that that’s how her fans see her. I honestly still have trouble with the idea that she’s not just being satirical. Hell, I’m sure I’m not the only one who keeps thinking she’ll rip off her wig and turn out to be some gay dude who’s been mocking conservatives the whole time. Because her stuff is sooooo entirely offensive to her side and makes them look horrible. And you could never write an effective parody of her, because she’s already gone far beyond anything that could be funny. I mean, assassinating Supreme Court justices? What can you do beyond that? What tops that? Kidnapping Michael Moore? Gang-raping liberal Congressmen? Her material is just too fucking extreme to parody.
And deep down, I’m sure she is laughing at all the rubes who keep supporting her. She doesn’t believe any of that shit. She’s just found a good schtick and she’s sticking with it. And I’m not necessarily sure I wouldn’t do the same thing, assuming I’d get the same money. I’m not a sell-out, but life’s too short to be poor. And besides, my legs look waaay sexier than Coulter’s, and I don’t even need to shave them.
And to be honest, I’ve never really liked Carlin’s stuff. Some of it was definitely funny, but too much of it relied upon you agreeing with him; and not enough on him telling actual jokes. It was all about the manner that he said things, rather than what he said. He’d bug out his eyes a little and use an exaggerated voice, and that might have been the only funny part to an otherwise serious statement. Not that I’m knocking anyone who likes him, but he’s just not my thing. I usually agreed with what he said, but wasn’t laughing. Maybe I just wasn’t stoned enough.
Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not making any kind of moral equivalence here. Even as equals, Carlin never said the over-the-top stupid shit like Coulter does. Like wanting people assassinated or anything. Nor am I making a humor equivalence. While I didn’t think Carlin was super-funny; Coulter’s humor is pure bottom of the barrel stuff. And finally, I’m not making an intelligence equivalence. Even at his worst, Carlin’s material is far more intelligent than anything that Coulter does. And overall, even if you don’t laugh, Carlin’s stuff stands-up waaaay better than Coulter’s.
But it’s the same kind of stuff. She’s trying to be funny. Not necessarily by telling jokes; but by saying edgy stuff that the wingnuts agree with. And just like with Carlin, her fans are supposed to learn stuff from it. It’s not just humor for humor’s sake. She is influencing them just as Carlin influenced his fans. And similarly, if you don’t agree with what Coulter says, you’ll never think it’s funny. The humor relies solely on the fact that you think it’s correct. Had things worked out differently, both of them would have been that cool professor who the smart kids like (though I’m not exactly sure what class Coulter could possibly teach). Similarly, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz would have been those tightass history or economics professors you couldn’t stand. I’ve often wondered if those second two dudes haven’t often wished they had gone that route instead.
But you should have no doubts that Coulter is trying to be funny and that that’s how her fans see her. I honestly still have trouble with the idea that she’s not just being satirical. Hell, I’m sure I’m not the only one who keeps thinking she’ll rip off her wig and turn out to be some gay dude who’s been mocking conservatives the whole time. Because her stuff is sooooo entirely offensive to her side and makes them look horrible. And you could never write an effective parody of her, because she’s already gone far beyond anything that could be funny. I mean, assassinating Supreme Court justices? What can you do beyond that? What tops that? Kidnapping Michael Moore? Gang-raping liberal Congressmen? Her material is just too fucking extreme to parody.
And deep down, I’m sure she is laughing at all the rubes who keep supporting her. She doesn’t believe any of that shit. She’s just found a good schtick and she’s sticking with it. And I’m not necessarily sure I wouldn’t do the same thing, assuming I’d get the same money. I’m not a sell-out, but life’s too short to be poor. And besides, my legs look waaay sexier than Coulter’s, and I don’t even need to shave them.
Liberal Libertarians
Libertarians. I can’t stand them. Even worse, I think they serve no useful purpose in our political system and really put a big drag on everything; and yes, that does presume that mainstream Republicans serve a purpose. The libertarian position sounds good, but that’s it. It’s just useless sloganeering and toughguy talk, with no real basis in reality. And there are two basic types of libertarians: Pie-in-the-sky jokers who haven’t thought any of it through passed the toughguy talk, and relatively intelligent Republicans who enjoy bashing libs but hate having to defend their own party. Both categories are dangerous in their own way, though the second is the more dangerous of the two. And both are entirely fake positions that are easy to defend, just as long as they can keep the topic on rhetoric and theory; and away from the thorns of reality.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m fairly libertarian on many issues; almost all of them pertaining to individual rights. I support gun ownership, with reasonable limitations. I support personal liberties and freedom. And I think that people should be allowed to enjoy themselves, just as long as they’re not preventing others from enjoying themselves. And, of course, I’m pro-choice, which should be one of those bigtime libertarian platforms; though too often it isn’t. All of these positions are completely reasonable, and millions who would never call themselves “libertarian” fully believe these things. And to me, this is what libertarianism is really all about: The Rights of Individuals.
And to state this more clearly: I think that liberty isn’t just about doing whatever the hell you want. Taken to its natural extreme, nobody believes that. It’s about us having the freedom to do what we want, without unnecessarily infringing upon other people’s freedom. But overall, freedom and liberty must be equal for all, and that to be called a “libertarian” must mean that we support freedom for everyone. And if one person has a freedom to do something, then everyone else must have that freedom too.
But those who call themselves “libertarians”, particularly of the Republican variety, aren’t in agreement with that. More often than not, they’re mainly in support of business rights. In particular, Big Business. And here’s the thing: More often than not, individual rights are in direct conflict with business rights. I’m not at all sure how libertarians haven’t figured that one out, but it’s so obvious as to be ridiculous. And because Big Business is nothing but a collection of individuals, the libertarian position is often that of granting special rights to certain individuals, over the rights of other individuals; with the distinguishing factor being whether the individual is acting on their own behalf, versus that of their business. And when stated like that, it’s obviously a big absurdity. These libertarians believe that some people have more liberty than other people.
Examples
For example, I can’t see how environmental regulation isn’t a libertarian issue. The air and water that these businesses are polluting is not their air and water. It belongs to all of us. So why do they get to just take it, ruin it, and not expect repercussions? These companies do it because it lowers costs, and that’s fine, I guess. But I don’t see why they’re not expected to clean it up, or to pay for what they’re using. To make it the way it was before they took it. I’m not allowed to go to Mr. Libertarian’s shack and start fucking up his weed-filled yard. So why are businesses allowed to do that to us?
Especially as it’s not just our stuff. They’re fucking us up. They get to dirty our air, our water, and thus, increase our medical expenses and shorten our lives; and I’m not allowed to do anything about it? I’m just supposed to suck it up and act as if this is some natural process? It’s considered some huge burden to expect them to undo damage they did to things they didn’t even own? That’s bullshit. Environmental policy is clearly an issue that should appeal to libertarians; assuming they knew what the hell they were talking about. Because again, we’re talking about some individuals (business owners/managers) being given special rights to take and abuse public resources that belong to all individuals. How is that liberty?
And unions. Why are libertarian-types so angry at unions and the advances that unions gave us? Honestly, are these businesses dealing with us on a one-on-one basis? When I negotiate the terms of my job, it’s my economic and strategic strength against the one guy that I’m negotiating with? No. I’m negotiating with the entire company. A company with resources so vast that I might work there for thirty years without ever seeing the owners of the company; and without ever knowing the extent of their resources. So why is it that I’m not allowed to do the same? Why can’t I group together with the guys I’m working with, and use our vast strength to negotiate my position?
They have no problems with this for corporations. For those who don’t know, corporations are totally a form of socialism, allowing folks to group together their resources so they can do things that they couldn’t do by themselves. And that’s what socialism is all about. Grouping resources together to do things that you can’t do as individuals. And that’s what unions are all about. And so why is it that libertarians totally defend the concept of corporations, while totally attacking the concept of unions? One is based upon economic strength, and the other is based upon labor strength; but essentially, they’re the same idea.
And so when unions help push for better working conditions, they’re not doing anything unholy or wrong. They’re using their strength in numbers in order to get what’s best for them. Similarly, a multi-national corporation uses its economic strength to get what’s best for them. And so rather than this being about rabble-rousers screwing up a natural system; this is about two powers fighting as equals. This isn’t against the laws of Supply & Demand; but just another demonstration of it. By limiting the Supply of workers, unions can better their position. That just makes sense.
And so how is this not a position that libertarian-types should hold dear? How is the freedom of gathering together one’s assets considered anti-freedom? And why is it that Big Business is allowed to do whatever the hell they want, while us “little guys” have to stay little? That’s not freedom. That’s bullshit. Again, they’re giving special rights to certain individuals over the rights of other individuals. How is that liberty?
Of the People, For the People
And finally, there is the issue of government itself. I don’t support the idea that government should get to intrude into my life and tell me how to live, outside of ensuring Life, Liberty, and Happiness to the other citizens. I shouldn’t be allowed to disturb the peace with loud music or murder people; but beyond that, the government shouldn’t tell me how to live. And as far as I can see, they don’t. Libertarian-types always go on and on about intrusive Big Brother government, but I’m just not seeing it. And if anything, it’s the Republicans who are more responsible for the Big Brother stuff. They’re the Law & Order party who wants to tap all our phones and watch over our internets. Not us. I’m not saying that no Democrat supports such things, but this clearly isn’t a liberal push.
And beyond that, I see government as a good thing. I’d rather we not have one, I suppose, but I can’t imagine how we could possibly get away with not having one. Because people will pollute things that aren’t theirs, and businesses will screw with individuals and make them work under bad conditions. To me, that’s what government is all about: Protecting people’s rights against other people’s intrusiveness. We’re all supposed to be equal here, and so some people shouldn’t be given rights that other people don’t have. And that’s one important function of government: Giving us all equal rights. And to me, that’s what liberty is all about.
And when you think about it, what is government but just a collection of individuals? Individuals doing collectively what they could not do for themselves. Just like a corporation or union. Of the people, for the people. That’s government.
And so our regulations are mostly designed to protect individuals against more powerful players. And so as far as the government protects individual rights against that of Big Business and other nefarious players, I see government as being a libertarian issue too. Because it’s largely to ensure personal liberties against the actions of more powerful individuals. Sure, libertarians like to pretend that people should get to do whatever the hell they want to. But that’s just stupid and could never be defended on a realistic basis.
Regulation Example
And hell, even the SEC type stuff is totally necessary. Not as government intrusiveness against the free market system, but to protect the free market system. And I say that as a CPA who actually knows this stuff. I would never consider any of my clients to be crooked or dishonest, but I can tell you as a fact that each and every one of them would do many crooked and dishonest things if they could get away with it (not that I’d ever use those words to describe it to them). And oftentimes, the only thing keeping the numbers legit is to cite the law and to tell them that they’d get in trouble for doing these things. Again, these aren’t fundamentally dishonest people, but they want their financial statements showing huge profits and their tax returns showing huge losses. That’s just a natural inclination for people to have, and so we need something to stop it.
And without SEC and accounting regulations, you’d be a damn fool for ever considering investing in the markets. Any markets. No matter what company it was, or even how familiar you were with that company. You’d be a fool for investing in your own mother’s business, were it not for these regulations. And so the market system would be incredibly inefficient, if not completely dysfunctional, were it not for the regulations. Because it’s just too easy to screw with this shit. No matter how savvy or thorough you are, you can never ascertain that the numbers are truthful, without SEC and other regulations.
And beyond that, even honest people can have differences of opinion. And so it’s important that everyone’s using the same rules, including footnotes stating what the rules are, so you can make the difference of a good company and a bad one. And sure, we have our Enrons. But without these regulations, you’d have to assume that every company was far worse than Enron. Because even with the rules, there are differences of opinions; and without them, it would be impossible to understand a financial statement.
And that’s why the SEC was created. Not because some government bureaucrat wanted to screw with freedom; but because some individuals were ruining the system for other individuals. It was a natural outcome after the stock market manipulations that led to the Great Depression. And even now, those fancy IPO’s that were all the rage during the internet boom of the 90’s were regulated by laws written in the early 30’s. And these laws were completely necessary. Necessary to preserve the market system and allow it to function properly. Because without them, individuals certainly will be crooked about what they’re offering and the Risk Factor of any stock would be far too much. And in such context, a libertarian should only support such a law.
And it goes on and on. Overall, most government rules are designed to protect individuals against bad people. And there’s nothing wrong with that. Laws don’t design themselves out of nothing. In most all cases, laws are reactive, and were created for specific issues. And while we might no longer remember why these laws were created, there most certainly were reasons for them. And most all of these laws were to protect individuals, because they’re the ones who need protecting the most.
So to me, it is the liberals who are the true libertarians. Not some batty cabin-dweller who thinks he has a right to invent his own laws and take any freedoms he wants (and thus, denying others their freedoms). And certainly not the two-faced Republican libertarians who insist that they deserve the title because they once said that Bush’s breath didn’t smell like roses; and who insist that they don’t need to defend their party. If this is just about silly labels, I guess we can let them have it. But if we are talking about the true defenders of liberty and freedom, we have to be talking about liberals.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m fairly libertarian on many issues; almost all of them pertaining to individual rights. I support gun ownership, with reasonable limitations. I support personal liberties and freedom. And I think that people should be allowed to enjoy themselves, just as long as they’re not preventing others from enjoying themselves. And, of course, I’m pro-choice, which should be one of those bigtime libertarian platforms; though too often it isn’t. All of these positions are completely reasonable, and millions who would never call themselves “libertarian” fully believe these things. And to me, this is what libertarianism is really all about: The Rights of Individuals.
And to state this more clearly: I think that liberty isn’t just about doing whatever the hell you want. Taken to its natural extreme, nobody believes that. It’s about us having the freedom to do what we want, without unnecessarily infringing upon other people’s freedom. But overall, freedom and liberty must be equal for all, and that to be called a “libertarian” must mean that we support freedom for everyone. And if one person has a freedom to do something, then everyone else must have that freedom too.
But those who call themselves “libertarians”, particularly of the Republican variety, aren’t in agreement with that. More often than not, they’re mainly in support of business rights. In particular, Big Business. And here’s the thing: More often than not, individual rights are in direct conflict with business rights. I’m not at all sure how libertarians haven’t figured that one out, but it’s so obvious as to be ridiculous. And because Big Business is nothing but a collection of individuals, the libertarian position is often that of granting special rights to certain individuals, over the rights of other individuals; with the distinguishing factor being whether the individual is acting on their own behalf, versus that of their business. And when stated like that, it’s obviously a big absurdity. These libertarians believe that some people have more liberty than other people.
Examples
For example, I can’t see how environmental regulation isn’t a libertarian issue. The air and water that these businesses are polluting is not their air and water. It belongs to all of us. So why do they get to just take it, ruin it, and not expect repercussions? These companies do it because it lowers costs, and that’s fine, I guess. But I don’t see why they’re not expected to clean it up, or to pay for what they’re using. To make it the way it was before they took it. I’m not allowed to go to Mr. Libertarian’s shack and start fucking up his weed-filled yard. So why are businesses allowed to do that to us?
Especially as it’s not just our stuff. They’re fucking us up. They get to dirty our air, our water, and thus, increase our medical expenses and shorten our lives; and I’m not allowed to do anything about it? I’m just supposed to suck it up and act as if this is some natural process? It’s considered some huge burden to expect them to undo damage they did to things they didn’t even own? That’s bullshit. Environmental policy is clearly an issue that should appeal to libertarians; assuming they knew what the hell they were talking about. Because again, we’re talking about some individuals (business owners/managers) being given special rights to take and abuse public resources that belong to all individuals. How is that liberty?
And unions. Why are libertarian-types so angry at unions and the advances that unions gave us? Honestly, are these businesses dealing with us on a one-on-one basis? When I negotiate the terms of my job, it’s my economic and strategic strength against the one guy that I’m negotiating with? No. I’m negotiating with the entire company. A company with resources so vast that I might work there for thirty years without ever seeing the owners of the company; and without ever knowing the extent of their resources. So why is it that I’m not allowed to do the same? Why can’t I group together with the guys I’m working with, and use our vast strength to negotiate my position?
They have no problems with this for corporations. For those who don’t know, corporations are totally a form of socialism, allowing folks to group together their resources so they can do things that they couldn’t do by themselves. And that’s what socialism is all about. Grouping resources together to do things that you can’t do as individuals. And that’s what unions are all about. And so why is it that libertarians totally defend the concept of corporations, while totally attacking the concept of unions? One is based upon economic strength, and the other is based upon labor strength; but essentially, they’re the same idea.
And so when unions help push for better working conditions, they’re not doing anything unholy or wrong. They’re using their strength in numbers in order to get what’s best for them. Similarly, a multi-national corporation uses its economic strength to get what’s best for them. And so rather than this being about rabble-rousers screwing up a natural system; this is about two powers fighting as equals. This isn’t against the laws of Supply & Demand; but just another demonstration of it. By limiting the Supply of workers, unions can better their position. That just makes sense.
And so how is this not a position that libertarian-types should hold dear? How is the freedom of gathering together one’s assets considered anti-freedom? And why is it that Big Business is allowed to do whatever the hell they want, while us “little guys” have to stay little? That’s not freedom. That’s bullshit. Again, they’re giving special rights to certain individuals over the rights of other individuals. How is that liberty?
Of the People, For the People
And finally, there is the issue of government itself. I don’t support the idea that government should get to intrude into my life and tell me how to live, outside of ensuring Life, Liberty, and Happiness to the other citizens. I shouldn’t be allowed to disturb the peace with loud music or murder people; but beyond that, the government shouldn’t tell me how to live. And as far as I can see, they don’t. Libertarian-types always go on and on about intrusive Big Brother government, but I’m just not seeing it. And if anything, it’s the Republicans who are more responsible for the Big Brother stuff. They’re the Law & Order party who wants to tap all our phones and watch over our internets. Not us. I’m not saying that no Democrat supports such things, but this clearly isn’t a liberal push.
And beyond that, I see government as a good thing. I’d rather we not have one, I suppose, but I can’t imagine how we could possibly get away with not having one. Because people will pollute things that aren’t theirs, and businesses will screw with individuals and make them work under bad conditions. To me, that’s what government is all about: Protecting people’s rights against other people’s intrusiveness. We’re all supposed to be equal here, and so some people shouldn’t be given rights that other people don’t have. And that’s one important function of government: Giving us all equal rights. And to me, that’s what liberty is all about.
And when you think about it, what is government but just a collection of individuals? Individuals doing collectively what they could not do for themselves. Just like a corporation or union. Of the people, for the people. That’s government.
And so our regulations are mostly designed to protect individuals against more powerful players. And so as far as the government protects individual rights against that of Big Business and other nefarious players, I see government as being a libertarian issue too. Because it’s largely to ensure personal liberties against the actions of more powerful individuals. Sure, libertarians like to pretend that people should get to do whatever the hell they want to. But that’s just stupid and could never be defended on a realistic basis.
Regulation Example
And hell, even the SEC type stuff is totally necessary. Not as government intrusiveness against the free market system, but to protect the free market system. And I say that as a CPA who actually knows this stuff. I would never consider any of my clients to be crooked or dishonest, but I can tell you as a fact that each and every one of them would do many crooked and dishonest things if they could get away with it (not that I’d ever use those words to describe it to them). And oftentimes, the only thing keeping the numbers legit is to cite the law and to tell them that they’d get in trouble for doing these things. Again, these aren’t fundamentally dishonest people, but they want their financial statements showing huge profits and their tax returns showing huge losses. That’s just a natural inclination for people to have, and so we need something to stop it.
And without SEC and accounting regulations, you’d be a damn fool for ever considering investing in the markets. Any markets. No matter what company it was, or even how familiar you were with that company. You’d be a fool for investing in your own mother’s business, were it not for these regulations. And so the market system would be incredibly inefficient, if not completely dysfunctional, were it not for the regulations. Because it’s just too easy to screw with this shit. No matter how savvy or thorough you are, you can never ascertain that the numbers are truthful, without SEC and other regulations.
And beyond that, even honest people can have differences of opinion. And so it’s important that everyone’s using the same rules, including footnotes stating what the rules are, so you can make the difference of a good company and a bad one. And sure, we have our Enrons. But without these regulations, you’d have to assume that every company was far worse than Enron. Because even with the rules, there are differences of opinions; and without them, it would be impossible to understand a financial statement.
And that’s why the SEC was created. Not because some government bureaucrat wanted to screw with freedom; but because some individuals were ruining the system for other individuals. It was a natural outcome after the stock market manipulations that led to the Great Depression. And even now, those fancy IPO’s that were all the rage during the internet boom of the 90’s were regulated by laws written in the early 30’s. And these laws were completely necessary. Necessary to preserve the market system and allow it to function properly. Because without them, individuals certainly will be crooked about what they’re offering and the Risk Factor of any stock would be far too much. And in such context, a libertarian should only support such a law.
And it goes on and on. Overall, most government rules are designed to protect individuals against bad people. And there’s nothing wrong with that. Laws don’t design themselves out of nothing. In most all cases, laws are reactive, and were created for specific issues. And while we might no longer remember why these laws were created, there most certainly were reasons for them. And most all of these laws were to protect individuals, because they’re the ones who need protecting the most.
So to me, it is the liberals who are the true libertarians. Not some batty cabin-dweller who thinks he has a right to invent his own laws and take any freedoms he wants (and thus, denying others their freedoms). And certainly not the two-faced Republican libertarians who insist that they deserve the title because they once said that Bush’s breath didn’t smell like roses; and who insist that they don’t need to defend their party. If this is just about silly labels, I guess we can let them have it. But if we are talking about the true defenders of liberty and freedom, we have to be talking about liberals.
Monday, February 13, 2006
Counter-Production
Following up on Digby’s lead, I went over to TNR’s blogerria “The Plank” and read this nonsense from Jason Zengerle:
This isn't a perfect example, but I bet a version of this phenomenon will play out over the next few days with the Cheney hunting accident. It's an irresistible item to add to the pile of Bush administration screw-ups. But rather than treat this story as what it is--a relatively insignificant but nonetheless juicy little scandal-- liberal bloggers are already overreaching and trying to turn it into something bigger.
….
But when Cheney's victim is released from the ICU, and when the Halliburton connection fails to be significant--and when it turns out Scalia wasn't on the trip--the whole story will suddenly seem a lot smaller than it actually is.
And in the comments section, he adds:
My point about Josh's post was that it's counter-productive to speculate about this stuff.
And in between, he quotes some reasonable stuff from Josh Marshall, as well as a commenter from Kos who may have been less than reasonable. He also cited many other Bush Admin failings that liberals have latched onto. But there’s one thing he failed to mention: Exactly what is so counter-productive about what we’re doing? Why is it wrong for us to put the heat on the Bush Admin? How “big” is this supposed to be; and how can he tell exactly how big we’re making it? Is there some magic formula they teach you in journalism school that tells you how big each scandal should be? Is there a chart at TNR that explains exactly how serious a vice-presidential hunting accident is? Whatever it was, he failed to explain exactly what his point was.
And what is the problem with us talking about it? The wingnuts were totally wrong about Vince Foster, Whitewater, Filegate, Travelgate, and all kinds of other things; and it all eventually led to Clinton’s impeachment. And that was all bullshit. But the bullshit worked for them because it kept everything burning. They kept the pressure on with every little scandal until they could eventually find something that would stick…namely the one illegal thing that Clinton did. Hell, Whitewater at least could have been illegal; but Travelgate was entirely bullshit from the start. It was nothing but yet another expensive investigation for something that couldn’t have been illegal. And yet even now, conservatives remember that as yet another mark against Clinton. And had those other invented scandals not kept the pressure on, it is almost inconceivable that the Lewinski thing would have ever hit.
Now imagine what this kind of treatment could do with real wrong-doing. Not that I’m suggesting that the Cheney shooting was real wrong-doing. In fact, I don’t see anyone seriously suggesting a Vince Foster level reaction. But how exactly is it counter-productive to keep the heat on the Whitehouse? How are we screwing up if Whitehouse reporters are yelling at Scott McClellan? Again, I’m not trying to go overboard here, but neither was Josh Marshall. He asked legitimate questions that Zengerle automatically wants to dismiss out of hand. And for that, we’re accused of being counter-productive. Not just in the Cheney thing; Zengerle is blaming us for Bush not getting nailed for everything else.
But do you want to know what is counter-productive? Elitist journalism-types who automatically dismiss everything that the less elite elements on their side talk about. The guys who automatically assume that these less savory people are wrong and hurt the cause. Dopes who’d actually listen to Mickey Kaus. Guys who automatically downplay every scandal, all because they think the less savory liberals are overplaying their cards again.
Now, I could understand if this guy made some case. But he didn’t. He blames us for “failing to capitalize on what, were it not for their unrealistically inflated expectations, would have been considered a significant scandal.” But he never explains why that’s our fault. He never explains how it’s our expectations that keep letting Bush off the hook. Because to me, this all seems like a failure of the media. I wasn’t the one who gave a pass on Bush’s WMD lies and who let him off the hook when they turned out to not exist. That’s Zengerle’s people doing that. That’s the media. They’re the ones with the attention-spans of a spastic puppy. They’re the ones who keep hopping around from scandal to scandal, disappointed that the proverbial “smoking gun” hasn’t shown itself.
And it makes sense that it’s their fault, as they’re the ones who helped hit Clinton. Rush Limbaugh and his mob couldn’t have taken down Clinton. He was influential, but it was the media that grabbed onto every scandal and wouldn’t let go until the next one came along. They were the ones who kept the heat on constantly. So is this a case of us killing things with our big expectations? Or is this a case of the media getting bored and allowing each scandal to disappear?
And hell, he’s Mr. Bigwig New Republic guy; what the hell is he doing about this stuff? They’re the ones who provided leftwing cover for Bush’s war in Iraq and all kinds of other stuff. They’re the ones who endorsed DINO Lieberman for the Democratic nomination. We’re the ones trying to call attention to the Bush wrong-doing; and they’re the ones who keep calling us “Bush-haters” and providing assists to the Bush Admin.
And even now, we see Zengerle again needing to single-out our side, rather than focusing on theirs. Everything’s our fault, he says. If only we’d keep things on the down-low and play things cool like them, we’d have…we’ll I’m at a loss for what he thinks we’d have. As he can’t possibly suggest that we’ve undermined an impeachment, and Bush is still hovering around a disastrous 40-point approval rating. So I can’t really see where we’ve blown it in his eyes. I agree fully with Digby’s point that it is because of us keeping the pressure on that we’ve gotten this far.
And so I’d have to disagree with the point that Zengerle says he made. I don’t think this is a case of libs always going too far with every case. I think this is a case of the media and elitist liberal pundits who automatically downplay every scandal; always waiting for the “big one” and not realizing that they already had it. And all the while, looking down upon the rabble who continues to blow it for them.
This isn't a perfect example, but I bet a version of this phenomenon will play out over the next few days with the Cheney hunting accident. It's an irresistible item to add to the pile of Bush administration screw-ups. But rather than treat this story as what it is--a relatively insignificant but nonetheless juicy little scandal-- liberal bloggers are already overreaching and trying to turn it into something bigger.
….
But when Cheney's victim is released from the ICU, and when the Halliburton connection fails to be significant--and when it turns out Scalia wasn't on the trip--the whole story will suddenly seem a lot smaller than it actually is.
And in the comments section, he adds:
My point about Josh's post was that it's counter-productive to speculate about this stuff.
And in between, he quotes some reasonable stuff from Josh Marshall, as well as a commenter from Kos who may have been less than reasonable. He also cited many other Bush Admin failings that liberals have latched onto. But there’s one thing he failed to mention: Exactly what is so counter-productive about what we’re doing? Why is it wrong for us to put the heat on the Bush Admin? How “big” is this supposed to be; and how can he tell exactly how big we’re making it? Is there some magic formula they teach you in journalism school that tells you how big each scandal should be? Is there a chart at TNR that explains exactly how serious a vice-presidential hunting accident is? Whatever it was, he failed to explain exactly what his point was.
And what is the problem with us talking about it? The wingnuts were totally wrong about Vince Foster, Whitewater, Filegate, Travelgate, and all kinds of other things; and it all eventually led to Clinton’s impeachment. And that was all bullshit. But the bullshit worked for them because it kept everything burning. They kept the pressure on with every little scandal until they could eventually find something that would stick…namely the one illegal thing that Clinton did. Hell, Whitewater at least could have been illegal; but Travelgate was entirely bullshit from the start. It was nothing but yet another expensive investigation for something that couldn’t have been illegal. And yet even now, conservatives remember that as yet another mark against Clinton. And had those other invented scandals not kept the pressure on, it is almost inconceivable that the Lewinski thing would have ever hit.
Now imagine what this kind of treatment could do with real wrong-doing. Not that I’m suggesting that the Cheney shooting was real wrong-doing. In fact, I don’t see anyone seriously suggesting a Vince Foster level reaction. But how exactly is it counter-productive to keep the heat on the Whitehouse? How are we screwing up if Whitehouse reporters are yelling at Scott McClellan? Again, I’m not trying to go overboard here, but neither was Josh Marshall. He asked legitimate questions that Zengerle automatically wants to dismiss out of hand. And for that, we’re accused of being counter-productive. Not just in the Cheney thing; Zengerle is blaming us for Bush not getting nailed for everything else.
But do you want to know what is counter-productive? Elitist journalism-types who automatically dismiss everything that the less elite elements on their side talk about. The guys who automatically assume that these less savory people are wrong and hurt the cause. Dopes who’d actually listen to Mickey Kaus. Guys who automatically downplay every scandal, all because they think the less savory liberals are overplaying their cards again.
Now, I could understand if this guy made some case. But he didn’t. He blames us for “failing to capitalize on what, were it not for their unrealistically inflated expectations, would have been considered a significant scandal.” But he never explains why that’s our fault. He never explains how it’s our expectations that keep letting Bush off the hook. Because to me, this all seems like a failure of the media. I wasn’t the one who gave a pass on Bush’s WMD lies and who let him off the hook when they turned out to not exist. That’s Zengerle’s people doing that. That’s the media. They’re the ones with the attention-spans of a spastic puppy. They’re the ones who keep hopping around from scandal to scandal, disappointed that the proverbial “smoking gun” hasn’t shown itself.
And it makes sense that it’s their fault, as they’re the ones who helped hit Clinton. Rush Limbaugh and his mob couldn’t have taken down Clinton. He was influential, but it was the media that grabbed onto every scandal and wouldn’t let go until the next one came along. They were the ones who kept the heat on constantly. So is this a case of us killing things with our big expectations? Or is this a case of the media getting bored and allowing each scandal to disappear?
And hell, he’s Mr. Bigwig New Republic guy; what the hell is he doing about this stuff? They’re the ones who provided leftwing cover for Bush’s war in Iraq and all kinds of other stuff. They’re the ones who endorsed DINO Lieberman for the Democratic nomination. We’re the ones trying to call attention to the Bush wrong-doing; and they’re the ones who keep calling us “Bush-haters” and providing assists to the Bush Admin.
And even now, we see Zengerle again needing to single-out our side, rather than focusing on theirs. Everything’s our fault, he says. If only we’d keep things on the down-low and play things cool like them, we’d have…we’ll I’m at a loss for what he thinks we’d have. As he can’t possibly suggest that we’ve undermined an impeachment, and Bush is still hovering around a disastrous 40-point approval rating. So I can’t really see where we’ve blown it in his eyes. I agree fully with Digby’s point that it is because of us keeping the pressure on that we’ve gotten this far.
And so I’d have to disagree with the point that Zengerle says he made. I don’t think this is a case of libs always going too far with every case. I think this is a case of the media and elitist liberal pundits who automatically downplay every scandal; always waiting for the “big one” and not realizing that they already had it. And all the while, looking down upon the rabble who continues to blow it for them.
Wronging the Right
By a show of hands, how many of you haven’t given at least some serious thought that maybe Cheney shot Whittington on purpose? Not that you think it’s true, but to at least have given it some consideration. And while Whittington was apparently a Republican, this article suggests that he was kind of a righteous hard-ass who liked having a reputation for such righteous hard-assery; even sometimes going against his Republican buddies. And if there’s one thing that a righteous hard-ass hates, it’s unrighteous hard-asses like Dick Cheney. And if there’s one thing that an unrighteous hard-ass likes to do, it’s to be unrighteous towards the righteous. And what is more unrighteous than a little unexpected shotgun blast to the face?
Again, I’m not saying anything. I’m just wondering if anyone out there hadn’t spent a little time running this through the old processers.
Again, I’m not saying anything. I’m just wondering if anyone out there hadn’t spent a little time running this through the old processers.
On the Wagon
I would just like to mention that, for personal reasons which I won’t go into, I haven’t gotten drunk in awhile; nor will I, at least until the end of the week. So if it seems like my stuff is kind of sucking, that’s the reason why.
But don’t worry. This has nothing to do with me finding God or anything. It’s simply a medical condition. And I’ll be back to my old fucked-up self by next week, I promise you. Just hang in there, and remember that this is worse for you than it is for me.
But don’t worry. This has nothing to do with me finding God or anything. It’s simply a medical condition. And I’ll be back to my old fucked-up self by next week, I promise you. Just hang in there, and remember that this is worse for you than it is for me.
Flat-Footed Guilt
Guilt. Different people feel guilty about different things. Basically, you feel bad about the things that you care about. One person can feel bad about burping in public, while another takes glee farting on demand. A dieter might feel guilty about eating an Oreo, while a morbidly obese person such as myself will happily eat an entire row. So signs of guilt are a good way of understanding where someone’s priorities are. If you don’t feel guilty about something, then it just isn’t important to you.
And guilt is a powerful thing and can really fuck you up. You can be the smartest guy in the room, but if you feel guilty about something, it can totally throw you off your game and turn you into a complete idiot. You might even have a perfectly good explanation for something, but if you feel guilty about it, your best reasons will sound like horrible lies. And if you don’t feel guilty, you can make the most lamebrained excuses sound perfectly rational. It all just depends on how you feel about it at the time.
And that’s what makes it so interesting to watch the Bush Administration in action. Because they don’t seem to feel guilty about a god damn thing. Bush’s immediate reaction to 9/11 made headlight caught deer look strong and decisive; yet they continue to play-up 9/11 as if it was some sort of victory for them. They continually deceive their strongest supporters, while portraying Bush as the Jesus Christ of straight-shooters. And they can repeat disproven statements on everything from Saddam not complying on WMD’s to absurdities about supply-side economics; all without blinking an eye. Overall, these people will do and say anything and they don’t seem to care at all.
And sure, that’s all part of the spin-machine; but that’s the point. They’re not faking it. They really don’t feel guilty. It doesn’t bother them. They think it’s all part of doing business; and they’re probably right. That’s probably the right way of going about things; especially if your true agenda would piss-off most voters. The Clinton Admin always looked like they were in trouble for everything, and so all kinds of stupid shit stuck to them. But the Bush Admin tries to act completely cool, like it’s no concern to them; and it works. Big screw-ups and horrible deeds just slide off them like water off a duck. Ari Fleischer was way way better at this than the guilt-ridden Scott McClellan; but even Scotty works to give the impression of not being concerned. He’s not really good at it, but he’s good enough.
But there is a time when they clearly act guilty: Whenever their spin-machine gets caught flat-footed. That’s what they care about and that’s the only thing that throws them off their game. Because that really is all they care about. They don’t feel bad about deceiving their supporters; they feel bad if they don’t deceive them. Deep down, all they care about is the spin, and when they fail at this one task, that’s when they kick it into overdrive and start screwing up. They’re best when they’re in their Cool Denial mode, pretending that everything is as it should be; and they’re at their worst when they’re outing CIA agents and in cover-up mode. And that’s how you know when they feel guilty, when it becomes obvious that they’re playing hardball. They always do play hardball, but if us rubes in the cheapseats see it, then they’re not doing it right.
I suspect that that’s why they screwed up with the “sixteen words” thing in the SOTU address and finally admitted that Bush shouldn’t have said it. And they did feel guilty that time. Not because they felt like Bush shouldn’t have said it; but because they didn’t have a good response when they got caught. They were totally flat-footed and freaked-out. And that’s the kind of thing that they feel guilty about and what screws them up. And so they blundered for a few days and then finally did the unthinkable and admitted that it was a mistake; and that really set-off a media frenzy.
And that’s exactly how they’re acting with this whole Cheney shooting thing. Like they realized they screwed up but don’t know what the hell to do about it. They tried the low-key approach, but clearly screwed it up. Because they didn’t look low-key, they looked downright sneaky. And if there’s one thing about the low-key approach, it’s that you don’t look sneaky. But this did. It just looked like they were hiding something. And now they’re trying to gloss-over the fact that they were trying to hide it, and that just makes them look even more guilty.
Because there is no good reason why the Whitehouse won’t answer the media’s questions. McClellan’s trying all his old tricks, but they just don’t make any sense this time. Hell, even if Cheney was drunk (as some commenters have suggested) or had intentionally shot the guy (the most likely scenario), that wouldn’t explain why the Bush Admin screwed this up. Because those things would be easily hidden. But they screwed-up the initial response and then everything they said afterwards just sounded like crap.
And part of the problem is that they always feel like they have to hide everything. And so they tried that now, and got totally blasted for it. We were going to find out eventually, and so they just should have been upfront about it from the start. But after getting caught flat-footed, everything went to hell and they couldn’t get their game back. But it’s not that there was nothing that they could do. It was because they felt bad for having screwed-up the one thing they’re good at: Spin.
And guilt is a powerful thing and can really fuck you up. You can be the smartest guy in the room, but if you feel guilty about something, it can totally throw you off your game and turn you into a complete idiot. You might even have a perfectly good explanation for something, but if you feel guilty about it, your best reasons will sound like horrible lies. And if you don’t feel guilty, you can make the most lamebrained excuses sound perfectly rational. It all just depends on how you feel about it at the time.
And that’s what makes it so interesting to watch the Bush Administration in action. Because they don’t seem to feel guilty about a god damn thing. Bush’s immediate reaction to 9/11 made headlight caught deer look strong and decisive; yet they continue to play-up 9/11 as if it was some sort of victory for them. They continually deceive their strongest supporters, while portraying Bush as the Jesus Christ of straight-shooters. And they can repeat disproven statements on everything from Saddam not complying on WMD’s to absurdities about supply-side economics; all without blinking an eye. Overall, these people will do and say anything and they don’t seem to care at all.
And sure, that’s all part of the spin-machine; but that’s the point. They’re not faking it. They really don’t feel guilty. It doesn’t bother them. They think it’s all part of doing business; and they’re probably right. That’s probably the right way of going about things; especially if your true agenda would piss-off most voters. The Clinton Admin always looked like they were in trouble for everything, and so all kinds of stupid shit stuck to them. But the Bush Admin tries to act completely cool, like it’s no concern to them; and it works. Big screw-ups and horrible deeds just slide off them like water off a duck. Ari Fleischer was way way better at this than the guilt-ridden Scott McClellan; but even Scotty works to give the impression of not being concerned. He’s not really good at it, but he’s good enough.
But there is a time when they clearly act guilty: Whenever their spin-machine gets caught flat-footed. That’s what they care about and that’s the only thing that throws them off their game. Because that really is all they care about. They don’t feel bad about deceiving their supporters; they feel bad if they don’t deceive them. Deep down, all they care about is the spin, and when they fail at this one task, that’s when they kick it into overdrive and start screwing up. They’re best when they’re in their Cool Denial mode, pretending that everything is as it should be; and they’re at their worst when they’re outing CIA agents and in cover-up mode. And that’s how you know when they feel guilty, when it becomes obvious that they’re playing hardball. They always do play hardball, but if us rubes in the cheapseats see it, then they’re not doing it right.
I suspect that that’s why they screwed up with the “sixteen words” thing in the SOTU address and finally admitted that Bush shouldn’t have said it. And they did feel guilty that time. Not because they felt like Bush shouldn’t have said it; but because they didn’t have a good response when they got caught. They were totally flat-footed and freaked-out. And that’s the kind of thing that they feel guilty about and what screws them up. And so they blundered for a few days and then finally did the unthinkable and admitted that it was a mistake; and that really set-off a media frenzy.
And that’s exactly how they’re acting with this whole Cheney shooting thing. Like they realized they screwed up but don’t know what the hell to do about it. They tried the low-key approach, but clearly screwed it up. Because they didn’t look low-key, they looked downright sneaky. And if there’s one thing about the low-key approach, it’s that you don’t look sneaky. But this did. It just looked like they were hiding something. And now they’re trying to gloss-over the fact that they were trying to hide it, and that just makes them look even more guilty.
Because there is no good reason why the Whitehouse won’t answer the media’s questions. McClellan’s trying all his old tricks, but they just don’t make any sense this time. Hell, even if Cheney was drunk (as some commenters have suggested) or had intentionally shot the guy (the most likely scenario), that wouldn’t explain why the Bush Admin screwed this up. Because those things would be easily hidden. But they screwed-up the initial response and then everything they said afterwards just sounded like crap.
And part of the problem is that they always feel like they have to hide everything. And so they tried that now, and got totally blasted for it. We were going to find out eventually, and so they just should have been upfront about it from the start. But after getting caught flat-footed, everything went to hell and they couldn’t get their game back. But it’s not that there was nothing that they could do. It was because they felt bad for having screwed-up the one thing they’re good at: Spin.
Sunday, February 12, 2006
Pragmatic Conservatism
Guest Post by Doctor Snedley, Doctor Biobrain's Personal Assistant
Over at the aptly named Unclaimed Territory, liberal lawyer freak Glenn Greenwald rants about something he calls the "Cult of Bush" suggesting that conservatives have abandoned their conservative ideology in exchange for Bush loyalty. But as is to be expected of an ultra-liberal Bush-hater like Glenn, he is totally and completely incorrect.
Sure, the current-day conservatives completely go against everything that they stood for before, but there's a perfectly good explanation for that: That was then, this is now. The conservative movement is nothing if not pragmatic, and simply because some liberals like Glenn are stuck in a pre-9/11 attitude concerning political ideologies is no concern to us. The conservative movement has moved on, and guys like Greenwald and Sullivan were simply left behind; flailing about like dying salmon.
You see, before 9/11, America's biggest threat was Bill Clinton and his Soviet masters, and so the conservative movement worked to combat that threat at every turn. The exceptions, of course, being Welfare Reform, which clearly worked against his Soviet master's interests, as well as the war in Kosovo; in which we again maneuvered Clinton to go against the Soviet agenda. Conservatives were also able to save the economy from Clinton’s evil clutches; turning his recession into one of America’s strongest growth periods. And we clearly won that battle, as Bill Clinton is no longer President and the Soviet Union has been vanquished.
But post-9/11, everything is different. Now our biggest threat is no longer communism. Now our biggest threat is fundamentalism. And so our arguments have adapted accordingly. No longer opposing government power, which had been used by the communists for decades; we now believe that an infinitely strong government and budget-busting deficits are key to defeating the new threat that America faces. And by doing so, we will surely have the Bush-hating liberal idiots defeated in no time. Oh, and the terrorists too. It'll be a two-fer. We'll get them both.
And so that explains Glenn's confusion as to why the label "conservative" no longer applies to him. Rather than this being a case of a movement without ideology; we see poor dinosaur Greenwald lamenting his impending extinction. While the True Conservatives stay busy striving to prevent the destruction of our great nation, poor Glenn finds himself the proverbial “odd man out”; continuing to dance to a song which has long ceased playing. And all because he insists on imperiling our nation due to his everlasting and irrational hatred of a man named Bush.
Over at the aptly named Unclaimed Territory, liberal lawyer freak Glenn Greenwald rants about something he calls the "Cult of Bush" suggesting that conservatives have abandoned their conservative ideology in exchange for Bush loyalty. But as is to be expected of an ultra-liberal Bush-hater like Glenn, he is totally and completely incorrect.
Sure, the current-day conservatives completely go against everything that they stood for before, but there's a perfectly good explanation for that: That was then, this is now. The conservative movement is nothing if not pragmatic, and simply because some liberals like Glenn are stuck in a pre-9/11 attitude concerning political ideologies is no concern to us. The conservative movement has moved on, and guys like Greenwald and Sullivan were simply left behind; flailing about like dying salmon.
You see, before 9/11, America's biggest threat was Bill Clinton and his Soviet masters, and so the conservative movement worked to combat that threat at every turn. The exceptions, of course, being Welfare Reform, which clearly worked against his Soviet master's interests, as well as the war in Kosovo; in which we again maneuvered Clinton to go against the Soviet agenda. Conservatives were also able to save the economy from Clinton’s evil clutches; turning his recession into one of America’s strongest growth periods. And we clearly won that battle, as Bill Clinton is no longer President and the Soviet Union has been vanquished.
But post-9/11, everything is different. Now our biggest threat is no longer communism. Now our biggest threat is fundamentalism. And so our arguments have adapted accordingly. No longer opposing government power, which had been used by the communists for decades; we now believe that an infinitely strong government and budget-busting deficits are key to defeating the new threat that America faces. And by doing so, we will surely have the Bush-hating liberal idiots defeated in no time. Oh, and the terrorists too. It'll be a two-fer. We'll get them both.
And so that explains Glenn's confusion as to why the label "conservative" no longer applies to him. Rather than this being a case of a movement without ideology; we see poor dinosaur Greenwald lamenting his impending extinction. While the True Conservatives stay busy striving to prevent the destruction of our great nation, poor Glenn finds himself the proverbial “odd man out”; continuing to dance to a song which has long ceased playing. And all because he insists on imperiling our nation due to his everlasting and irrational hatred of a man named Bush.
Saturday, February 11, 2006
Offense v. Reaction
This is a little late, but I’d just like to point out that the whole Muhammad cartoon thing has two separate elements: The Offense and the Reaction. Liberals keep tripping over themselves because they’re combining these together; and whenever anyone tries to suggest that they understand why they’re offended, they act like that might justify the Reaction. But it doesn’t. You can understand why they’re offended while still denouncing their reaction to it.
The offense seems natural, especially after dealing with offended Christians as long as we have. Many Christians are apparently offended by Target saying “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas”. They scream that America is going to “Hell in a handbasket” if we don’t let them use every school’s speaker system to issue an official school prayer each morning. They’re damn outraged if we suggest that the Ten Commandments isn’t the basis of our laws or that there might be something wrong with them proclaiming their god’s supremacy on the walls of our courthouses. And don’t even get them started on popular culture; they just don’t like it.
In other words, they’re offended at the very idea that they don’t get to do whatever the hell they want regarding everything. They consider this to be a “Christian Nation” and believe that every aspect should reflect that. And we’re not talking about reasoned discourse. We’re talking shouting and protests and death threats. (Disclaimer: I am not referring to all Christians; only the ones who do these things.)
So exactly where do they get off with their “free speech” talk and everything? I mean, really. These people see the First Amendment as nothing more than a giant prank played against them; the sole design of which is to undermine them and their god. So how can anyone imagine that they’d happily accept a bunch of cartoons whose sole purpose was to offend them? Even faith-based people would be a little doubtful of that claim, and they’ll believe almost anything. And so it should be entirely understandable that somebody might have gotten a little pissed about this.
And then the Muslim reaction was a separate matter. And yes, that was waaaay overboard, and to even call it that is to underplay its badness. But the thing is, is this really about the cartoons? Or are the cartoons just the spark that ignited something that was already there? It was the same with the Rodney King thing, and most other riots. The thing that set everything off is almost never the main cause. It’s always something that’s been simmering and simmering for a long time, and then something comes together that is so outrageous that it blows the whole thing up. But if it wasn’t Rodney King, it would have been something else. And if it wasn’t the cartoons, it would have been something else. Nobody is angered by just one incident. Whenever someone flashes with anger, the newest thing is just one of a whole laundry list of problems that came before.
And I’m not necessarily saying that the reaction is justified. I honestly don’t know. But I’m not going to condemn it either, because I don’t know. When one or two people blow their cool and start tearing shit up, it’s pretty easy to blame them for it. And when it’s four or five people, you start to think maybe it’s a conspiracy or something. But when thousands of people start tearing shit up at the same time, it’s time to start considering that maybe they’ve got a point. That’s just from a statistics standpoint; a sample-size of thousands might be onto something.
You could try to start a riot in your neighborhood right now, and it’s very unlikely you’d get very far with it; no matter how bad the cartoons in your paper are. They’d have to have already been simmering for awhile before anything could set them off (though the last few years of Garfield has been pretty bad). And so maybe the rioters have a point. I don’t know. I’m not justifying it, but I’m not so ready to denounce it either.
Again, we’re talking about people who don’t have shit and don’t have a representative government and feel like they’re being abused and constantly under attack. And shit, their religion is just no fun. I don’t know much about it, but I’m pretty sure that Islam is low on my list of churches I might join. I hear they don’t drink, and I’ve seen that whole head-cutting thing the Shiites do, which totally grosses me out, and there’s like some long fasting period where they can’t eat during the daytime, and that would surely mess up my metabolism and make me a touch grouchy; and it just sounds pretty lousy to me. I mean, no offense, if that’s your religion; but it’s just not the one for me. I kind of believe that people need to let off a little steam every now and then, or they’re going to be letting off a lot of steam…and smoke…and fire…and everything else. But that’s just me, so I don’t want any of you Muslims out there getting the wrong idea of what I’m saying. All I’m saying is that I feel your pain and yadda yadda, don’t burn down my house.
I should add to all this, I’m the kind of guy who was raised Catholic, but kept forgetting that I couldn’t eat meat on Fridays during Lent. I even like fish and everything, but the whole “no-meat” thing always slipped my mind. And of course I always had to lie to my mom about it afterwards. She’d often ask me about what I ate, and I often wouldn’t even remember at first that I was supposed to say “fish sandwich” (not that I understand how fish isn’t meat). And as long as I’m confessing, I often skipped out on the whole Confession thing, as it always creeped me out having to confess everything to some priest who knew my folks. At the beginning, I used to lie to the priest and invent sins, just to get it over with; and then I just started hiding outside the church to avoid it altogether. Let’s just say the whole religion thing didn’t agree with my lifestyle, and I can totally understand why it makes some people freak-out.
Anyway, where was I? Oh, yeah. But honestly, isn’t this all a tad bit hypocritical coming from Christians who act outraged about “Happy Holidays”? Every president we’ve ever had was Christian and most politicians bend over backwards to show how pro-Christian they are; and yet they STILL complain that they’re under attack and totally disrespected. And they get to control the most powerful nation that ever existed. So should it be any real surprise that a Muslim with a crappy life and no respect gets a little angry…or a lot angry? Sure, Christians aren’t blowing shit up (except the ones who are); but they also don’t have too much to complain about. And yet complain they do. And so maybe if the Muslims felt like they had more control over their lives, they’d feel a little better and wouldn’t explode like they did. And who knows, maybe a little porn might help relieve some of that pressure (though you didn’t hear that from me).
But again, this isn’t about the cartoons. It never is. This is about everything, and the cartoons are nothing more than the catalyst. We can downplay this and pretend like the problem is sensitive Muslims and some silly cartoons; or we can try to do something about it and make their lives better. One suggestion on that, however, would be to not make their lives better by invading their countries. I can’t stress that enough: They don’t like to be invaded. This is, of course, in contrast to most Christians and Jews, who are famous for tolerance and being conquered. But with Muslims, just a bad idea.
The offense seems natural, especially after dealing with offended Christians as long as we have. Many Christians are apparently offended by Target saying “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas”. They scream that America is going to “Hell in a handbasket” if we don’t let them use every school’s speaker system to issue an official school prayer each morning. They’re damn outraged if we suggest that the Ten Commandments isn’t the basis of our laws or that there might be something wrong with them proclaiming their god’s supremacy on the walls of our courthouses. And don’t even get them started on popular culture; they just don’t like it.
In other words, they’re offended at the very idea that they don’t get to do whatever the hell they want regarding everything. They consider this to be a “Christian Nation” and believe that every aspect should reflect that. And we’re not talking about reasoned discourse. We’re talking shouting and protests and death threats. (Disclaimer: I am not referring to all Christians; only the ones who do these things.)
So exactly where do they get off with their “free speech” talk and everything? I mean, really. These people see the First Amendment as nothing more than a giant prank played against them; the sole design of which is to undermine them and their god. So how can anyone imagine that they’d happily accept a bunch of cartoons whose sole purpose was to offend them? Even faith-based people would be a little doubtful of that claim, and they’ll believe almost anything. And so it should be entirely understandable that somebody might have gotten a little pissed about this.
And then the Muslim reaction was a separate matter. And yes, that was waaaay overboard, and to even call it that is to underplay its badness. But the thing is, is this really about the cartoons? Or are the cartoons just the spark that ignited something that was already there? It was the same with the Rodney King thing, and most other riots. The thing that set everything off is almost never the main cause. It’s always something that’s been simmering and simmering for a long time, and then something comes together that is so outrageous that it blows the whole thing up. But if it wasn’t Rodney King, it would have been something else. And if it wasn’t the cartoons, it would have been something else. Nobody is angered by just one incident. Whenever someone flashes with anger, the newest thing is just one of a whole laundry list of problems that came before.
And I’m not necessarily saying that the reaction is justified. I honestly don’t know. But I’m not going to condemn it either, because I don’t know. When one or two people blow their cool and start tearing shit up, it’s pretty easy to blame them for it. And when it’s four or five people, you start to think maybe it’s a conspiracy or something. But when thousands of people start tearing shit up at the same time, it’s time to start considering that maybe they’ve got a point. That’s just from a statistics standpoint; a sample-size of thousands might be onto something.
You could try to start a riot in your neighborhood right now, and it’s very unlikely you’d get very far with it; no matter how bad the cartoons in your paper are. They’d have to have already been simmering for awhile before anything could set them off (though the last few years of Garfield has been pretty bad). And so maybe the rioters have a point. I don’t know. I’m not justifying it, but I’m not so ready to denounce it either.
Again, we’re talking about people who don’t have shit and don’t have a representative government and feel like they’re being abused and constantly under attack. And shit, their religion is just no fun. I don’t know much about it, but I’m pretty sure that Islam is low on my list of churches I might join. I hear they don’t drink, and I’ve seen that whole head-cutting thing the Shiites do, which totally grosses me out, and there’s like some long fasting period where they can’t eat during the daytime, and that would surely mess up my metabolism and make me a touch grouchy; and it just sounds pretty lousy to me. I mean, no offense, if that’s your religion; but it’s just not the one for me. I kind of believe that people need to let off a little steam every now and then, or they’re going to be letting off a lot of steam…and smoke…and fire…and everything else. But that’s just me, so I don’t want any of you Muslims out there getting the wrong idea of what I’m saying. All I’m saying is that I feel your pain and yadda yadda, don’t burn down my house.
I should add to all this, I’m the kind of guy who was raised Catholic, but kept forgetting that I couldn’t eat meat on Fridays during Lent. I even like fish and everything, but the whole “no-meat” thing always slipped my mind. And of course I always had to lie to my mom about it afterwards. She’d often ask me about what I ate, and I often wouldn’t even remember at first that I was supposed to say “fish sandwich” (not that I understand how fish isn’t meat). And as long as I’m confessing, I often skipped out on the whole Confession thing, as it always creeped me out having to confess everything to some priest who knew my folks. At the beginning, I used to lie to the priest and invent sins, just to get it over with; and then I just started hiding outside the church to avoid it altogether. Let’s just say the whole religion thing didn’t agree with my lifestyle, and I can totally understand why it makes some people freak-out.
Anyway, where was I? Oh, yeah. But honestly, isn’t this all a tad bit hypocritical coming from Christians who act outraged about “Happy Holidays”? Every president we’ve ever had was Christian and most politicians bend over backwards to show how pro-Christian they are; and yet they STILL complain that they’re under attack and totally disrespected. And they get to control the most powerful nation that ever existed. So should it be any real surprise that a Muslim with a crappy life and no respect gets a little angry…or a lot angry? Sure, Christians aren’t blowing shit up (except the ones who are); but they also don’t have too much to complain about. And yet complain they do. And so maybe if the Muslims felt like they had more control over their lives, they’d feel a little better and wouldn’t explode like they did. And who knows, maybe a little porn might help relieve some of that pressure (though you didn’t hear that from me).
But again, this isn’t about the cartoons. It never is. This is about everything, and the cartoons are nothing more than the catalyst. We can downplay this and pretend like the problem is sensitive Muslims and some silly cartoons; or we can try to do something about it and make their lives better. One suggestion on that, however, would be to not make their lives better by invading their countries. I can’t stress that enough: They don’t like to be invaded. This is, of course, in contrast to most Christians and Jews, who are famous for tolerance and being conquered. But with Muslims, just a bad idea.
Egregious Bullshit
Speaking of the two Kevins, this later post of his shows us that his other side isn’t far behind. Writing of Paul Pillar’s article referring to the politicization of Iraq intel, Kevin writes:
I continue to think that the issue of Iraq's WMD is a difficult one. As I've noted before, there's no question that the administration manipulated the WMD intelligence. At the same time, though, it also seems clear that they, along with the intelligence community, really did believe Iraq was actively producing chemical and biological weapons. (Not nukes, though. The "mushroom cloud" talk was pretty clearly just for show.)
And I can’t believe that anyone at this late date could make this case. This won’t be new to any longtime readers, but here was the response I wrote at Kevin’s (which I’m sure I’ve written on other occasions):
I don't see how this is a difficult issue at all. As I was saying before the war: The lie isn't about what they believed; it was about their statements of proof. While we might have believed that Saddam had WMD's, we didn't have the proof of it. And that's what the Bush Admin lied about, as they clearly acted as if our evidence was far stronger than it is.
For example: I could argue that Kevin Drum is naked and covered in kinky snake oil. And it's possibly true (though I'd rather not want to know). And maybe I believe it to be true. But I don't have any evidence of it. And so if I state that I have no evidence and that this is an unproven belief, we don't really have a problem (excepting the obvious one regarding Kevin’s perviness). But if I pretend that I do have evidence, then I'm lying; because I have none. But, even if Kevin IS oiled and naked; I'm still lying, because I have no proof of it. And it's not about what I believe, but about what I say I have.
And so that's what this was all about. I find it unlikely that the Bush Admin didn't think there would be some WMD's in Iraq. But they had no good evidence. And so the statements they made about it were lies. Not because they believed the statements to be false, but because they pretended to have evidence that they didn't have. And they were lying, whether or not Iraq had WMD's. Because again, the lie wasn't about what Iraq had; but about the level of proof that we had. And had they been honest and stated that the WMD's intel was guesswork (which it was); they would not have been liars. But they also would have been far less likely to get the war they wanted.
But that was what I wrote before I had actually read Pillar’s article, which says things such as:
On the issue that mattered most, the intelligence community judged that Iraq probably was several years away from developing a nuclear weapon. The October 2002 NIE also judged that Saddam was unlikely to use WMD against the United States unless his regime was placed in mortal danger.
And can anyone seriously suggest that the Bush Admin’s position didn’t directly contradict what Pillar is saying the intel communities’ position was? They were clearly saying the exact opposite, and acted as if the intel pointed towards the need for pre-emptive war; when it actually pointed away from it. And so we see yet more evidence of Bush Admin deception.
Again, had these positions been known, we would have been far less likely to go to war. And that’s the exact reason why these things weren’t talked about. But it doesn’t matter if the Bush Admin believed these things to be true. What matters is that they should have known that they weren’t true; but just didn’t care. And while some faint-hearted types like Drum feel squeamish about using the “L” word; I think that we should have no trouble identifying what this was.
I continue to think that the issue of Iraq's WMD is a difficult one. As I've noted before, there's no question that the administration manipulated the WMD intelligence. At the same time, though, it also seems clear that they, along with the intelligence community, really did believe Iraq was actively producing chemical and biological weapons. (Not nukes, though. The "mushroom cloud" talk was pretty clearly just for show.)
And I can’t believe that anyone at this late date could make this case. This won’t be new to any longtime readers, but here was the response I wrote at Kevin’s (which I’m sure I’ve written on other occasions):
I don't see how this is a difficult issue at all. As I was saying before the war: The lie isn't about what they believed; it was about their statements of proof. While we might have believed that Saddam had WMD's, we didn't have the proof of it. And that's what the Bush Admin lied about, as they clearly acted as if our evidence was far stronger than it is.
For example: I could argue that Kevin Drum is naked and covered in kinky snake oil. And it's possibly true (though I'd rather not want to know). And maybe I believe it to be true. But I don't have any evidence of it. And so if I state that I have no evidence and that this is an unproven belief, we don't really have a problem (excepting the obvious one regarding Kevin’s perviness). But if I pretend that I do have evidence, then I'm lying; because I have none. But, even if Kevin IS oiled and naked; I'm still lying, because I have no proof of it. And it's not about what I believe, but about what I say I have.
And so that's what this was all about. I find it unlikely that the Bush Admin didn't think there would be some WMD's in Iraq. But they had no good evidence. And so the statements they made about it were lies. Not because they believed the statements to be false, but because they pretended to have evidence that they didn't have. And they were lying, whether or not Iraq had WMD's. Because again, the lie wasn't about what Iraq had; but about the level of proof that we had. And had they been honest and stated that the WMD's intel was guesswork (which it was); they would not have been liars. But they also would have been far less likely to get the war they wanted.
But that was what I wrote before I had actually read Pillar’s article, which says things such as:
On the issue that mattered most, the intelligence community judged that Iraq probably was several years away from developing a nuclear weapon. The October 2002 NIE also judged that Saddam was unlikely to use WMD against the United States unless his regime was placed in mortal danger.
And can anyone seriously suggest that the Bush Admin’s position didn’t directly contradict what Pillar is saying the intel communities’ position was? They were clearly saying the exact opposite, and acted as if the intel pointed towards the need for pre-emptive war; when it actually pointed away from it. And so we see yet more evidence of Bush Admin deception.
Again, had these positions been known, we would have been far less likely to go to war. And that’s the exact reason why these things weren’t talked about. But it doesn’t matter if the Bush Admin believed these things to be true. What matters is that they should have known that they weren’t true; but just didn’t care. And while some faint-hearted types like Drum feel squeamish about using the “L” word; I think that we should have no trouble identifying what this was.
Aborting the Gray Areas
I was over at Legal Fiction debating abortion, and happened to stumble upon this post by the normally timorous Kevin Drum: In any case, I'm with Lamott. I don't think nonviable fetuses are human beings. Terminating them doesn't bother me, and it's none of my business anyway. For all I care, women are free to use abortion as their standard method of birth control if they want to. Nor do I really care much if we reduce the abortion rate in America. Safe and legal is good enough for me. I don't think abortion is a morally ambiguous issue, I don't think getting one should be an emotionally traumatic experience, and no, speaking as a husband, I don't think husbands should have any legal say in the matter.And this totally surprised me, as Drum is normally moderate to a fault. But I guess there really are two Drums and the butch Drum came out today.
The only thing I disagree with is his suggestion afterwards that this is a bad position politically. He always sucks at politics and he's wrong here too. Because I think that this is a good political position; both in the short-term and the long-term. I understand that the world isn't "black v. white" but sometimes it really is best to take a strong stand on something; and I think they're kicking our ass in the gray area we want to live in. And you know, fuck it, I'm not so sure there really is a gray area here, besides the one we were always trying to avoid politically. And it just made us sound wishy-washy and weak; while undermining the very case we were trying to save.Sure, I don't want some woman aborting a baby one day before the due date; but I think that's just a stupid scenario that we don't really need to worry about. Sure, it might happen. But we also have women flushing newborns down the toilet and leaving them in the trash. And maybe that wouldn't have happened, had they felt better about abortion back when it was a gobbily-gook nothing bit of cells. Life is a messy place and we're just fooling ourselves if we spend all our time trying to clean up all the gray areas.
And to me, that goes for parental abortion laws too. I’m totally against them. If you’re old enough to be a parent, then you’re old enough to decide not to be one. Or the converse: If someone isn’t old enough to decide to have an abortion; then they certainly aren’t old enough to be a parent. I just don’t see how that doesn’t make sense. My wife and I are relatively mature and responsible adults, and yet parenting is an incredibly difficult task that only seems to get harder each day. This is not something that we should thrust onto people, particularly if we don’t think they’re mature enough to make adult decisions. And again, this is a case where we could be ruining people’s lives; simply because we want to stay in the gray area for political reasons.
Overall, I think it’s often best to take a strong stand; and I see no reason why we shouldn’t take this one. It’s better politics than what we were going for before, and it matches our policy goals better too. I don’t want somebody to opt out of an abortion simply because of conservative peer-pressure; and so this is the position we should take. There is nothing wrong with abortion.
The only thing I disagree with is his suggestion afterwards that this is a bad position politically. He always sucks at politics and he's wrong here too. Because I think that this is a good political position; both in the short-term and the long-term. I understand that the world isn't "black v. white" but sometimes it really is best to take a strong stand on something; and I think they're kicking our ass in the gray area we want to live in. And you know, fuck it, I'm not so sure there really is a gray area here, besides the one we were always trying to avoid politically. And it just made us sound wishy-washy and weak; while undermining the very case we were trying to save.Sure, I don't want some woman aborting a baby one day before the due date; but I think that's just a stupid scenario that we don't really need to worry about. Sure, it might happen. But we also have women flushing newborns down the toilet and leaving them in the trash. And maybe that wouldn't have happened, had they felt better about abortion back when it was a gobbily-gook nothing bit of cells. Life is a messy place and we're just fooling ourselves if we spend all our time trying to clean up all the gray areas.
And to me, that goes for parental abortion laws too. I’m totally against them. If you’re old enough to be a parent, then you’re old enough to decide not to be one. Or the converse: If someone isn’t old enough to decide to have an abortion; then they certainly aren’t old enough to be a parent. I just don’t see how that doesn’t make sense. My wife and I are relatively mature and responsible adults, and yet parenting is an incredibly difficult task that only seems to get harder each day. This is not something that we should thrust onto people, particularly if we don’t think they’re mature enough to make adult decisions. And again, this is a case where we could be ruining people’s lives; simply because we want to stay in the gray area for political reasons.
Overall, I think it’s often best to take a strong stand; and I see no reason why we shouldn’t take this one. It’s better politics than what we were going for before, and it matches our policy goals better too. I don’t want somebody to opt out of an abortion simply because of conservative peer-pressure; and so this is the position we should take. There is nothing wrong with abortion.
Friday, February 10, 2006
Blogging Impotence
I’m all full of piss and vinegar, but honestly can’t find anything I want to blog about. What is wrong with me? Is there blog Viagra? I swear this never happens to me, but I just can’t seem to get my blogging up. Maybe I’ll look through my dozens of unfinished posts for something that doesn’t seem too out of date. I apologize in advance.
Douchebag Deutsch and the Top Democrat
Via Sadly, No! (as the NY Times removed this quote from the original article):
In the interview, Mr. Deutsch said that Dr. Hansen had partisan ties "all the way up to the top of the Democratic Party," and that he was "using those ties and using his media connections to push an agenda, a worst-case-scenario agenda of global warming."
What I want to know is: Who IS at the top of the Democratic Party, and when do I get to punch him in the nose?
Douchebag Deutsch obviously knows, and I might be willing to give him his job back if he could just give us a few hints. Whoever it is really needs to spend a little less time helping out the NASA guys and a little more time helping out his fucking party. I like space and everything, but we really need to get these doofuses out of office and I don’t see what’s so damn hard about it. And whoever’s at the top really needs to figure out what to do about this whole Lieberman thing, as this just ain’t working out for us.
And are these guys possibly ingrained with this level of spin, or is he still getting help from the top? His stuff is obviously too raw to be Rove material, as the “all the way up to the top” line is a bit dorky. But it’s not bad for some punkass Aggie drop-out who’s been exposed as a fraud in the national limelight. Frankly, I’d think that the normal 24-year-old would still be shitting himself after getting busted so badly. No offense to any of you 24-year-olds out there; but yes, that is what I think of you. Hell, even Brownie didn’t do such a great job in the spin department and he even had that whole horse gig under his belt. I’m afraid to say that this probably isn’t the last we’ve heard of Mr. Deutsch.
In the interview, Mr. Deutsch said that Dr. Hansen had partisan ties "all the way up to the top of the Democratic Party," and that he was "using those ties and using his media connections to push an agenda, a worst-case-scenario agenda of global warming."
What I want to know is: Who IS at the top of the Democratic Party, and when do I get to punch him in the nose?
Douchebag Deutsch obviously knows, and I might be willing to give him his job back if he could just give us a few hints. Whoever it is really needs to spend a little less time helping out the NASA guys and a little more time helping out his fucking party. I like space and everything, but we really need to get these doofuses out of office and I don’t see what’s so damn hard about it. And whoever’s at the top really needs to figure out what to do about this whole Lieberman thing, as this just ain’t working out for us.
And are these guys possibly ingrained with this level of spin, or is he still getting help from the top? His stuff is obviously too raw to be Rove material, as the “all the way up to the top” line is a bit dorky. But it’s not bad for some punkass Aggie drop-out who’s been exposed as a fraud in the national limelight. Frankly, I’d think that the normal 24-year-old would still be shitting himself after getting busted so badly. No offense to any of you 24-year-olds out there; but yes, that is what I think of you. Hell, even Brownie didn’t do such a great job in the spin department and he even had that whole horse gig under his belt. I’m afraid to say that this probably isn’t the last we’ve heard of Mr. Deutsch.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
