Uncivil Discourse

Because civility is overrated.

Thursday, June 30, 2005

It's Kind of Funny...

...to read people talking about something they know nothing about. Marvin clearly has never read anything by or about Singer other than the religious right's screeching about his conclusions, when, actually, Singer's like them: he doesn't do reductio ad absurdum. His conclusions are his conclusions.

For the record, Peter Singer is one of my favorite philosophers. And not just because he's a rude motherfucker who doesn't mince words.

Fuck Godwin, and His Pretty Little Dog, Too

Recently, there's been a large outpouring on the right-wing blogs about how awful it is that people would fucking dare to compare Bush to Hitler. For example, Michelle Malkin finds Reuters photographers succumb to the temptation. Powerline feels all the Hitler references are a tragic, tragic indication of where the left is going. In fact, earlier, Powerline even invoked the MoveOn.org ad competition, which, if we recall, caused a huge hissy fit among Republicans.

Now, don't get me wrong. By and large, making comparisons to Hitler is stupid, because the second you do, people think "Hitler killed Jews. Bush didn't kill Jews. This comparison is totally wrong." And then the manufactured outrage ensues, distracting from the issue at all. Hell, look at what happened to Dick Durbin -- and he didn't even mention the Holocaust.

But, let's clear something up, shall we? That whole killing Jews thing? Awful, of course. Hell, awful doesn't cover it. But, hey -- it was a piece of what Hitler did. There was also the whole pretending a country that can't possibly defend itself against you poses a threat to your country so you can launch a pre-emptive war thing. There's the whole staged rallies and manipulation of photographs to serve your purposes thing. There's the implying God has anointed you thing. There's the whole corporate state thing that Mussolini installed in Italy and Hitler mimicked in Germany. To paraphrase Dick Durbin, if you didn't know I was referring to George W. Bush, well, your punk ass might think I was talking about the Nazis. Not the Khmer Rouge, of course, but that's mostly because Cambodia itself was pretty small and fucking defenseless.

But we forget these things, because Bush isn't killing Jews and Bush doesn't have that goddamned moustache. And we forget fascism isn't about killing Jews. Mussolini, who we should be able to declare someone pretty authoratative on the subject, put it this way: "The foundation of Fascism is the conception of the State, its character, its duty, and its aim. Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the State."

No, Bush isn't exactly Hitler. Bush doesn't have the evil in him to wipe Hitler's dick after Hitler takes a piss. But what Bush does do is just bleed a complete disdain for the niceities of an open society. There's a legitimate discussion to have on the effect Bush's policies have on democracy. And for the love of god, there's that pastel pink dildo of an imperial war justified by self-defense (and let's remember that aside from some specifics, the spirit of what we're doing in Iraq isn't that different from the early British in India, before they decided to say "Fuck it, we're formally just taking the whole thing").

So, see, there are good, constructive Nazi comparisons, like Robert Byrd's over the nuclear option, the one Rick Santorum vomited over before announcing Democrats were just like Hitler, and presumably, Hitler while he was fucking a dog. And if you're going to make them, please, dear god, make it explicit what the comparison is.

But if you don't want to be compared to Nazis, in any way, shape, or form, then don't fucking act like Nazis. That won't stop comparisons, of course, but at least then your outrage won't be so damned laughable.

Wednesday, June 29, 2005

Wank Wank Wank

Before President Bush's speech, the Fox Nooz anchors were talking about the "refined message" he was going to introduce us to on Iraq.

By "refined," did they mean "the exact same thing?" Here's a list of the talking points Karl gave George to hammer over and over again:

1) "We're fucking fighting the same ruthless killers in Iraq that hit us on 9/11, man, why can't you see that?"
2) "They hate freedom. Also, they despise dissent. As do I. But I don't hate freedom. Really."
3) "Iraq is an extension of 9/11. After all, I made you a promise then, and this is another front in taking the fight to the enemy."
4) "Me make Iraq more free. Me make freedom march. Me kill terrorists."
5) "They hate freedom. They want to stop its inevitable march in the St. Freedom's Day Parade."
6) "Have I mentioned they're Very Bad People? I'm sure you didn't know that they were despicable. Let me list cases which show how despicable they are, just so you know that no matter what we do in Gitmo, we're still better than them. Go team!"
7) "Look, we had elections and transferred sovereignty. This isn't a fucking occupation!"
8) "Remember, if we fight terrorists in Iraq, there's no way they can hit us at home."
9) "No, really. Iraq is about 9/11. 9/11 9/11 9/11."
10) "Rebuilding a country is hard. Who would've thought that? I know I didn't!"
11) "The UN is in Iraq. Despite our best efforts. Fuckers."
12) "The Iraqi troops aren't like the ARVN. Certainly the numbers I'm giving you aren't inflated by corrupt commanders and soldiers looking for more money. No sir."
13) "We will not let Iraq be a base for terrorism, even though the only reason this is an issue is my administration's incompetance."
14) "Look, NATO's opening a school!"
15) "I'm getting ready to bail if this looks like it'll hurt my Congressional majority next year."
16) "Iraqis are courageous! That's totally not something I would've thought."
17) "I'll send more troops when commanders tell me they need them. Which hasn't happened yet...right Dick and Don?"
18) "Freedom, freedom, freedom. Did you get that? Freedom."
19) "I can't say enough that they're Very Bad People."
20) "America is great. This is a free country. We love freedom. We will spread freedom in a massive freedom orgy."
21) "I thank military families for not demanding my head for our incompetance in Iraq."
22) "Remember, above all, stay the course. And if this isn't a metaphor for the 2006 elections, I don't know what is!"

Nothing we haven't heard repeatedly. I guess the "refining" was in cutting out "Saddam Hussein made the choice to have this war" and anything to do with "weapons of mass destruction" (though I kept waiting for him to say "The terrorists have weapons of mass destruction...we know where they are"). In other words? I was right. Bush is the furry we're collectively dating. Goddamn it.

I also kept waiting for him to invoke the goddamned silent majority in this country and truly is standing with him in supporting the war:

Let historians not record that when America was the most powerful nation in the world we passed on the other side of the road and allowed the last hopes for peace and freedom of millions of people to be suffocated by the forces of totalitarianism.

And so tonight--to you, the great silent majority of my fellow Americans--I ask for your support.

I pledged in my campaign for the Presidency to end the war in a way that we could win the peace. I have initiated a plan of action which will enable me to keep that pledge.

The more support I can have from the American people, the sooner that pledge can be redeemed; for the more divided we are at home, the less likely the enemy is to negotiate at Paris.

Let us be united for peace. Let us also be united against defeat. Because let us understand: North Vietnam cannot defeat or humiliate the United States. Only Americans can do that.
It's like they're sucking the cock of Nixon's corpse, trying to squeeze out every last bit of Nixon's essence that they can.

Things Originalism Wouldn't Allow

In light of Scalia and Thomas' fun with originalism, let's see some things originalism wouldn't have let happen:

1) School desegregation. Original meaning sure as fuck doesn't tell you that Brown v. Board of Education was an originalist decision.
2) Religious freedom given to Hindus, Muslims, Mormons, Jews, and Buddhists, among others. After all, as Justice Story wrote, the Establishment Clause's original purpose "was, not to countenance, much less to advance Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects..." How could it have been intended or meant to give religious freedom to such groups which weren't really represented in the country, or in some cases, that didn't exist yet?
3) Ken Starr's grand jury: grand juries were not intended to be arms of the prosecution.
4) The right to a lawyer. The Sixth Amendment was only intended to stop people from being railroaded if they could afford a lawyer, since English common law forbade a defendant from having a lawyer unless there was some abstract legal question at stake.
5) Federal Defense of Marriage Act. It's not even an issue of equal protection here; think enumerated powers, beyatch.
6) Bush v. Gore. The Fourteenth Amendment applied to voting? Why, that would make the Radical Republicans die of heart attacks. That's what the Fifteenth was for.

Anyone got any others?

Tuesday, June 28, 2005

Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, Butt Buddies

Ok, so I decided to post on this today instead of tomorrow. Yesterday, as I'm sure you all know, the Supreme Court ruled on the sideshow Ten Commandments cases, McCreary County v. ACLU and van Orden v. Perry. In the course of his concurring opinion in the latter, that shining beacon of hope for all black men Uncle Thomas, wrote

This case would be easy if the Court were willing to abandon the inconsistent guideposts it has adopted for addressing Establishment Clause challenges, and return to the original meaning of the Clause. I have previously suggested that the Clause's text and history "resis[t] incorporation" against the States...

Even if the Clause is incorporated, or if the Free Exercise Clause limits the power of States to establish religions...our task would be far simpler if we returned to the original meaning of the word establishment than it is under the various approaches this Court now uses.
But what is the original meaning of the word "establishment"? Clarence Thomas feels it involves coercion or force, and in his dissent in McCreary County, Antonin Scalia agrees. In fact, not only does Scalia agree, he even thinks the Founders had no desire to see government neutrality in religion, citing Thomas Jefferson, whom as we all know was a flaming fundie who would've made James Dobson proud, among others.

Of course, we know Thomas Jefferson vigorously detested Christianity as a religious system, even trying to extract the moral teachings of the Bible from its supernatural aspects. Oh, how Big Tommy fucking loathed the Christianity of his age, and particularly those Calvinist fucks. Yet Antonin Scalia would, of course, have us believe that this man, and George Washington, of whom his own pastor said, "Sir, Washington was a Deist!", wanted the government to get all messed up in the religious game.

What a fucking circus, with the Ten Commandments the goddamned sideshow. Kentucky was especially bad; the imbeciles in charge of the county put up the Commandments with a proclamation declaring 1983 the "Year of the Bible," compliments of the decaying corpse of Ronald Reagan, and other documents with religious phrases emphasized, then changed it to pair the Commandments with a number of historical documents, trying to put them all on the same foot (and if Indiana Jones hasn't come back yet with the Ark, how is this a coherent thought?), and finally they claimed their true purpose in posting the Commandments was unknowable. And sure, I've heard from people, "Aren't there more important things to worry about now?" And the answer is, "No." Because if we let up for a second and let these fuckers put the Ten Commandments up there with the Declaration of Independence, the Magna Carta, and the damned Constitution itself, the First Amendment may as well be used as the piece of toilet paper Thomas and Scalia already use the whole damned thing for.

Cause, see, supposed we actually had some way of knowing precisely what each of the Founders wanted each phrase in the Constitution to be. What do we do then? Do we side with Jefferson or Hamilton? Madison or Mason? George Clinton (no, not P-Funk) or John Jay? The entire cacophany of voices would be enough to drive Scalia and Thomas, as well as those other originalist fucks, stark raving mad. Which makes me think we should figure out how to do this shit.

It's not a bad thing that we interpret the Constitution differently over time. Sure, the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments set aside the idea thfrom at Clarence Thomas is worth 3/5th of Antonin Scalia (not that they stopped him singing and dancing for him), but it didn't take an amendment to go from Plessy v. Ferguson to Brown v. Board of Education. Shit happens, society and justices change. So fuck originalism.

And for the love of God, somebody fuck Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas other than Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. That little circlejerk needs to end before somebody, meaning all of our poor little asses, get hurt. Oh, and William Rehnquist? Your zombie ass can't play, either.

Well Whoop-Dee-Doo

So what is George Bush going to say tonight? What can he say? Can he honestly do anything at this point to change the widening perception of him as an incompetant boob and his war in Iraq as a miserable failure? Is there a single word that can come out of his mouth that can change the tide of the public turning on him, looking at him like jackels eyeing their suddenly weakened leader?

It's like this. Suppose you're dating this guy. Sure, he's nice enough and all, but something just seems odd. He's just not that interested in you in bed, but he denies it all, saying how much he loves you and wants to be with you. One day, you discover a fucking fur suit in his closet. Sure, maybe it's for a costume, but who the hell keeps a fur suit around? So you dig around, ask his pals and the friend that set you two up. They mention that sometimes he likes to wear it around the house, goes on trips with it. You take a closer look the next time you're over, and there's crusty stains all over it. It all starts coming together, but no, no, that can't be it, there have to be other explanations: maybe it was for Halloween, and he spilled something and never got it cleaned. Maybe it's part of a big practical joke. Perhaps he used to be one of those damned mascots. There's lots of things it could be, right?

Then you return home, and find your door open, with his coat hanging from the door. Oh, but that's not just it; on the bed, there's your favorite teddy bear, with a slit cut at the crotch and those all-too-familiar stains all over it. He comes back, to get the coat, and you're standing there holding the recently violated Mr. Wiggles. So what does the fucker do? After you start stuttering in anger, he starts telling you about how this is a big misunderstanding. Then he gets simultaneously mad and sad, and in his old, pathetic way, asks why you're turning on him, why you aren't there for him, how this is just a phase, how he can change, not that he did anything wrong, but he can change, and really, if you think about it, there are many, many worse, more disturbing fetishes in the world, and it's not like he's out there raping anyone like other people do, right? After all, you liked him until this business came up, he still likes you, he just wants to fuck furry things every now and then. Staying the course is better for everyone, really, he says, and eventually, it'll get out of his system and everything can be nice and normal and then won't you be glad you stayed with him?

So now it's on you. Do you stand there listening to him, letting him back into your life? Or do you throw his perverted ass out and make it clear if he goes near you ever again, you're going to tear his balls off and call the cops?

What's Bush going to say tonight? There's the list of predictable things: we're opening schools, they had elections, the insurgents hate freedom, no more rape rooms, etc. Just a little more, and everything will be ok. All we need are a few more of your sons and dollars, just until the Iraqi ARVN can finish getting its shit together. Staying the course is better for everyone, really, and Iraq will be nice and peaceful and we can withdraw and won't you be glad you listened to him?

So what do we do with this wanker?

Tomorrow: Bush's wankery and why Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia need to get laid, fast.

Update: The Rude One seems to have posted on exceedingly similar lines.

Monday, June 27, 2005

Douchebags R Us

With all the motherfuckery going on over the last week or so, it looks like Rick Santorum felt left out (via Shakespeare's Sister.

Hear that, Bostonians? Priests molesting little boys is all your fucking fault. I hope you're proud of yourselves, you damn moral degenerates. Cause it couldn't be that anything Rick Santorum supports had something to do with this, could it? Of course not -- then how would he be the Golden Boy?

What Dick Durbin Should've Said

Here's what I wish Dick Durbin had said on Wednesday:

"Jesus fucking Christ, what the hell is wrong with you people? I'm sorry if you aren't able to properly comprehend a passage. To those of you that are going on about how I slandered troops or how I've said we're Nazis or Stalinists, let me ask you this: how did you do well on your SATs, you thick pieces of shit? Let me restate what it was I said: if you didn't know that that FBI account, remember, it's from the fucking FBI, was about Americans, and someone asked you if you thought it was about Nazis, Stalinists, Khmer Rouge, or Americans, you probably wouldn't choose that last option. Got that? Do I need to speak more slowly? What the fuck kind of manufactured outrage is this now?

Look, I know I'm going to be featured in all of your attack ads and insipid comments right now regardless of what I say right now, since we all know how you treated Howard Dean and John Kerry, two men with more integrity and balls than the lot of you shitwipers put together, so let me be perfectly honest: I don't regret saying a damned thing. My only regret is your unwillingness or inability to actually spend some time thinking. That goes double for you, Mayor Daley, you backstabbing son of a bitch who can't even recognize that I didn't say a fucking thing about the Holocaust.

Good lord, this is a fucking fantasy camp for people who want to pretend they understand, well, anything, because clearly don't understand how to read, they don't understand current events, and they don't understand history. It doesn't matter that you're not literally being Nazis, Stalinists, or Khmer Rouge, got it? It doesn't matter a shit, and it never did. Gitmo isn't literally a fucking Gulag, and nobody said it was. How many dead prisoners, physically and mentally abused prisoners, outraged prisoners, and more terrorists do we fucking need before it gets rammed through your thick little skulls housing your tiny little monkey brains that all of this shit is fucked up? Being better than the Nazis doesn't mean you're good, you short-sighted needledicked motherfuckers. If you don't want to be compared to the Nazis, don't act like the Nazis at all. Are we similar to them? No, and that's the fucking point. But we're not different enough, and as I see it, that's a fucking problem. And don't even get me started on our policy of extraordinary rendition, which all of you blabbering asses have sat silent on.

So here's your fucking apology: I'm really fucking sorry I didn't say this shit sooner. I'm sick of you smug, idiotic shitlickers having your way without anyone calling you on it, and it ends here. Remember when Little Ricky Santorum, who I won't call my "colleague," compared Democrats to Hitler in Paris? I didn't see your fucking phony outrage then, and that actually was a Nazi comparison. So you can all fuck off. Here's the second part of my apology: I'm sorry that you assholes are going to lead to some poor American soldier down the road being tortured in some of the worst ways imaginable by our idiocy in not respecting the goddamned Geneva Conventions.

That's right, I'm looking at you, John McCain. You've sat by and let us violate international law that protects POWs, just like you sat by the smearing of John Kerry by those Swift Boat frauds. So you know what, you conniving motherfucker? Go away and never play the POW card again, because you're a fucking phony, and I'm going to hold you responsible the second one of my constituents is tortured, something which I hope to high hell never happens. As for the rest of you pill-popping, cat-butchering little toadies, shut the fuck up, sit down, and let Karl Rove go back to sticking his cock up your shriveled little ass before I get really nasty and make you suck my cock while I read more accounts of what we're doing at Gitmo on the fucking Senate floor. It's grownup time, and none of you motherfuckers qualify."

Sunday, June 26, 2005

Karl Rove Was Right

Damn those liberals putting our troops in harm's way.

How much longer will these fifth columnists continue to backstab our troops? It's a goo d thing Karl Rove had the gall to call out treacherous liberals like George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and, well, himself, who took our military and decided to make their primary mission that of policing a country whose language they don't speak with insufficient equipment and numbers, or who knows how else this might have gone on without the public realizing who the real enemy here is?

Friday, June 24, 2005

I've Got Your Property Rights Right Here

I'm not going to comment on the flag-burning amendment, because this shit comes up all the damn time and doesn't pass the Senate. I did, however, buy an American flag (made in China), and just to illustrate what property rights are, went out and urinated on it -- which, given that it's my goddamn property, is a right you would think conservatives would support. Unfortunately, the only people who saw me were a couple of stoners who may have been passed out.

Oh well. It's not like those idiots take the flag rules and regulations seriously. Otherwise they'd take those torn up pieces of crap off their cars.

When Fat Men Who Haven't Gotten Any In A While Attack

Karl Rove, the organ grinder to George W. Bush's monkey, had this to say recently:

"Conservatives saw what happened to us on 9/11 and said we will defeat our enemies. Liberals saw what happened to us and said we must understand our enemies."

Rove also denounced Sen. Dick Durbin's comments comparing interrogation at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp to the methods of Nazis and other repressive regimes. He said the statements have been broadcast throughout the Middle East, putting American troops in greater danger. Durbin has since apologized for the remarks.

"No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals," Rove said.


Leaving aside how good of a job we're doing trying to defeat our enemies without understanding them (someone should shove The Art of War right up Karl Rove's puckered little ass), isn't this rich? "Democrats" are now "liberals," yes, even you sniveling fuckers like Joe Lieberman and Harold Ford who would fuck the zombie corpse of Dick Cheney if you thought it would make you look less "liberal." And, of course, we all hate America and want our troops to die, despite not being the ones not giving them equipment or strategy. Yep, that's us.

Here's the thing we have to remember, and what we should have learned by now. Karl Rove is nothing more than one sexually frustrated fat man. He's not a political genius. He's just a man who is willing to say or do anything, a man with no conscience and enemies who are willing to roll over at the slightest hint of outrage. He's the kind of motherfucker that would ignore all the safe words when beating his lover in some bizarre S&M display so that he could get off, trying to stick large, large things up his lover's ass. Not only will he ignore the safe words, but at any signs of whimpering or crying, Rove, that callous bitch, will respond with "Don't you love me? Why won't you let me please you?" right before he ejaculates at the thought and leaves the big, boxy flashlight half stuck up his lover's butt.

To deal with a motherfucker like that, you have to have the balls and the guts to pull the flashlight out and go to town on him like Bruce Willis and Ving Rhames on those two redneck rapists in Pulp Fiction. You can't say "Yes sir, maybe I have another?" every time he sticks an object in your ass and expect him to not try something, say, like his fist or the aforementioned big fucking flashlight after a while. Squealing doesn't help, there's no one to hear it; the media won't give this story as much play as they did "Why Howard Dean is a Big Bully That Makes Us Cry." You have to show the dominating cocksucker just what domination is, give the bitch a taste of his own medicine. So maybe, finally, this is a lesson we can learn.

One would hope. Ford and Lieberman and their cohort, however, might decide in the end that they truly, deep down, liked it, liked the pain, liked having their asses on the verge of tearing. It'd be consistent with what we know of them so far.

Damn Those Activist Conservatives

Oh lordy, is this good. So the Supreme Court issued an opinion yesterday in Kelo v. New London ruling that local governments can seize private property and give it to private developers as long as there is some public use consideration. I'm not a damned constitutional lawyer, so I won't talk about the case itself, but if you want, this is good.

But what's so good is that all of a sudden, conservatives are concerned with the upwards wealth redistribution they feel this ruling leads to. This, of course, didn't bother them with any of the fucking Bush handouts to the rich. No, all of a sudden, after a decision written by John Stevens and involving use of eminent domain, they're whinin' scared, and it's not even a relevant whining (anyone who actually read the decision knows higher tax revenue isn't the only issue at play, but of course, when have conservatives needed to read shit before spouting off on it?).

And you know what's even better? These folks, the same ones who go on and on about the plague of activist judges "legislating from the bench," destroying the moral fabric of our society, and making baby Jesus cry? Shit, they're attacking an argument completely based in precedent and attacking it on non-legal grounds, such as "What about our right to private property (not found in the Bill of Rights they love to read so damned literally, of course)?" or "This isn't fair, I don't like eminent domain!" But hey, it's not like they're arguing that we shouldn't kill minors or let gays marry, so it's cool, and when they want the Supreme Court to not rule in this case based on the law, it's alright.

This goes beyond fucking hypocrisy, given the row they make on a regular basis about this. It's not even a case of gotcha. Because nobody's calling them on their horseshit; hell, the media whores, from what I saw last night on ABC and NBC, are nodding right along, agreeing with what a travesty this whole thing is. This is a goddamned disease.

Update: Roger Ailes illustrates the point.

Again: I should clarify something: my issue isn't with someone discussing O'Connor's or Thomas' dissents, giving a legal objection to the majority opinion, because that's fair. But dear lord, it's all around, people complaining about the decision based on shit that's not related to the law as it stands at all.

Thursday, June 23, 2005

President Organ Grinder Monkey

This is somewhat old news now, but I don't really care, because I meant to post it a couple of days ago, and in the end, who gives a shit? Now, maybe I'm just a short-sighted America hater, but I've never been able to come to grips with the way many conservatives label Gitmo prisoners "terrorists", given they haven't actually been charges or convicted or anything. But hey, that's never stopped us from labeling people here (and I can't possibly begin to think about whom I might be talking) as guilty when they haven't been found that way in court. A few weeks ago, during Dear Leader's blowjob session with Neil Cavuto, he commented in response to a question on allegations of improper treatment at Gitmo, "These were terrorists, swept up off the battlefield in a place like Afghanistan, for example" and added something about wanting to learn more about these people. Now, if I recall correctly, wanting to learn more about terrorists got us on the left the label of "appeasers" and "terrorist-coddlers," didn't it?

That's a digression, however. See, a few days ago, after the US-EU summit, Bush had this to say: " Make no mistake, however, that many of those folks being detained -- in humane conditions, I might add -- are dangerous people." The "humane conditions" aside, um, well...maybe this is a subtlety of the English language I've missed (after all, Bush is well renowned as a master of his native tongue), but doesn't saying "many" of those folks being detained are dangerous imply that "some" are, if not dangerous, not known to be dangerous? And, well, shit, if "some" aren't known to be dangerous, why are they being kept at Gitmo, uncharged, treated "humanely" or not? And why is Bush telling Fox Nooz "these," referring to the prisoners at Gitmo, "were terrorists?" Perhaps because nobody at Fox or any of its viewers are going to call him on it? And, to get back to the issue I started with, how, without any sort of legal process, does George W. Bush know jack shit about "many" of the myriad of prisoners kept in that hellhole?

Ah, but George Bush has been good at nothing if not knowing how to dance on command. He's not a good dancer, but by god, he'll stand up there with his little fez and he'll grin that little monkey grin and cut your taxes and it's all so very cute, cause he's trying so very hard. He even had a "He forget Poland!" moment, telling the press corps they were offending people by not asking the other two bodies up around him questions. See, he's a team player -- cute!

Of course, that's until you realize that he's the goddamned President of these fucking United States, the leader of the free world, and that by his own admission he's trying to make people feel pleasantly surprised he doesn't drool on himself.

More fun from the press conference: "We're now waiting for a federal court to decide whether or not they can be tried in a military court, where they'll have rights, of course, or in the civilian courts. We're just waiting for our judicial process to move -- to move the process along...when the courts make the decision they make, we'll act accordingly." Here, "acting accordingly" of course includes "screeching about damn activist liberal judges trying to undermine the war on terrah if they tell us inhumane shitheads to grant these terrahists due process." Oh, how they will wail, like a woman on the verge of a long-due orgasm, if the courts tell them to shape up and abide by the notion of law. We'll hear all about how between this, gay marriage, and so on, how we need to get rid of the filibuster, how these activist judges are endangering us, and how liberals hate baby Jesus and are beholden to Hollywood. It'll be a lot of fun to do this all over again, let me tell you.

Bush also noted he thinks about Iraq every day. This, of course, placing Iraq up on the president's list of priorities with "taking a shit," which I'm sure he also thinks about every day (probably several times, actually). Of course, with his cronies, he's managed to take a big old dump on Iraq, so maybe it's fitting. But maybe, just maybe, Bush wants to take some time aside from just thinking about Iraq to think about the troops that're there (for reasons other than turkey) and try to get the military to give them, y'know, equipment?

Finally, Bush says "there's a reason" he nominated John Bolton to be our UN ambassador, and guess what? It's not "because he really fucking hates the UN and wants to stick them with Bolton after having given them Negroponte earlier." It's because "John Bolton is a reformer!" And that's true, in a sense: when Bolton leaves a department, things improve (via Pepper). A lot. This, then, perfectly suiting Bolton to the Bush administration, which is chock full of people we were pleased to have gotten rid of, back when we thought we had.

Wednesday, June 22, 2005

Fuck Everything

Still sick, so this will be brief: you know, I really could do without supposedly moderate Republicans who dissent and dissent but still keep voting for the same policy they're supposedly critical of. Motherfuckers.

What's your favorite example? Mine almost certainly involves John McCain, though the particular instance I can't choose.

Tuesday, June 21, 2005

Fuck

I'm sick today; my stomach is clenching like Bill O'Reilly's anus around a falafel or Norm Coleman's mouth around the administration's metaphorical cock. I'll just quickly note that while I think Dick Durbin (who, by the way, is one fun motherfucker, if you ever get the chance to hang out with him) poorly chose his comments, they were in no way inappropriate. In fact, they were extremely appropriate, as everyone knew, but of course, the entire cocksucker contingent decided to manufacture outrage. After all, "how dare one of those America-hating liberals compare anything to a mad regime? That's our schtick. So, how about the estate tax being like the Holocaust..." Now go read Billmon. And in Downing Street-related stuff, here's Tom Toles.

Back tomorrow.

Monday, June 20, 2005

Rhetorical Devices Without The Rhetoric

I'm sure neurotoxins being sprayed at Fox Nooz (via the General) is a metaphor for something, but goddamned and jesus christ, I can't think of what that is.

Why Rush Limbaugh Should Have His Own Lipsuctioned Fat Shoved Up His Ass

Remind me never to go on vacations with Rush Limbaugh, man. Over the course of last week, Limbaugh referred to "Club G'itmo, the Muslim resort", y'know, cause those damned Mohammedans got two kinds of fruit and, you won't fucking believe how coddled they are, lemon chicken. Shit, i think they served lemon chicken once in my high school cafeteria. At least that's what they called it. Needless to say, some bitches were really sick after "Lemon Chicken Day." Here's a recipe for something that could legitimately be called lemon chicken, after all: Shit all over a chicken, and add the juice of a whole lemon. Let the bird roast in a chicken for a few hours. Serve. There's your "lemon chicken". The Oxycontin Boy Wonder even got t-shirts.

So all this leads to a question: where is Rush Limbaugh going for vacations? Is there a special room for vacationers to urinate or defecate on themselves? They get chained in the fetal position? Perhaps they get beaten senseless, like this soldier in a training drill. Maybe they have chemical irritant sprayed in their faces after being choked by water coming out of a hose. I'd spend more time wondering about how this cruise lines makes money, but, shit, whatever floats your boat.

But maybe it's just that Rush was too hopped up on "hillbilly heroin" to even remember what the hell a vacation is like, and is projecting any S&M fantasies he might be having onto this "vacation." Yeah, I'm gonna go with that. After all, oxycontin? It's an opioid. It numbs your senses, your inhibitions, shit, your conscience. In other words, it's perfect for Rush to keep on being Rush.

Dick Cheney: American Minister of Information

Remember Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf? The unshakeable Iraqi Minister of Information, who said, among other things, that Americans were "committing suicide under the walls of Baghdad"? We all had good laughs at his expense, because of how fucking ridiculous his comments were.

A few weeks ago, Dick Cheney said the Iraqi insurgency was in its "last throes." A few Republicans have come out swinging over this, but what does it say when our leaders lie like al-Sahaf? Should we laugh? Should we cry? Or should we just shake our heads and be scared that we re-elected these buffoons?

Friday, June 17, 2005

Of Course They Can't Let This Go

We're never going to hear the end of this, are we?

Of course not. Why drop it when you can just issue more slander? And of course it's not just Jeb involved here -- he's going to have all the support of DeLay, the Florida legislature, and Randall Terry (though Bill Frist apparently said "Can we please move on and forget I was involved in this, please?" before stopping himself from crying, for fear he might contract AIDS if other people started bawling around him). I suppose when you've lost this much standing over a single fucking issue, you may as well see it all the way through...

How many groups have they said "Fuck you" to over this? There's Michael Schiavo, the courts, the medical community, now the coroners...who's left? It doesn't even seem like they have any sort of a plan on this, just like they never had a plan on Social Security. It's all a big audible to the "culture of life," to distract us from real news (the runaway bride and missing Alabama girl surely helped, as did the Jackson trial, but now that's done).

In more Terri-related idiocy, Sadly, No! catches Michelle "Queen of the Wingnuts" Malkin just making shit up as she is wont to do.

Man, it must be sweet to not have to worry about credibility, integrity, or accuracy.

Operation Yellow Elephant

Jesus' General is organizing something we can all get behind. Go get 'em, College Republicans! You've got your talking points on terror. You discuss how Iraq is now securing a "free and prosperous future." Now it's time to help secure it.

You helped demand this war. Now it's time to help stem our recruiting problems. Go on, young soldiers. Just think about how good war hero cred plays in politics. Look at the Vietnam heroes who now run the Republican Party and its extension in the media: Rove, Cheney, Limbaugh, Bush, DeLay, Bolton, Hastert, O'Reilly...

Ah. And now it all makes sense. So much fucking sense.

Porn Stars For Bush

I was going to do something about the rank hypocrisy of the Republican Party, between JimJeff GannonGuckert and Mary Carey, but I just can't. Oh, did I want to have fun with this. We've moved beyond gotchas. It's not just that it's too fucking easy -- it's a sign of an infection in the body politic.

At least we can observe one thing from all of this -- George W. Bush is nothing if not our national fluffer:

We will stay on the offensive against the enemy. We will find them where they hide. We will bring them to justice. We will defeat them in foreign lands so we do not have to face them here at home.
Throughout the entire speech, Bush kept saying "No, yes, it's big, yes, you're so big, let me suck your balls, no, no, don't get soft, you're such a stud" to all of us, kept saying it as he sucked and stroked and licked. Can't you just feel the national dick puffing up, getting harder, becoming more Republican?

Ok, so no one said he was a good fluffer. After all, he's not one of the one who's been sucking a lot of administration cock for the last 5 years.

Thursday, June 16, 2005

Thomas Friedman is a Worthless Sack of Shit

Thomas Friedman, purported neoliberal, war on terror cheerleader, and overall fuckhead, has this to say inhis latest column, which may as well be entitled "Why I Am The Only Grownup Here":

Liberals don't want to talk about Iraq because, with a few exceptions, they thought the war was wrong and deep down don't want the Bush team to succeed.
For you see, in Thomas Friedman's world, as with those of most of the hawkish "liberals" (some actually are, but Friedman's only one for rhetoric's sake), it's more important to be right than to honestly assess the issue, especially with other people's lives at stake. He actually claims Iraq is "winnable," -- Friedman later says he "doesn't know if a self-sustaining, unified, and democratic Iraq is still possible," but this comes right after stating it's still "winnable," so what the fuck does he mean by "win"? If it's not, of course, it fucks him rather badly, heaven forbid, given his repeated insistance that we're about to turn the corner into a tipping point). To be fair, whatever value Friedman puts on "win", Iraq may well "winnable." But then he immediately goes on to ask "So...what do we do now to win, guys?" Friedman knows Iraq just has to be winnable. It must be winnable. Despite not knowing how it's winnable, if it's not, he's wrong. Friedman also doesn't know where to find good Iraqi political leadership, cause everyone's let him down but the Kurds, who remain on his Christmas card list.

But of course, this comes after claiming nobody except for him wants to talk about the issue. Conservatives, you see, suck administration cock on a regular basis (and this coming from a man who deep-throated the whole thing in the buildup to the war and its early stages, in other words, before things to hell. This is a man who wrote off the nonexistence of WMDs immediately, despite how it made us appear to be pulling reasons for war out of our asses (something which was, of course, confirmed), and who endorsed Ahmed Chalabi, cause he's nice and secular, a word which drived Thomas insane in bed. And those damn cowardly and intellectually dishonest liberals, well, they're more interested in being right than talking seriously about the issue. This, despite the fact that Friedman doesn't say anything useful or new in his column. The core problem was Rumsfeld fucked up by sending in too few troops? No fucking way! See, and here these liberals are too busy advocating a complete and utter failure (oh wait...we secretly want it "deep down," which means we're not advocating it except in that sinister, conniving way we tend to go about in) to really get down and talk about the issue. But in spite of not really knowing anything about possible options, Friedman knows we have to find Iraqi leadership, and that's about it -- remember, though, he's the only one that wants to seriously discuss the issue.

Good fucking god. But what can we expect from a man who came really, really close to blaming the victim over Gitmo in advocating it be closed? A man whose only problem with the excesses of Guantanamo is they have a "toxic effect on us - inflaming sentiments against the U.S. all over the world and providing recruitment energy on the Internet for those who would do us ill." Y'know, damn those squealing prisoners for helping those terrorist recruiters! Damn them for making Gitmo a rallying cry! And damn the sodomizing, urine throwing guards for their biggest crime -- dirtying up our pretty good name!

Friedman, you see, is almost kind of cute when it comes to his unwavering support for the war on terrah. He calls torture "immoral," but that's just in passing. No, Friedman's major concern is how bad we're looking to the rest of the world, not that, y'know, we're torturing people. With Gitmo, Friedman's more concerned with hiding the evidence than finding out what actually happened. And with Iraq, by god, he'll be vindicated, and it's less important to define what it means to "win" than to insist that we can in fact win.

Friedman helped create this, with the cheerleading and the repetition of administration talking points (disguised with some mild and ineffectual criticism here and there). He kept insisting America could do little to no wrong when it came to fighting terrorism, about how our mission was so righteous it would shine through. Ultimately, he can't be bothered to ever admit a mistake, though now, he's starting to throw short little jabs at it, to keep it off balance -- Rumsfeld's the core problem, we should have trials for the prisoners in Gitmo, etc. And that's good. But it won't do a damned thing now. The administration's shown us it'll lie to get us into an ill-planned war that'll kill thousands, and it'll shrug in response to torture, reminding us that, after all, these people are terrorists, subhuman, not deserving of rights. And throwaway sentences in a column or two won't affect shit when you're advocating for a coverup and fumbling around in the dark in a war zone. Jabs won't give you a knock out, they won't even keep you in the game if all you're doing is throwing them (unless you're Muhammed Ali, roping a dope, but Thomas Friedman is no Muhammed Ali...plus when thousands of lives are at stake, why would you waste time with the rope-a-dope?). No, what we need now is a couple of combinations followed by a massive uppercut, and he's too busy seriously talking about the issue to bother.

Friedman's a complete moral midget, but at least he exists on some sort of moral plane, unlikst most pundits. It's too bad he's also a useless, tiny little man, who can't be bothered to admit he was wrong.

Update: Arthur Silber channels Friedman and cuts through the bullshit to get to the true wankery.

Wednesday, June 15, 2005

Slander For Fun And Profit

From John Cole (who appears to be getting shoved kicking and screaming into the land of the shrill), apparently the autopsy of Terri Schiavo proves nothing. Nothing, I tell you!

Good lord, you'd think slandering poor Michael Schiavo were as necessary for these people to live as breathing at the rate they're going. Autopsy shows nothing? It couldn't possibly be that he didn't beat her, because we already know he did, evidence be damned! Motherfuckers...

Wankers

Here's the latest list of pro-lynching Senators, for those who're curious. Voinovich and Murkowski've cosponsored.

Taking a Break

Today's a busy day, so I'll leave you with this piece of wonky wankery: PNAC's apologetics for the Iraq war, from April.

Also, this is damned good news for getting these cuntlickers out of office.

Afterwards, see how the wingnuts, yet again, smeared poor Michael Schiavo. It also turns out Terri Schiavo was blinder than a bat with its eyeballs gouged out. So much for Bill Frist's magical cardiac surgeon powers.

Finally, see the Monkey President dancing with the dogfucker in Pennsylvania. Dance, bitches, dance.

Tomorrow: Porn Stars For Bush, and why Thomas Friedman is the most useless sack of shit sitting in the media toilet.

Tuesday, June 14, 2005

Justice, Pakistani Style

Nicholas Kristof is a ballsy motherfucker, more of a man than William Safire, David Brooks, Robert Novak, and all those other sons of bitches put together. See, Kristof not only takes on issues that need to be taken on, but he'll do the hardscrabble reporting, and travel to, for example, Darfur, a topic he was one of the first to start writing about. Sometimes he fucks that shit up: see almost everything he wrote on girl-purchasing, where he stroked his own ego a tad.

But all in all, we could use more people like Kristof, y'know, journalists, in journalism. For the love of god, though, when he starts talking about domestic politics, he becomes a gigantic mealy-mouthed tool, who gets upset when mean old liberals call Bush a "liar." For a good example, see Roger Ailes on Kristof attacking feminists over sex slavery.

But in his latest, Kristof isn't touching that shit. No, he's going after Pakistani President Musharraf. Now, the thing about Pakistan you have to understand is that it's one of the countries we like to call out for human rights abuses but continue to sell planes to, cause President Musharraf promises us he'll use that shit to get terrorists, not, say, to be used in Kashmir. It's a perfect example of the stone-throwing-in-glass-houses mentality of this administration when it comes to human rights, an administration that had the galls to claim in the same report that the only human rights violations in Iraq are the fault of the fuckin' Iraqis. So really, it's a good thing we're taking on Pakistan, even if it's only rhetoric, something they understand (and oh, do the people in Pakistan understand that it's only rhetoric).

So now here's Kristof, writing about what needs to be written, about how our friend Musharraf really, really needs to be smacked around a bit in reality, not just in words accompanied by winks and nudges. Because it's this kind of shit that exacerbates why in so many places, the United States is considered to be totally full of shit when we preach on and on about democracy and freedom and human rights. And can you blame them?

Michael Jackson's Penis: A More Powerful Cultural Force Than The Clenis

Finally, it's over. Not that this will stop masses from discussing how the jury was biased, how Michael only got off because he's a celebrity, and so on, without being able to point to, y'know, evidence.

But I just want to know: why the hell, as a society, did we care about this? Isn't it pretty obvious that it never mattered at all if Michael Jackson fucked a 13 year old or, well, LaToya or not? It matters if, and only if, you are that boy, Jackson, or someone emotionally linked to either the accuser or the accused. It makes no difference at all if it were alleged that Michael had his dick rubbed by Bubbles while moaning "Yes, stroke the King, stroke it" while thinking of his kid, blanket. It makes no difference at all in the larger scheme of things. It's nothing but a distraction. The problem is, of course, that the media loves nothing but to distract. And oh, did they ever, probably wronging Michael Jackson in the process of focusing on his every move and playing to those who knew, just knew, he was guilty, on the basis that he's fucking weird.

But now, it's over. Thankfully. Because there's important shit going on that would be overshadowed by Michael this and Michael that. Like, say, the discussion about closing Gitmo, an idea I've discussed before as being a horrible thing to advocate. Or, most importantly, John Conyers' hearing about Downing Street on Thursday. Even the three-days-after-verdict Michael's penis chatter can't distract from that...or can it? The media will do their best, assuredly, because, as Billmon notes, it'll cause them to admit they can quite often be shameless toadies for this administration.

Strange Fruit Planters

I'll post some more thoughts on the apology for not having taking action on lynching later, but first, who do you think those 12 scumbags are? You see, unlike Bill O'Reilly, we here at Uncivil Discourse have no problem with speculation, since we also have no problem admitting it when we make a mistake, unlike the previously mentioned asshat.

Some guidelines: the 78 co-sponsors can be found here and here, so it's probably not any of them.

My guess right now is that they include Lott, due to his strong affiliation with the Council of Up With White Folks, but I'm not sure whom else is a likely candidate. Really, anyone who's not on for sponsoring this should be kicked in the nuts, even if they didn't have an objection to voting for it.

And as for those assholes who'd rather pander to people who wish we could go back to this, well, frankly, they ought to be dipped in coal oil and slowly dropped into a fire, metaphorically speaking. These are probably the same fuckers who compared our opposition to Janice Brown to a "lynching," which I guess coming from them is a compliment. 'Cause, you know, denial of a lifetime judicial appointment is just like stringing someone up.

But this is all tied together. Perhaps protection of civil rights (including integrity in the judiciary, which has done more for civil rights than any other institution in this country over the last century) has always been like dunking the conservative movement, whether it's expressed by Democrats or Republicans, in a big fire after wrapping a rope around it.

Update: John gives the latest list of candidates.

Further Update: John is totally all over this...looks like some Senate staffers don't know it's not ok to lie to their bosses' constituents.

The Pigfucker and the Dentist

Surprise, surprise: Scum-sucking Bush administration toadie Norm Coleman did in fact sell his soul to a dentist for that sterling smile (thanks to reader Benjamin for the pictures). I suppose the new teeth were needed for him to suck all that cock more effectively. Otherwise some skin might've slipped up into the gap, and that, let me tell you, is no good at all.

It's just too bad George Galloway might have knocked a couple of those choppers loose when he delivered his mighty bitchslap last month. But hey, with that money Norm saved on the original dental work, I bet he got 'em fixed already.

What a fucking cuntrag. And not because of the teeth. Everything about him screams out "Use me to wipe your cunt!"

Final Thoughts On Howard Dean

Suppose you're in a street brawl. Let's say you fight using the Queensbury rules -- use a glove, don't hit your opponent when he's down, etc. A nice, fair fight.

What do you think your opponent's going to do? He's going to kick you in the balls, poke you in the eye, and beat the shit out of you while you're on the ground after he trips you. Maybe he'll break a leg or two before stomping on your hands. And it shouldn't be a surprise, because he's fighting to win, while you're pretending you're engaged in some civilized sport.

So as Biden, Obama, Richardson, Ford, and so on go on and on about how Howard Dean's lack of civility and general provacativeness is hurting electoral chances, maybe they want to look at the rules their opponents are playing by. Look at what they did to Max Cleland, look at how they questioned John Kerry's patriotism. Look at how they spread lies after lies about Bill Clinton and Al Gore. Look at how they're willing to call us racists because we oppose nominees who happen to be members of minorities. Look at how any criticism of the Iraq War meant you loved Saddam Hussein, wanted to really bond with the bastard. Look at how the AARP's objections to Social Security privitization caused an ad campaign targeting them, saying they wanted gay marriage.

And then look at how they respond when MoveOn.org, using George Soros' money, does, well, anything, while they'll milk Richard Mellon Scaife for all he can give. Or how they whine when Howard Dean opens his mouth, while excusing Dick Cheney for telling Pat Leahy to go fuck himself on the Senate floor. Oh, they can dish it out, but they can't take it. So let's shove it down their throats. They don't play by any civil rules, so why the fuck should we? That's what gets your ribs broken and your jaw swollen shut. We shouldn't try to move away from our anger. We should be angry. These bitches have destroyed what goodwill we had overseas while systematically looting this country and violating our basic principles. Fuck them, hard, and if anyone says otherwise, they can go fuck themselves. We'll kick them in the nuts if we have to.

Of course, that anger has to be channeled. Otherwise you're just spasming, throwing punches in the dark. But you have to fuck them up. Why else are you fighting?

So stop beating up on Howard Dean. Send him to where he needs to go. Make sure he's on target, but let him be angry. And you might want to round up some righteous anger yourselves, Democrats. There are no rules. This is politics, not cricket. They don't care if we call them on not playing by our self-imposed standards of decency. So what the hell are we doing? Finally, we have someone willing to brawl. Why on earth would you want to hold him back?

Monday, June 13, 2005

More Thoughts On The Cabinet Memo (Or Why The NYT Likes Pussy)

Oh, lordy, the second memo is good. Recall, if you will, the Downing Street Memo, which said in no minced words that not only did Bush have a major hard-on to go to war, but we were in the process of cooking the intelligence like you might cook a piece of rotting meat, with lots of spices so no one notices that it's, well, rotting:

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action....It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.
There's nothing new here, but of course, for those who are willing to be convinced, but it's all nice and official. It states nicely that Bush wanted to go to war, had to go to war, was in a rush to go to war, and all we needed to do was to justify it.

And on a slight tangent, this take is just fucking ridiculous. Anyone who's read the damned document knows that it doesn't say "They were preparing for war as if it were inevitable." Of course, you all know I agree with Kevin Drum, that there's not much surprising here, just like nobody was really surprised by the Pentagon Papers. The nice thing about this document is that it's what historians will use to condemn this cocksucker, to turn "Saddam made the decision to go to war" into "I am not a crook."

But what is it going to say when historians look at the press and their virtual lack of coverage, in favor of white girls going missing? That I'll be interested to see, and of course, conservatives will be out there decrying how the press turned the public against the war. This war is Lebanon on the ground, but it's definitely Vietnam politically.

And that's the telling thing about this new memo. Sure, it says even more explicitly that we didn't give a fuckall about the postwar: "A post-war occupation of Iraq could lead to a protracted and costly nation-building exercise. As already made clear, the US military plans are virtually silent on this point." This is, of course, nothing new, and I don't think it'll change anything in terms of public opinion. After all, listening to Perle, Wolfowitz, and those other motherfuckers, you'd think we were going into France in 1944 to kick out the Germans, what with the sweets and the flowers that were going to be thrown at us as we walked on cake. Where are those goddamned rose petals now, Rummy, huh? And it says that, to a large degree, we didn't give a rat's ass about even trying to justify it beyond the already-established stovepiping before Tony Blair decided that the Brits needed to save at least some face. Shakespeare's Sister breaks it down a little more.

But how is this being covered in the press is interesting. Particularly given this particular journalistic turd, compliments of the anus of the New York Times. "Prewar British Memo Says War Decision Wasn't Made"? Please. The memo, right in the damned beginning, says
"1. The US Government's military planning for action against Iraq is proceeding apace. But, as yet, it lacks a political framework. In particular, little thought has been given to creating the political conditions for military action, or the aftermath and how to shape it."
Can we all read that? When, taken in conjunction with Downing Street, doesn't that entirely kill the thesis that "the decision wasn't made"? If I had a subscription to the Times, this would make me cancel it. Fortunately, I haven't wasted money on them since before Judith Miller decided to be Ahmed Chalabi's echo chamber.

But now imagine what the headline would be if, instead of dealing with a war that the Times had helped pimp, it included something about Bush having sex with interns? Especially if it involved, I don't know, a cigar sex toy? Wouldn't this just be everywhere? Would the Times run a headline saying "British Memo Reveals Bush's Feelings On Cigars in Pussy"? Ok, probably not, and not just because the Times can't use the word "pussy."

And that's the entire problem. This scandal needs more pussy or more money. If we had either, by god, Bush would've been impeached last week and we'd have nothing else in the news, except for maybe a bit of Michael Jackson, because that's the celebrity equivalent of pussies filled with money. And that's why, ultimately, it seems this will go nowhere, to the same place that the other Bush scandals went, to vindicate those of us written off as conspiracy theorists in the eyes of history, and to show to posterity just what a cocksucker Bush is. Because the media will never, ever learn that, perhaps, if you keep getting diseases from fucking a particular whore, you should maybe stop fucking her. They're perfectly content to be on a constant stream of antibiotics, even if it means their dicks burn like the dickens.

But it's nice to dream, isn't it? And there are still some unanswered questions, particularly, what the fuck were they thinking? Why was there such a rush? What was the hurry? So let's all thank John Conyers for making sure this gets into the spotlight, for having hearings, just so it can all be fleshed out. This might get shunted off into history, but by god, you'll have to fight to throw it there. We'll grandstand and we'll use it, and maybe we'll swing a few votes here or there. Because now we can use the word "lie," even if the press won't, and if they try going off at us for it, we can shove these memos right up their collective ass. And maybe, eventually, if we keep this in the spotlight, something will come up that the media decides is worth its time to report. Because there is one more question that's important, for both posterity and for ourselves, and it's why all this shit happened. I don't know if there are any answers in the offing, but we still need to look.

Update: Digby nails it as usual.

Liberal Media

The New York Times has an article on the latest British memo, with headline "Preware British Memo Says War Decision Wasn't Made."

Huh? As the Times of London put it, "The briefing paper is certain to add to the pressure, particularly on the American president, because of the damaging revelation that Bush and Blair agreed on regime change in April 2002 and then looked for a way to justify it."

Oh, wait: "While the latest memorandum appears to have been written by a British intelligence official after a visit to Washington, the central fact reported - that the American military was in the midst of advanced planning for an invasion of Iraq - was no secret. The New York Times published details of that plan two weeks before the memorandum was written."

So fucking worthless.

On the subject of this new memo, some, including our friends over at The Daily Pepper think the right tack to take is the one the AP did, showing how Bush didn't plan at all for the postwar situation. But, um, isn't that something we all knew already? When they were going around talking about how it would be a cakewalk, isn't that just a little bit of a hint that we weren't planning? And isn't it clear that we went in with too few troops, etc? I can't see how this is anything at all new...

Why Charles Bird is a Simpering Imbecile

Most recently, he repeats the claim that Mugabe is Pol Pot simply "without re-education camps." Charles was also one of the morons who took Amnesty's report, which discussed talked about extraordinary rendition and how we hold "ghost detainees," and became outraged at the fact that Amnesty compared Gitmo to the Soviet gulags. So despite the fact that we're playing right into the hands of the types of people Charles would declare to be "Islamofascists," at least we have a resounding victory in the War on Metaphors.

Thus we can conclude that Charles Bird needs to get a room somewhere with the Powerline folks. A room that's locked from the outside and far, far away from everyone else.

Why Bill O'Reilly Needs To Be Sodomized With Several Microphones

On Friday's O'Reilly Factor, the top two stories were Missing White Girl #34983. This featured the quote, "Natalee Holloway is the all-American girl, a good student, good daughter, good friend. Her disappearance is simply horrible. And most parents feel the pain of her family. We can all picture that happening to us."

Then there're two on fucking Michael Jackson, including one which probably discussed how prisoners really are coddled, despite their claims otherwise (there's no transcript, but this is Bill O'Reilly we're talking about). This is largely because Bill has no problem with the idea of a large, muscular man coming up to him and forcefully sodomizing him until he bleeds after gagging him with a falafel. Afterwards, there's a flashback segment entitled "Is cheerleading too sexy?" This presumably involved a healthy argument over "breaking it down".

When O'Reilly starts "discussing the sexing up of high school cheerleading with our guests," I tend to think the discussion would go in a way that would violate certain decency laws, don't you? And there's a theme here, because he's also talked about Paris Hilton and Lindsey Lohan this week.

On Thursday, O'Reilly started by talking about how Howard Dean "can't help" being "nonsensical." And for the past few weeks, he's been calling for Dean to appear on the O'Reilly Factor. Wednesday also featured O'Reilly's claim that "There is no question that America's image in much of the world is bad. That's caused by a dishonest press, combined with President Bush's passive public relations stance." Passive in the sense that the syphilis-ridden prostitute who's riding you is passive, sure. On Tuesday, O'Reilly called Joe Biden an "enabler" of "jihadists" for making "every small scandal" into a "page one story or a book."

Come to think of it, maybe several microphones isn't enough...after all, this is the same O'Reilly who promised to never trust the Bush administration again if WMDs didn't materialize, who constantly decries the lack of attention paid by the media to stories that concern you, yet who focuses on Michael Jackson instead of, say, the Downing Street Memo, and who constantly compares Michael Moore, abortionists, and Al Franken to Nazis while bemoaning how he's slandered and attacked by his opponents.

And what was featured Friday on "The Radio Factor"? Hour 1: Missing White Girl. Hour 2: Michael Jackson. So where are the claims about how Natalie Holloway was molested by Michael Jackson before he organized her school's trip to Aruba so she couldn't testify against him? Come on, Bill, bring it all home.

Update: s.z. notes this part of Thursday's "Talking Points Memo": "As you may know, we do not speculate here on "The Factor." We have no idea what happened to Natalee or why she left the bar with some Aruban men. I've heard some irresponsible media speculate about that, and it makes me angry." But speculating that they actually did sometihng to Natalee (which he does by characterizing them as lowlifes) or, for that matter, almost anything else O'Reilly has ever said, is totally ok.

Sunday, June 12, 2005

This Isn't Nixon Redux, It's Worse

The Downing Street Memo is not, in of itself, especially important in terms of public opinion, as I argued earlier. After all, I find it really fucking hard to believe that almost everyone who is willing to be convinced does not already know in their heart of hearts that Bush willfully "misled" us into going to war. What Downing Street does is confirm that he out and out lied like Richard Helms in front of Congress, not just was "deceived by the overwhelming body of evidence.".

But the media won't use the term "lied," not while he's still in office, which just goes to show how liberal the media is given how they went on, and oh, did they ever go on, about how Bill Clinton just couldn't stop lying. And as much as I hate to break it to the poor saps laboring to get Bush impeached, it's not going to happen, regardless of what evidence we can accumulate regarding Iraq, primarily because the Republicans that get elected are two-bucks-a-fuck whores.

Now, don't get me wrong -- Downing Street should be covered, because it's actual news (though it unfortunately doesn't involve missing white girls). It says a lot about the media that it's been more or less glossed over and that as soon as the Michael Jackson verdict is revealed, or another wealthy white girl goes missing, it'll be shunted to page A20 or whereever the fuck it is that stories that get ignored go.

But this (via All Spin Zone) is something completely different. Here we have another British memo claiming that Britain had to, to quote the BBC, "sex up" Iraqi intelligence (and remember what the BBC went through because of that?...Instapundit was all on that one). I'll leave the details of Blair's complicity in this murderous con game aside, because the Brits are the ones who'll have to deal with him.

Here, what it seems is that Bush decided "Fuck, I'm gonna go git Saddam...yee-haw, I'm a cowboy!", told Blair of this and that we were gonna use the UK's bases, and Blair said "Yes sir, thank you sir" and went about doing his part. So ultimately, this is a revealing look not just into how Bush views war, but how they view the law. After all, treaties we're party to, including the UN charter, are "the highest law of the land," even under the most originalist view of the damned Constitution (unless you feel the Founders were using some fucked up reverse psychology none of us can understand). Not only is Bush the future convict that says "I know what the law is, but fuck it, I wanna murder me some folks" he goes around telling potential accomplices "You're gonna say fuck the law, too, or you're getting shanghaied," while Tony Blair responded "Yes sir, thank you sir, may I have another?" What would we say about a criminal like that? Wouldn't we throw the book at them? Wouldn't they become right-wing poster children for why, despite the endemic of rape, prisons "coddle" prisoners (which I think says something about how they view anal violation)?

And now George W. Bush should, in a world with a media that did its job and with a Congress that cared about such antiquated notions as checks and balances, be in a worse position than Tricky Dick was in the summer of 72 (which is only fitting, given that even such an avowed Nixon hater as the late Hunter S. Thompson wrote that he would vote for Dick over his political heir). After all, we knew Nixon lied -- but there wasn't evidence he went out of his way to flount the law. No, that only came with the dirty money scandal that finally let us get rid of him. But for Bush, not only did he lie, he went out of his way to sodomize the physical embodiment of law, just like, say, Florida 2000. And he won't go down for this, because we won't demand it (what does it say about us if our leaders are guilty of mass murder?), because Congressional Republicans (and many Democrats as well) are spineless cocksuckers who won't admit they made a mistake, and, finally, because there's no money or pussy involved. On the other hand, if we can find money or pussy, or, better still, pussies filled with money, somewhere...

But maybe, just maybe, the media and the public, both of whom wet themselves at the idea of war back before things started going poorly, will finally, at long sweet last, learn that you should be careful about drinking anything a cheap hooker gives you.

Wait, what's that! I think I hear about a missing white girl that may have been molested by Michael Jackson! Onto more important things...

Late Night Book Recommendations

The Pinochet File, by Peter Kornbluh. It's chock full of declassified documents detailing just what a shithead Henry Kissinger is, and why he ought to be tricked into going to Belgium (much as Bill O'Reilly should, in a just world, be repeatedly sodomized with a microphone, or, for that matter, anything else that's handy...but more on Falafel Boy on Monday).

Friday, June 10, 2005

Linkage

John Cole notices Sam Brownback placing a "hold" on Bush's nominee for ambassador to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe because she's pro-choice and wonders where the intellectual consistency is. Rhetorically, of course.

And John, no, we're only required to back off criticizing someone's avowed "firm religious beliefs" when they square with what the religious right declares as true religion. Otherwise, you're "afraid" to go into your own Church (see John Kerry) or something similar like this. Being pro-choice obviously means you're flounting the One True Interpretation, so there's no need to give it respect.

He also has a good link discussing Helms' refusal to disavow his segregegationist past, along with his own commentary. The comments section also has some decent discussion.

But what really bothers me about Jesse Helms is how he continues to say things like "Until then, it had been my feeling that AIDS was a disease largely spread by reckless and voluntary sexual and drug-abusing behavior, and that it would probably be confined to those in high risk populations. I was wrong." Because AIDS would be ok if it had stayed with the faggots and junkies, given how Helms and Reagan had a policy of ignoring the issue altogether.

There's a good post here, via Atrios, on why we should never, ever give a shit about anything that fuckhead Jesse Helms has to say.

Finally, Billmon (twice) gives a different view of Dean's adventures in chairmanship. And he makes some very good points. While I still don't think Dean's shooting from the hip or, really, botching things as bad as some have made it out to be, we'll see what the follow through is. It's all in risky waters -- with the proper followup, it could pay some great dividends, but if there's just an incoherent mix of denunciations and half-hearted support along with a lack of focus on the agenda, it'll be exactly what people are saying it is, a big mistake.

Do I think Dean was ad-libbing his "white Christian" remark? Well, maybe, but I still think he knew what he was saying and what the reaction would be. It's not some codeword. He knows what he's doing, but it's not some Grand Master Plan. I think Dean's understanding of the nature of the media is what's giving him the confidence to shoot off these remarks. And my enjoyment of Dean so far is not only derived from his flipping off of the fuckers that be. But given the current climate, I can't see how we can't have someone who's willing to fight fire with fire. Even if he is the chair, it can't hurt, since regardless of what we do or say, the minions over at Fox Nooz will ask why we hate America so, and Wolf Blitzer will nod and smile along. If we can maintain some semblence of party discipline, Dean'll have been justified in that confidence, because then he's the lightning rod (not, say, a future presidential candidate), and meanwhile, nothing's distracted from our agenda, because we've constantly emphasized that nobody is saying anything different except in terms of diction.

Of course, any plan that requires the Democrats to maintain party discipline is probably doomed to failure.

Update: John links to this article, in which Dean says "You know, I think a lot of this is exactly what the Republican want, and that's a diversion." And that's true. What I would really like from Dean is more of the Today show-ish comments, where, rather bluntly, he called out the Republicans for what they are rather than making some pithy comments. But at least, for once, we've got someone who isn't so afraid of kowtowing to the sensibilities of Bill Schneider that he'll run circles around himself to appear civil. Now to harness that...

Cambodian Holiday

Robert Mugabe is not Pol Pot. Not the fuck at all. In fact, he's completely goddamned different. I'm glad you've all seen The Killing Fields (though apparently you didn't really pay much attention), but, yes, Pol Pot engaged in genocide. In fact, he did more than just target a particular group, such as the Chams; the cocksucker sought to kill everyone that wasn't a Cambodian Khmer. That's some ethnic cleansing. Not only that, but there was out and out ideological cleansing, too. Anyone who might possibly have been "tainted" by the West was summarily shot (there's a damned fine anecdote about a group of Vietnamese Khmers who defected from the South Vietnamese Army to try to hook up with the Khmer Rouge, who proceed to execute them for a) being Vietnamese and b) having been corrupted by Americans). Mugabe is not engaging in genocide. Rwanda was an attempted genocide. Zimbabwe is not Rwanda, any more than the fighting in the Congo was genocidal. No groups are being targeted for extermination. He's not even rounding up people to be shot, not even on the bases of having glasses of speaking a foreign language.

Of course, I only noticed right-wingers (as a group, there are of course individual exceptions) getting up in arms over Mugabe when he started repossessing the land of white farmers. (To be fair, Joe Katzman at Winds of Change is not a right winger. Apparently he just feels really really bad about The Killing Fields.) Which fits a pattern, given they only got up in arms over Darfur when evangelical Christian groups started getting bothered that it was, in fact, Christians in Darfur who were being attacked by the janjaweed, and they only got irritated at the gross human rights abuses of the Taliban after they supported a bunch of folks who flew planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Even when the Talibs bulldozed the statues of Buddha, there was a collective shrug (to be fair, from most people in the country, not just right wingers).

And yes, it is true Pol Pot shipped fuckloads of Cambodians out of the cities to work in the fields, to help further his insane Maoist fantasyland. This is one tactic he used. Mugabe, however, is not a Maoist, and he's not engaged in any sort of ethnic cleansing (because if he were, by god, you'd hear the conservatives go on about the poor whites being slaughtered in the streets...it'd bounce off every wall).

It's about corruption, through and through, and nothing more. It's tragic, yes, of course, but don't compare it to Cambodia, for the same reason Elie Wiesel refused to indulge in Holocaust comparisons after he toured refugee camps in Macedonia. One doesn't need to draw analogies; horror is horror. The horror of Kosovo can stand on its own ground, as can the horror of the killing fields, the horror of Rwanda, or the horror of Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe. There's no need to draw forth external contexts. Mugabe is starving his own people for political purposes. He's destroyed almost all of Zimbabwe's social infrastructure. He's taken what was one of the best educated countries in Africa and run it into the ground for his own glory. He's a complete scumbag. But he's not genocidal, and it's fucking inappropriate to compare him to Pol Pot.

But I don't know if we can expect much more from a group that calls feminists "feminazis" or refers to abortion as "The American Holocaust." Remember when Grover Norquist compared the "fairness" of the estate tax to "the morality of the Holocaust"? It makes sense. I'm sure you can see the analogy. After all, the government chooses to take money only from certain extremely rich dead people, and the Nazis chose to round up only the Jews, homosexuals, and Gypsies (and a few other groups, like Slavs, etc) to be thrown into the death camps. Perfectly analogous, wouldn't you agree?

Or how about when Bob Novak said, on the Democratic proposal to not filibuster certain judges, "[It's] like going to a concentration camp and picking out which people go to the death chamber. You're not going to let the Democrats do that, say, We're going to -- we're going to confirm this person, we're not going to confirm the other person." So fortunately for Judges Brown and Owens, they can stay on the train past Auschwitz. Unfortunately for the others, they get to go to the gas chamber, compliments of Harry Reid. It's a fairly common rhetorical device for these fuckers. Godwin's rolling in his grave.

Christ, and they get all pissy when Amnesty makes a piss-poor comparison of Gitmo to the gulags. It's not like they haven't been doing the same or worse for ages. Only just recently we've seen the Khmer Rouge's ascendency blamed on those who opposed Nixon.

It's also funny when they go on about how Amnesty and other human rights groups have been too busy attacking America to take notice of the real tragedy in Zimbabwe. Y'know, except for all of the actions Amnesty has taken against Mugabe and for the whole section of the 2005 report on Zimbabwe.

I've said it before: we need to be more responsible with our comparisons. Amnesty calling Gitmo "the gulag of our time" was stupid for rhetorical purposes, but it was also idiotically inappropriate, particularly given there are worse excesses the US engages in (see extraordinary rendition). But these fuckers will go on about that while simultaneously doing the same thing, or often, worse. These comparisons cheapen horrors we need to understand and learn from. Why can't they listen to Elie Wiesel? These analogies aren't necessary. Show some fucking restraint, you cockmongers. Maybe if you actually gave a shit about human rights (because anyone who thinks Bush is some sort of crusader for human rights worldwide clearly doesn't), you would know better. I'm glad you're paying attention to the problem, whatever it is that it took, because this shit's important. But don't pull this type of crap while you're at it; it's not necessary.

And for those of you who are interested in learning more about the tragedy in Cambodia, I suggest reading The Road to the Killing Fields: The 1970-1975 Cambodian War by Wilfred Deac and The Pol Pot Regime: Race, Power, and Genocide in Cambodia Under the Khmer Rouge, 1975-1979. For Zimbabwe, this is a brief but good starting point, including an unflattering comparison of Mugabe to the apartheidist ruler of Southern Rhodesia, Ian Smith.

Thursday, June 09, 2005

Talk About Your Satisfying Mental Images

Publius Pundit, who is becoming a very good friend of Brad and Gavin over at Sadly, No! has a post entitled "Mark Steyn On Fire." That would be the poor American soul born into a worthless Canadian body Mark Steyn, author of America Alone: Our Country's Future as a Lone Warrior. Of course, I really doubt Mark Steyn is literally on fire, but this is something we should change (after all, he is a "columnist extraordinaire" according to Powerline, and so we wouldn't want him cooling off).

Why should we change the fact that Mark isn't on fire? That's easy: the shitmonger's latest is entitled "The jihad's spin doctors go to work on Guantanamo Bay." If there's anything else that needs to be said, let me know, but if this isn't flame-worthy, well, as best as I can tell, there's no real pressing need to take a microphone to Bill O'Reilly anus.

I've got the gasoline and disease-ridden whores if someone's got a car and matches. Shit, Mark would then be able to warm the bodies of homeless Canucks like he's warmed the hearts of us, his true countrymen, for so long.

Howard Dean Just Doesn't Give A Shit

It doesn't matter if you think he's a fuckup, a poor fundraiser (a claim which is, incidentally, completely false), someone who can't keep his mouth shut, or anything else. Howard Dean just does not give a shit about what you have to say. Following the lead of Al Gore as a failed presidential candidate who's no longer in public office, Dean is breathing fire and fucking shit up, but without having been shunted off into the corner.

Dean's learned how the game is played, you see. He understands the 24-hour news cycle. He understands the election cycle is never ending. He understands that Republicans don't give a shit what they say about us. They'll say we kill babies gleefully. They'll say we have treason ingrained in our bones. That we're really a bunch of racists who can't stand to see minorities in positions of power. That we are either welfare queens or have inherited our money. And they'll do it with a smile on their face, while Wolf Blitzer stands there and asks how much further he has to deep throat Ken Mehlman before he gets a cookie.

Dean also knows that, in the end, it doesn't matter how nice he plays. We're not in power. The media likes power. We're not going to be treated the same way. We make inflammatory comments, and the faux outrage comes a-pouring. It's not a level playing field. So fuck it, Dean says. We're going to be treated like we hate America anyway -- let's kick the Republicans in the balls a few times. And it gets better, because he's not exaggerating or lying. No, Dean's telling the truth. He's pointing at motherfuckers and saying, "Look, these douchebags fuck their mothers." And he's getting the media to play those tapes of him calling the Republicans exclusive, monolithic, and out of touch over and over again while they talk about how out of control he, as an individual, is. But his quotes don't overshadow the party's agenda. He's talking about inclusion, about real, not just show, diversity. He's talking about looking out for the working person, about not wanting to be a theocracy. This isn't a "gulag" comment, letting everyone ignore the rest of the game. It's forcing the game in your face.

Case in point: on the Today show, Dean said "They have used words like quota to try to separate black from white Americans. They did scapegoat gay Americans by putting an anti-gay amendment on it--in 11 states where gay marriage is already against the law. And they are attacking immigrants. Two--two Republican congressmen, Jim Sensenbrenner and Tom Tancredo, have incredible anti-immigrant legislation. This is not the way America needs to be." And all of this is true. But there's no weasel words here. Dean, avoiding the exile given to Al Gore, is unloading both barrels, causing him and his words to be the story. Which is exactly what it's going to have to be.

Oh, and for anyone who thinks this is causing some sort of a schism (or, as The Man Who Should Be Sodomized With Whatever's Available said, "making some Democrats nervous"), see John Edwards' reaction, which, if we as a party have any sense, will become standard:

Howard and I have been saying the same thing about this for years. Hear that? The same thing. For years. Have I ever put it some way that Howard wouldn't agree with? Probably. And he put it in a way, once, just the other day, that I can’t agree with, since I come from a place where hard-working people, who are better served by the agenda and passion of the Democrats, somehow still vote Republican.


Dean's doing his job. He's stirring up the base. He's raising money. And best of all, he's being entertaining. It's satisfying to see someone stand up there and call shit as it is. The others can dance around. Dean won't have any part of it. We knew what we were getting with him. And he's being everything we'd hoped he'd be.

While I didn't want him running for president, by God, I wish we could've seen him debate Bush. That would've been a site to behold, Dean bending Dubya over the podium, making him squeal like a pig.

You might feel he's not the best choice for chair. That's fine. You might wish he'd dial it down just a little bit. That's fine too. And you might think his strategy isn't the best one. But don't question his ability to work. Because Dean has one thing to say to anyone who thinks he's not doing his job or that he doesn't know what he's getting into, and it's "Fuck you, I don't give a shit what you have to say." Amen, brother, amen.

Wednesday, June 08, 2005

Wingnuts On Parade

1) Why Bill O'Reilly Needs To Be Sodomized With A Nightstick: Bill O'Reilly had this to say about Gitmo: "The entire Gitmo situation has been driven by the anti-Bush press and the far-left human rights organization. As Talking Points has mentioned, there have been abuses, but not many. A Pentagon report found that there have been 28,000 interrogations at Gitmo over the past three years, and only five cases of Koran abuse. You can't fight a war on terror when every small mistake is magnified into a page 1 scandal."

Apparently, Qur'an abuse is the only type of abuse that occurs. Not, for example, "strangulation, beatings, placement of lit cigarettes into the detainees' ear openings and unauthorized interrogations." The fact that a lot of these things haven't been showing up, over and over again, on Page 1, is a sign of the bankruptcy of our media. Torture should be a goddamned Page 1 scandal. Fuck the Qur'an abuse, even, because as I've said, I don't give a rat's ass about it other than as a specific example.

So here's what we do. We send Bill to Guantanamo, copy of the Qur'an in hand, and subject him to strangulation, beatings, and we'll place a lit cigarette into his ear opening. Even better, we'll keep stuffing falafels up his puckered little asshole until they come out his mouth. None of that is an abuse, though: we'll leave his Qur'an alone.

2) Why Ann Coulter Is A Slimy Toadcunt, Part...oh, whatever, like this series has an end: Because she seems to think the UN Ambassador is part of the federal judiciary. The rest of the column is some nonsense about how unfair it is that Republicans in the Senate get abused by those vicious, snarling, unified Democrats, and this is why it was so sniveling of the seven Republican compromisers to want to strike a deal to keep the filibuster. Ann goes on about how the Senate is a virtual apartheid regime based on party affiliation. Google can't find me any instances of Ann getting upset when Republicans were filibustering Clinton's nominees. So I suggest not reading the column, which consists of the ravings of a demented toadcunt whose mind is too covered in slime to function.

3) Why Rush Should Have Shared Some OxyContin With His Bro: David Limbaugh shows that, much as some conservatives can watch The Killing Fields and be experts on the Khmer Rouge, he can do a Google search for quotes from The Gulag Archipelago and truly understand what torture and hell on earth are. Though I suppose given that Rush's productivity never slowed down while he was doped up, getting David stoned wouldn't help shut him up, either. Damn. Well, hopefully he'll overdose or something.

4) Why John Stossel Should Just Be Put Out Of Our Misery Already: The ever fabulous s.z. does her thing. To be honest, I can't think of a punishment for Stossel that's fitting. Any ideas?

5) Why Instapundit Gives Anyone Who Wants To Be a Law Professor Hope: Instapundit notes that "pharmacists enjoy a government-created monopoly on the dispensing of prescription drugs." But as reader Quasispace notes, this is far, far less of an issue than the damned monopoly on medical treatment obtained by those "doctors." Curse their priviledged position!

Note: Instapundit is, in full context, claiming that pharmacists should have to swallow a pill and dispense contraceptives. But being Instapundit, he just couldn't be not stupid for an entire post.

6) George W. Bush pretending to have soul or, really, to like black people who don't just smile at him.