Archive for September, 2006

White people: You have nothing to fear.

Sep 30, 2006 in National Security, Politics, War on Terra

It’s okay.  Don’t worry.

He was a Canadian citizen, and they are mostly white, but there’s no need to get out of your seat.  He’s not white.  Calm down.

They tortured him for three days, but when you see him, you’ll understand.  He looks like a sand nigger, and truth be told, he doesn’t look like he had any major organ failure, so just relax.

Do not express concern.

Skip past the treasonous words of liberal faggot Andrew Sullivan, in fact just hit mute so you don’t have to hear this camelfucker’s lies.  Just look at him.

Does he look like you?

Probably not.  It’s safe.  You’ll be just fine.  You’re in danger, of course, but from him.  Don’t be afraid of the Bush administration and two more years of rubber-stamping Republicans.  They will save you.  They will protect you.  Vote for them, and they will make the dark scary people go away.

-jb

Somebody finally gets it right…

Sep 29, 2006 in Politics

This candidate’s ad should have been asking about the bill that killed habeus corpus today…

-jb

p.s. Youtube version here.

Happy Torture and War Crimes Day!

Sep 29, 2006 in Christian Right, Clueless Conservatives, Politics, War on Terra

How will you celebrate the end of Habeus Corpus and the U.S. Constitution?

I’m not doing anything tonight, but tomorrow night I’m going to get a couple of 40 oz. bottles of St. Ides and toast the memories I had of having Constitutional rights.

A dozen Democrats supported the Torture/War Crimes bill. Andrew Sullivan says both parties are a disgrace. Ah, but Andrew, the majority of Dems still stood up. At least we’ve got a fucking chance of hope for the future. One Republican abstained. They have gone completely over the cliff, every last one of them.

-jb

p.s. The names of the twelve. Don’t forget them.

Tom Carper (Del.)
Tim Johnson (S.D.)
Mary Landrieu (La.)
Frank Lautenberg (N.J.)
Bob Menendez (N.J)
Bill Nelson (Fla.)
Ben Nelson (Neb.)
Pryor (Ark.)
Jay Rockefeller (W. Va.)
Ken Salazar (Co.)
Debbie Stabenow (Mich.)
Joe Lieberman (Conn.) (…no shit!)

UPDATE:  Nope, didn’t get drunk Friday night.  I was afraid of bursting into tears around company.  And of pissing in my closet.

Pure maniacal delusion.

Sep 27, 2006 in Clueless Conservatives

Good news:  Country naturally blames Bush more for failure to capture bin Laden.

Holy fucking shit news:  71% of Republicans blame Clinton more.

Key word:  MORE.

Where’s the math?  Bush has had five years of the country’s fullblown permission to go blow the hell out of Osama bin Laden.  He’s had all four branches of the Armed Forces.  He’s had the spectre of 9/11, which proved so strong that he even got permission to go wage an entirely different war, and still gets a pass from many for blowing it.

Clinton had some embassy bombings.  Woo-hoo!  The CIA certified that bin Laden was responsible for the USS Cole when Clinton was packing his bags.  Bush came in, and as Richard Ben-Veniste says, told the 9/11 Commission that he didn’t even know Clinton had threatened to retaliate against the Taliban the next time Al Queda did something.   Bin Laden was dropped to the bottom of the priority list.

And 71% of Republicans blame Clinton MORE.  Not just that he deserves a fair amount of blame, Clinton himself admits as much.  But exactly HOW does one claim that five years after 9/11 Bush isn’t a catastrophically larger fuck-up?  What kind of curve do you have to grade that reject on?
This poll is a measure of the madness infecting this nation.

-jb

p.s. and the 31% of independents who blame Clinton more need to drink some goddamn coffee and read the paper more often.  They’re probably “quite disturbed” by how “crazed” Clinton was during the interview, as well.

But for the nation as a whole, it is good news:  the facts have finally begun to matter.

Last in line: the facts.

Sep 26, 2006 in Clueless Conservatives, Outstanding Democrats, Politics, Uncategorized

So how does one watch the Bill Clinton interview with Chris Wallace and not view it as a man stepping on a worm?

(or, if one reads the village idiot Brian Pickrell’s Iowa Voice, how can one spell out a verdict before watching it?)

A former president, somebody who only had modest indications that bin Laden was a serious threat to America, yet took him seriously, versus a Republican shill, somebody who is a disgrace to his legendary journalist father, who claims to be asking in honest faith, after George Bush has gone five years without catching Osama bin Laden, a completely loaded question, masking it behind “we got emails” while being clearly ready and willing to defend the implications.

“Mr. President, why didn’t you do more to get bin Laden?”
There is the scenario. Clinton fires back with a barrage of facts an lucid explanations of events as they were. The worm can only squirm and repeat himself like a third grader/GOP activist. Clinton then turns the tables and points out the obvious realities of FOX news. The worm denies and professes honor, but it goes no deeper because he has none.

Nowhere is a single thing Clinton said rebutted. Clinton says bin Laden wasn’t a factor in Somalia, the worm says “But wasn’t he in ’96, ’98, ’00?” as if his idea possessed logical flow from the previous statement. It has none. The worm is trying to step on the man, and failing that merely tries to stain his shoe.

And that’s what it boils down to in the big picture. Rightwingers only need one catchphrase to get by, because they’re willing and somehow able to repeat it endlessly. Clinton dropped the hard facts on Wallace’s head, Wallace had no retort or substance to offer. The rightwingers will have no substance to offer. The facts are plain. Bush has had five years to get bin Laden since September 11, 2001. Never mind the crucial months before when he was blowing bin Laden off. After 9/11, Bush had the entire nation behind him to pursue bin Laden singlemindedly.

He did not do that. We do not have bin Laden.

Yet…Bush’s dogs feel justified in pointing the finger at Clinton. The president who was pursuing bin Laden when nobody cared. Who only had a few minor attacks to justify it.
Clinton revealed what happens when a liar gets pinned down by the truth. Wallace was obliterated, having no option but to lie through his teeth. “I’m just asking a legitimate question!” Clinton demonstrated plainly that Wallace was doing no such thing. Wallace was a worm.

So what’s the catchphrase?

LOOK AT CLINTON HE’S ANGRY! HE’S A CRAZED BLOODSUCKING MONSTER! POOR CHRIS WALLACE! CRAZY CLINTON LOST HIS MARBLES!

Never mind Bush’s increasingly unhinged public appearances, berating the librul media for daring to point out inconvenient truths. Hypocrisy and strawberry jelly go on a rightwinger’s toast in the morning.

Clinton was decidedly hinged, in fact, because while he got a bit repetitive, he still managed to coherently debunk and demolish Wallace’s every word and the entire rightwinger cabal of liars and excuse-makers. And what rightwinger can be annoyed by repetition?

No, folks, it’s a simple choice: the teacher or the third graders. You have a man laying down an honest history on one side, and you have monkeys chanting “Made you mad!” on the other.

This country simply must stop being swayed so carelessly.

Bravo, Bill Clinton. I’ve my share of disputes with you, but in many ways you are still the best thing this country saw since Roosevelt. And against vermin like Wallace, you appear all the finer.

-jb

Private tyranny and stealth.

Sep 25, 2006 in Uncategorized

Power follows a simple rule:  the more of it you get, the more of it you have…to get more.  The corresponding result is that everybody else loses.  But one of the most beguiling details about power is that great power allows one to move with great stealth because it is not only that the game is won, but that the rules of the game are changed to allow your victory. 

The blind will cheer your victory as hard won, but the right thing to do is always to wrest control from players who do double-duty as referees.  Today we have that duty with public power, but must also use public power to do the same with unaccountable private tyrannies. 

If you want to gain a sense of just how far-reaching and dangerous Wal-mart’s power is, this article recommended by Ezra Klein is highly edifying. 

-jb

And off they go!

Sep 17, 2006 in Politics

Like I’ve said many times, left/liberal criticism of Bush has been largely dismissed because it’s all “political,” according to the most blatantly political administration in our nation’s history and their disciples.  It was only until the disaster we talked about became too catastrophic to ignore that “sane” voices started piping in, for which they patted themselves on the back.  Now people like Andrew Sullivan act like they just invented most of the criticisms of George W., and roll calls of notable dissenters feature only “principled” conservatives.

Today Andrew pulls a Chomsky (who he despises):

What the Bush administration wants is to introduce vagueness to get away with exactly the same barbarism they have deploying illegally for the past five years. They must be stopped. And eventually, they must be prosecuted for war crimes.

Slow down, Michael Moore!   I saw this coming, Andrew.  Brits are only the bastard sons of the French.

-jb

Wha tha fah…?

Sep 16, 2006 in Clueless Conservatives

That damned loveable fool Andrew Sullivan: 

It turns out there is an opposition in this country – it’s called what’s left of the sane wing of the GOP.

Holy fucking shit.  What is up with the “sane” wing of the GOP (i.e. libertarians) in that they cannot acknowledge that they are finally, after five years, acknowledging the elementary truths that liberals have been talking about all along?  They’re slapping medals on each other over this stuff, while still sneering at Democrats.  We’re like, “Oh, you finally showed up?  Wipe that mud off your shoes!”
Still, I like libertarians, because they try to subscribe to reason, thus opening themselves up to deconstruction and defeat.  The theocon radical wingnut branch of the party (i.e. Iowa Voice, et al.) simply bellers and cavorts repeatedly in order to manipulate rather than debate.

-jb

Some things never change.

Sep 10, 2006 in Clueless Conservatives, Media

The media is at it again. Ned Lamont writes a letter to Lieberman regarding his Clinton speech in ’98 that is 90% negative, and the liberal NYT reports only on the 10% that offers complimentary thoughts. Lamont offers conditions on those compliments, but they’re not newsworthy, obviously.

And the GOP plainly announces its intentions to run campaigns as utterly depraved as the last two elections; negative, personal, simplistic, and generally idiotic. They will do what they and 4th graders do best: come up with names like “Dr. Millionaire” and repeat them endlessly to “define” the opponent.

Naturally, they’d shriek in protest at the notion that the lot of them could be summed up as “Bush’s Butt Boys,” “Rubber-stamp Republicans,” “Rove’s Thugs,” “Cheney’s Chutzpah Brigade,” “Alberto’s Abu Ghraib Aficionados,” “Dubya’s Dittoheads”…

Care to contribute your own? More importantly, how can Democrats dumb ourselves down to the level of Republicans? How can we learn to mindlessly repeat, repeat, repeat ourselves without feeling like we’re digging a groove into our medullas? If there’s any reason I haven’t blogged a lot lately, it’s because I personally cannot stand repeating myself.

This election might be a referendum on whether the Republicans have finally and completely exploited the public’s ADD beyond Democrats’ ability to reclaim. If the election were held today, based on the record of the Republicans, they’d go out on their asses. Will two months of the stupidest things ever said in defiance of all reason and sanity make America suddenly forget what Republicans actually do in office?

Or have we finally figured out that they’re all talk? And that the media will tacitly approve until the public stops liking it?
-jb

Dollars and cents in the Big Easy

Sep 06, 2006 in Uncategorized

Unemployed Sinatra tribute singer Brian comments about the property insurance predicament in New Orleans and even though he makes a ham-fisted swipe at the “espresso” scarecrow the over-all point remains that regardless of politics insurance underwriters are simply unable to take the type of risk that the Mississippi river basin poses. 

No matter the population and it’s culture the Mississippi river is going to see it through to the end.   No amount of nostalgia is going to stop that river from flowing, meandering, and building up silt and I think that it’s high-time that folks started accepting the reality of physical hydraulics.  That is to say that any plans for New Orleans, on a long enough time line, can only be temporary.

I underwrite insurance for that particular area and I can say with a great deal of certainty that despite the desperate yearing of the press to print their beloved “Life Carries On ™” stories such will not be the case.  It is simply not feasible to rebuild in that area.  At least not to the degree to which most people remember it as.  What was there was built and expanded upon over the course of decades and to rebuild it now is a fantasy entertained by the likes of NPR and Time magazine and other nostalgia merchants. 

-mjg    

Simple logic.

Sep 06, 2006 in Uncategorized

Cavuto:  “If we weren’t fighting them in Iraq right now where would they be?”

No doubt most of you have already seen this clip.  Regardless, I wanted to remark upon the fact that Neil Cavuto is still parroting the “we’re fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them here” meme verbatim.  A piece of propaganda that is now celebrating its fourth year.
The wingers have gotten a lot of mileage over the years using the tactic of accusing libruls of crimes that they themselves are obviously guilty of and I’ve often wondered when this would backfire on them.  Every day that goes by erodes the once popular belief that Iraq has anything to do with the way we conduct our lives (as far as terrorism is concerned, at least).  So, does Neil Cavuto’s rhetoric have any traction anymore?  In terms of todays rapidly shifting media culture lexicon, how long is the shelf life of a slogan like “cut and run”?

Not that long ago the right-wing bloviators were bellowing about New Media versus Old Media.  When I watch Cavuto and his recycled ’02 talking points I’m starting to think that I know exactly what he means.

-mjg