Uncivil Discourse

Because civility is overrated.

Tuesday, August 30, 2005

Back

Internet access finally back after moving a week ago. Blogging will resume later tonight tomorrow. Other work caught up with me. Two posts tomorrow, then.

Wednesday, August 24, 2005

Tourette's Is A Bitch

So, batshit insane fundie monkey Pat Robertson, upset that he hasn't been in the spotlight for a while, said it would be a good idea for the US to assassinate Hugo Chavez. Robertson's stated reasons? Well, for one, apparently Chavez is an exporter of not just Communism, but also Islamic extremism! Also, apparently the Monroe Doctrine gives the US the authority to do whatever shit it wants to in Latin America (a theory which we have run with ever since those words were laid down by James Monroe, to the great detriment of pretty much everybody but a few oligarchs), and when you couple that with the fact that Venezuela has oil, shit, nigger's gotta go!

Robertson, who is nothing more than a turd with eyes all a-squinty, is, as we all know, a grade B attention whore. Sure, he used to be at the top of the list, but he's been replaced by, well, another motherfucker who prefers beating his dog to owning a racehorse. It has to make you wonder why people still pay attention to him, when he goes on drooling in that self-righteous, nasal, way, accent and content reminiscent of nothing more than a slaver owner. And the answer, of course, is that Robertson's colleagues, the religious right, are nothing short of clinically insane, with some sort of condition analogous to Tourette's: you have no goddamned idea what shit is going to spew out of their twisted, smug little mouths. And Robertson, in particular, has refused treatment for so long that he's got less control than the bloated corpse of Jerry Falwell.

Cause, if I'm not mistaken, if Pat Robertson were named Mohammed Bokhari, we would've labeled that motherfucker's comments as an insidious "fatwa" and denounced terrorism one more time. It's the same sort of thing as the death sentence given to Salman Rushdie, which conservatives love to hang over the head of Islam. After all, it's not like batshit whackjob Christian leaders ever did the sort of thing batshit whackjob Muslim leaders have, now is it? Oh, townhall.com would be full of dipshit ramblings about how Islam is a wicked faith and how we cannot abide by these terrorist comments. Instead, expect a number of motherfuckers, Ann Coulter's saggy, smelly cunt among them, to lead to Robertson's defense. Principle is not something in the wingnut arsenal.

But it's a good thing others of us have it, or we might push to say that Pat Robertson's sorry ass should forfeit his right to free speech, in much the same way conservatives go on and on about any public figure that offends their oh so delicate sensibilities. After all, Robertson's urging the US to engage in terrorism solely because it's "cheaper than starting a war" (something Pat might want to keep in mind next time a broke-ass group like the Palestinians engages in terrorism rather than trying to fight a full out war against one of the best equipped armies in the world). And he's pushing for something that's patently illegal, thanks to a few executive orders. We could line up and down to condemn him, to ask that he be sanctioned. It's just too bad Robertson isn't as fat as Michael Moore, or we could really mimic the right. It would be a grand, grand spectacle, but it's one that we won't engage in, except for one thing: when it's not their speech that's under fire, the right likes to remind us that free speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences. And so, let us say one final "Fuck you" to bitchass motherfucker Pat Robertson and anyone who buys what the dirtbag has to say or who defends him.

And meanwhile, Hugo Chavez had the best response one can have to someone who acts the bully out of a desperate need to relieve his shame over his small, small little penis. Remember what your mom said about those little pissants back in elementary school? All you need to do is ignore the bitches. And Chavez's comment? "I don't even know who that person is." Ouch.

Monday, August 22, 2005

The Show Must Go On

After weeks of ignoring Cindy Sheehan, our little organ grinder monkey president has decided it's time to go on tour to do on a larger scale what he couldn't take 10 minutes to do in a one on one chat. He's gonna stand up there in front of wildly masturbating pre-screened crowds, who will be jerking around like a bunch of Pentacostals who think they've been possessed by the spirit of the Lord. The old Dionysiac mysteries won't have anything on the sheer cultishness of it all, except that the women involved will have just been let out of the house by their husbands, the sort of misogynistic fuckers who would support John Roberts for Associate Justice. Also, less gay sex, for obvious reasons.

They'll be wanking and wanking until they can't wank anymore, living the old Andrew Dice Clay joke about how he started masturbating when he was 12 and by the time he was 14 he thought he'd broken the thing. And before them all, pleasuring himself until even the most skilled fluffer can't get him another go, will be our fearless leader. He'll compare the Iraq war to World War II -- after all, don't you remember when the Iraqi insurgents bombed Pearl Harbor? Then he'll compare the process of building the Howevermanyfucking Billions of Dollars Iraq to the building of this country, just like Dick and Donny have been doing (nevermind that we're the redcoats there). And to top it all off, he'll start chanting "9/11 9/11 9/11" until he hits that final, orgasmic note, spewing his manhood all over the thrilled audience. And then it's onto the next city, with an icepack on his crotch, to repeat the whole thing over again.

Because, after all, there's nothing left to say. When you can't sit down with a single person to give a statement, however brief, of why we went to war, what else can you do? That speaks louder than all of the soundbites you can manage to throw around. When you need a crowd that already approves of you to be able to feel like you're not bombing, you're already well past the point of bombing, as any standup can tell you. The brilliance of what Cindy Sheehan did is right here: she showed that the president and his handlers know perfectly well that her son died for no reason. Whatever else you think of her motivations, that fact is front and center. The president of the United States, the man responsible for us going to war, could not produce a reason for it other than "We just gotta stay the course." And that's why the circlejerk must go on: as any horny teenage boy knows, there's nothing like a good masturbation session to take the mind off what ails you.

Wednesday, August 17, 2005

Justice Peppermint Patty

Is it me, or does John Roberts have the same goddamned twerpy little smile in every picture? Sure, sometimes his mouth is open, sometimes it's closed, but it's always there, annoying the hell out of me. It's rather similar to that smug little smirk El Presidente displays whenever he's not looking like a frumpy chimp, an organ grinder's monkey after you don't toss a few coins his way.

There's a couple of articles up on Slate about Roberts, discussing how the man's been forming his entire record so that he would be able to sit on the Supreme Court one day. Didn't the right go into convulsions because Al Gore, and well, John Kerry both just seemed like they'd always wanted to be president? I'm just sayin'. Anyway, the Slate articles discuss whether or not this means Robert would be a prudent justice.

Me? I'm with Pat Leahy. See, the problem with going out of your way to not really take a stand on anything is that you end up not taking a stand on anything, so when you say shit, it sticks. Like, say, endorsing funerals for fetuses as a way of bringing attention to the abortion "tragedy." Now, if that isn't an idea to warm the cockles of Rick Santorum's heart, I don't know what is. Somehow, the media and the right want us to think that this is not significant, at all. Nor is it supposed to be significant that Roberts didn't exactly oppose violence against abortion clinics, even though, yes, he didn't excuse it, either.

In fact, based on everything the Bush administration has seen to leak out of its gigantic anus about Roberts, the one thing that becomes more and more apparent is that when he wasn't being an equivocating weenie, he, as a political appointee, mind you, went above and beyond what was required; the Operation Rescue case being a prime example. Sure, we don't know how he'd vote on a number of cases, because he's done his best not to commit a lot; everything here can be run around with a simple "Oh, I was just advocating on behalf of my client." But at some point, coincidence becomes a trend. If he had just argued on behalf of the Reagan and Bush administrations to the extent of what was required, fine, there's not a lot to be drawn from that. But, shit, if this is the call of duty, Roberts was way the fuck over there, repeatedly.

And even if that's not convincing, we sure as hell know how Roberts would vote on one area. He'll proudly support the Bush administration's ability to do whatever the fuck it wants in the name of the "global struggle against terror" or whatever it is they're calling it now. If that's not a reason to oppose Roberts, you're probably not going to agree that anything is.

George Bush's Monument to Himself

Yep, that's right, shit's still blowing up all nice and good in Iraq. It's a fucking good thing the insurgency's in its last throes, isn't it, Dick? Also, aren't we all glad that campaign of shock and awe worked? Shit, motherfucker, without all that shock and awe, think of where we'd be now.

Remember back in March, when Bush, in his weekly radio address that nobody other than Ken Mehlman's mom listens to, talked about how "freedom is on the march" throughout the greater Middle East? Ok, sure, so you don't have to remember that: it's one of the stock platitudes this president trots out whenever he needs to say, well, shit, anything, along with "Tax cuts are good," "The economy is growing," and "I think about Iraq every day."

One wonders, of course, if this is the face of freedom. Perhaps it's just the natural end result when one resented schmuck of a leader is replaced by another; Saddam didn't give a shit about his people, and well, George W. Bush doesn't really give a shit about the Iraqi people, his protestations about loving freedom not withstanding. Shit, George W. Bush doesn't give a shit about our own soldiers: why else did his administration keep resisting giving our troops armor and why else did they not send more troops in the first damned place? Were they afraid of our entire armed forces being buried alive under an avalance of thrown flowers and sweets? And if this hadn't been patently clear before, it should be now, with the fact that this man cannot even look Cindy Sheehan in the eyes and explain why he feels we should stay in Iraq.

Because you know what? There isn't a fucking reason that we're there anymore besides "We broke it, now we gotta fix it," and if you listen to the screeching hordes on the right, shit ain't even broke. And the we broke it line may have to do, because I sure as hell don't know what to do right now. But when a president stands up there and repeats some nonsense about how we have to stay the course, and when the entire right wing creams themselves for the opportunity to call him "steadfast," "courageous," and "a visionary," one would think they could defend that position other han taking it as self-evident. One would, of course, be wrong.

And that's why images like this will be George Bush's monument to himself. That's why so many people are flocking to Cindy Sheehan's cause. What does it mean to send off a bunch of young men and women to die for a fabricated war that gets dragged on for no reason other than that we started a war for no reason? It means you can't look at her in person and explain your actions. Michelle Malkin said on Bill O'Reilly's show (entitled "Why I Desperately Need To Be Violently Sodomized With A Microphone") that "I can't imagine that Casey Sheehan would approve of such behavior, conduct, and rhetoric." That well may be, but I can't imagine Casey Sheehan would approve of this president, as detached from reality and isolated from contrary opinion as any Roman Emperor, not being able to tell his mom why he died. Can you?

Tuesday, August 16, 2005

No, No Media With A Clue Under Here...

Charles Gibson: "The virus was designed to burrow into the Windows 2000 operating system...a reminder of just how vulnerable even the most secure computers are."

You may commence laughing.

Monday, August 15, 2005

SUNDAY SUNDAY SUNDAY (Part Deux)

I was going to post on the right-wing circlejerk that occured, this weekend, but the Apostropher makes that entirely unnecessary (via Sadly, No!).

Sunday, August 14, 2005

Since It Came Up

I would like to stress that when I call someone a media whore, or a media motherfucker, or a media cunt, I fully mean that they are a whore, motherfucker, or cunt that happens to be a member of the media. There's no softening of the pejorative intended. And they can all go fuck themselves. If they don't want to, I'll be more than happy to do it, but oh, will it not be fun.

Tacitus, on the other hand, is not a media whore. Nor is he your run of the mill whore. I've got a nice long string of adjectives to put his whoredom in context, just the way he likes it, but I need to run out the door, and there's too many of them. Perhaps when I get back. For the time being, he can shove metaphors up his ass until the cows come home, because he doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about. Big surprise.

Friday, August 12, 2005

Media Cunt Of The Week

Jeff Greenfield, who's sitting on CNN right now talking about how Cindy Sheehan is only opposing the war because of the primal fear of losing a child, and how absolutely no one can sympathize with her for hating the fact that she lost a child in a war that gives new meaning to the word "unnecessary."

Shit, he just discharged something comparing Iraq to World War I.

What NARAL Should Have Said, Or Why John Roberts Doesn't Belong On The Supreme Court (One Of Several Reasons)

This week, I've been blogging about the anti-Roberts NARAL ad, and why I think it shouldn't have been used in the first place. Shit, don't think that I don't understand where it's coming from. After all, there's been a veritable bevy of Democrats starting to pander to the anti-abortion mob, including one of my old Senators. And, shit, it's not like this is anything new. After all, Democrats are responsible for the odious Hyde Amendment, and several have shown no compunction about throwing a few sops to the religious right in the hopes of looking more moderate (ie, more Republican). So it's good to try to make abortion an issue, if only to make sure the Democrats don't take women's uteruses for granted.

But I still think the ad sucks. See, it's wrong. And the fact that it's wrong, and coming from a liberal group, means ABC and NBC News spend time on their broadcasts focusing on it and how it's wrong. Whoever said there's no such thing as bad publicity is a fucking moron. This makes us look like liars. And yes, there's a horrible double standard here: nobody on the TV news spent time discussing how goddamned awful and manipulative the Swift Boat liars were. They, of course, instead just kept inviting them on to repeat their bile. The Swifties did what they did because they had nothing else on John Kerry. They had to keep repeating the mantras of "flip-flopper" and "not really a hero," because how else do you attack a war hero who's always, throughout his political career, led the assault against the worst excesses of government?

And this ad makes it look like we've got nothing else on Roberts, when in fact we've got enough to fill the overly sodomized ass of Antonin Scalia's wife. You want reason one why John Roberts isn't fit to sit on the Supreme Court? It's the NARAL ad, but without the cheap shot about Roberts "excusing" anti-abortion violence. See, Roberts hasn't given any indication he excuses violence -- but he hasn't fucking gone out of his way to oppose it, either. Hell, this standard isn't good enough for the right when it comes to Muslims, so why is it good enough when it comes to a Supreme Court judge?

After all, Operation Rescue was going all out in trying to incite violence against abortion clinics in the hopes of forcing them to shut down, thus giving Randall Terry control over women's uteruses (and is there truly a more disturbing thought than that?), and in this case, they were suing to get around a law, originally meant at the Klan, that got in their way. There's no reason why the Solicitor General's office needed to get involved -- and remember that Roberts was a political appointee, appointed to help form this type of ideological/legal position. Somehow, I don't see the Bush Solicitor General's office intervening similarly on behalf of an environmental group, do you?

There were, of course, solutions that protected abortion clinics while accepting the anti-Klan law didn't apply. Guess what administration passed laws like this? That's right, that of the Clenis. Despite their protestations now that Roberts' brief was only legal, that's not shown by the facts. To start with, Roberts was involved, and his job was to deal with those cases that weren't purely legal. No, the administration truly did side with the neanderthals at Operation Rescue (calling them barbarians is an insult to the Vandals). Nothing they said supports a claim that they "excused" anti-abortion violence, but they sure as fuck didn't oppose it, either. They even trotted out the same arguments as those who opposed anti-lynching laws, and those motherfuckers sure as hell wanted the right to keep stringing up some niggers who got uppity, didn't they?

It's a slight difference from what NARAL claimed, sure. Perhaps one could claim it doesn't really fucking matter, because it's so slight an issue. But it's still a false statement, not merely one that's below the belt. And you know what really makes it bad? We have to hew closer to the line of truth than the right does, because, as mentioned before, in their quest to appear "fair and balanced," the media does all it can to examine us more critically than the right. And yeah, it's not fair, and yeah, they're a bunch of whores who, if the revolution ever comes, deserve to be at least some of the first to be up against the wall, but it's how it is. We have to deal with it. It's a good thing that, unlike our counterparts on the other side, we've actually got support for our positions that we don't have to pull out of our asses. And I'm worried the NARAL ad, as slightly off the truth as it is, helps undermine that. John Roberts truly does not deserve to sit on the Supreme Court. But in an era where Clarence Thomas is a Supreme Court justice, and possibly the next Chief Justice, we have to make sure we don't lose what weapons we've got, because that by itself won't convince the Senate to not vote for him.

Wednesday, August 10, 2005

Advice For The Anti-Roberts Forces (Part II)

Yesterday, I started discussion NARAL's ad concerning John Roberts and abortion. And here, finally, is the problem: the ad is slanderous, because it states that Roberts' ideology excused violence against abortion clinics. And, who knows, perhaps the bastard is twisted enough that he does excuse such a thing. But I don't know that, and based on what NARAL's stating, they don't know that, either. The issue at hand is a brief Roberts wrote while working for Bush's Pappy. In it, Roberts sided with one of the biggest scumsucking shitheads around, a bottomfeeder's bottomfeeder, a man Anntichrist S. Coulter has always had wonderfully fond words for, one Randall Terry, the founder of Operation Rescue and hottest potential candidate for Florida State Senate.

This is a man who has said that if he were in power, he would "hunt down" and "execute" abortion providers, and who has called for violence against abortion clinics. The claim, then, is that by sharing common cause with Terry, Roberts was excusing his action. Can anyone tell me how this is fucking different than claiming that John Kerry and Jane Fonda were bosom buddies because both opposed the Vietnam War?

And that's the problem. This ad is in the same domain of truth as those types of right-wing claims. It's exactly the type of thing we would, and for good reason, get pissed about if the right were doing; shit, we did get pissed about it when the right did it. And it's not something we should be mimicking. It's not like there's a shortage of things to attack Roberts on, even with regard to abortion. By just making shit up, we'll be helping to ensure that Justice John Roberts helps further the result in Hamdan and other cases, letting the Bush administration shove its hands right up your ass, airport security style.

Additionally, anyone who's talking about Roberts possibly "being too Catholic" when it comes to issues like Roe need to go sit in the corner, masturbating until they orgasm some sense into themselves rather than wanking in public. Being Catholic doesn't make one hostile to women's rights; being a conservative can. John Kerry's a Catholic. He's pro-choice. Roberts isn't conservative because he's a Catholic, he is a particular type of Catholic because he's a conservative. It's never a problem that someone is Catholic. The problem is that he's a right-wing shithead who interprets Catholicism as a right-wing shithead would.

Other post promised today tomorrow; unexpected events tied up my day. But go read this. It's beyond comedy gold. It's comedy platinum.

Tuesday, August 09, 2005

A Word of Advice To Those Stepping In To Oppose John Roberts

On the network news tonight, I saw that NARAL had put out an ad concerning John Roberts and abortion. And oh, was I happy, for if you recall, making a lot of noise about Roberts' record regardless of the decision to filibuster was what I suggested we do, so that everyone knows what we know, that while Roberts is no Bork, he's at least a nutty Rehnquist (and remember, Rehnquist was a co-founder of the goddamned Federalist Society).

And for sure, there are a number of things to be mentioned about Roberts on abortion, many of which have been put forward by Democratic golden boys like Chuck Schumer. There's his record as the political deputy to one Solicitor General Ken Starr. There's his tepid response to Dick Durbin during his 2003 confirmation hearings, which could easily mean either that he realizes that as a circuit court justice, he's bound by precedent (unlike as a member of SCOTUS) or that he intends to try to slowly chip away at Roe (since overturning Roe v. Wade would be one of the worst things that could happen to the leadership of our Republican Party, to which Roberts is as loyal a buttboy as Uncle Clarence Thomas is to Scalia). And there's his service at the feet of Rehnquist, who dissented in both Roe and Casey. So I was looking forward to an ad that mentioned these, to make sure it got out there, and then to hammer it in.

But, alas: the ad is a piece of shit. No, it's not that it's rude: look who's talking. I'm all for rudeness, for saying those things that make the punditocracy squirm and whine about how a line was crossed. What's not cool, however, is slander, or things bordering on it. Willful disregard for the facts, man. Don't say things that are just fucking wrong, and don't tiptoe around stating the truth. That's the difference between what Bush's lackeys were claiming the Swift Boat shitheads were saying and what they were actually saying, for example. One's legitimate and necessary, the other's just a cheap shot.

More tomorrow: the power flickered while I was writing this and I lost about a half hour's writing. Also tomorrow: Bush and Cheney and Rummy's monument to themselves, largely carves from blown up carcasses.

Monday, August 08, 2005

Email Surprise

So today, I got an email from Family Research Council wonderboy Tony "I Swear I'm Not The Psycho Guy" Perkins. True to his protestations, Tony is not stabbing anyone in the shower: he's asking me for support for Justice Sunday II.

That's right. Remember that extravanganza of a flop the FRC put on with Bill "The Catbutcher" Frist and James "My Combover Shows How Much Dignity I Have" Dobson, back when they were extolling the horrors of the filibuster, which, if you listened to them, was apparently as much of a threat to our way of life as abortion and Muslims? They're putting on a goddamned sequel. If I were The General, I'd have a witty sendup of this in movie tagline form, but unfortunately, I'm not.

Still, though...damn. Isn't this fucking awesome? They're even keeping the name, for that redneck monster truck rally feel. And you don't have to wait long: it's this weekend. The speaker lineup is also excellent: Zell "No, I'm Really The Only True Democrat In Existence" Miller, the aforementioned dogbeater Dobson, Chuck "I'm Still Getting Over Being Sodomized For Richard Nixon's Sins" Colson, Phyllis "Despite What I Say When I Quote Things, I Swear I Know How To Read" Schlafly, and the one and only Bugman himself, fresh from discussing how talking about how we "evolutionized" led to some school shooting somewhere.

So this little shitfest of a circlejerk is definitely on, trying to rekindle the discussion over filibusters. They're even still going on about how we must stop the "filibuster against people of faith," despite the fact that I'm sure many of Bush's nominees who were confirmed, y'know, had faith. Unless they're saying it was a special kind of faith that made Miguel Estrada not want to turn over documents, which, given these fuckers, seems spot on with their form of religion.

To prepare, Perkins wanted to know if we could help pray. First, we should pray that the speakers are anointed as prophets. Second, we should pray that the media doesn't succeed in its Satanic purpose to completely demoralize and undermine the Forces of Good, otherwise known as James Dobson's schlubs. The media, it seems, is actively trying to "foment division" and "release discouragement" among pro-family (but only for straights, goddamnit) communities. As a result, we need to pray that the media coverage is both honest and favorable.

Shit, I'll pray for the first, but I'm pretty sure that excludes the second. The passage Tony decided to use as a reference for this prayer request was Nemeiah 4:1-6, which discusses how the heathens ridiculed the Jews who were building their wall. Apparently the wall against the filibuster is being built, and the media is the Ammonites. Or something. I don't fucking know what kind of metaphor Tony's trying to draw, but I'm sure it's good. After all, God is speaking through his giant anus, right?

Coming Later

Lack of posting last week was due to unforseen events. Two posts coming tonight.

Tuesday, August 02, 2005

That Design's Just Stupid

Oh, lordy, lordy, lordy. So our president, who wants to be remembered as the "education" president, has decided the best way to continue giving science the middle finger is to get it early -- he's declared that he wants all our kids to be fucking stupid. That's right, he think it's a good idea to teach intelligent design creationism alongside evolution in biology classes. As PZ Myers put it, "It's only a small fillip on the vast rococo monument to incompetence, anti-science, and lies that the Republican party has erected over our country."

But, you might be asking, why is this so bad? After all, it's another theory, right? What could be wrong with presenting it in a science class? Why can't you, as one reasonably prominent conservative blog (via John Cole) show why there is no controversy, why ID and evolution don't contradict each other, while even explicitly stating that ID isn't a comparable scientific theory to evolution? The problem is this: your punk ass would be specifically talking about ID in a science class, as a theory, even if not a science class, which in of itself gives it credibility it doesn't deserve and shouldn't have. ID should not be mentioned anywhere near science. Shit, if a theory's a bad scientific theory, that's one thing. Mention it in class and point out its problems all you want. This isn't even that. Calling IDC "science" is like calling watching your friend fuck a blowup doll with your hands tied "having sex." It's not the same thing. It's not anything you could even plausibly describe as being similar to the same thing. If you want to do that, talk about naturalism in general and why it's essential to the very idea of science. Don't mention ID except as a form of creationism. Just in passing, nothing more. Again, Myers puts it perfectly:

And that is what should be taught: teachers, we need to get in front of our students and expose them to both sides. We need to stand up and plainly state that creationism is a lie and any attempt to incorporate faith and the supernatural into science is as destructive to the enterprise as would be requiring religion to provide concrete, repeatable tests of their beliefs.
And whether or not this conservative blogger is right on Bush wanting IDC to be discussed in the context of "origin of life," let's not forget it's creationism. The designer is God. Who else could it be?

So, Bush wants our kids to be stupid and have no idea what science is. This shouldn't surprise anyone. After all, he wants our kids to grow up to be cheap labor, to be mindless soldier drones ("bad apples," if you will), and, most of all, to vote Republican.

Post about the Church of Bush coming tomorrow, I guess.

Update: Question asked by Protein Wisdom updated to more explicitly capture the nuance of his position. My reaction remains.

Monday, August 01, 2005

Mustachioed Motherfuckers at the UN

So, Bush decided in the end it was more convenient just to appoint John Bolton, possibly the biggest motherfucker in the administration lineup, to the UN via a recess appointment rather than, y'know, cooperate with the requests of the Senate, something we're seeing with the John Roberts nomination as well.

John Bolton is, as stated above, a motherfucker of legendary proportions. This is a man, after all, who was one of the biggest supporters of Robert Bork's nomination to the Supreme Court, a man who was as complicit in the Iran Contra coverup as anyone this side of Oliver North: a perfect fit for this administration, run by motherfuckers for motherfuckers. This then just puts him in the ranks of other similar Bush recess appointees, like segregation-loving motherfucker Charles Pickering, son of motherfucker Eugene Scalia, cruel and unusual punishment loving motherfucker William Pryor (as "activist" of a judge as they come), and death squad loving motherfucker Otto Reich. See, when it comes to numbers, Bush has 106 recess appointments in less than five years, including an entire commission when it was suggested some Republicans didn't want to go along with the base closings plan. Clinton, by contrast, had 140 in eight years, the highest profile of which was Ron Brown's replacement as commerce secretary, the same month Brown died.

Fortunately, these appointments do have to get confirmed by the Senate at some point. Otherwise, shit...I can't even imagine who Bush might try to put where, all the while telling us, in his full capacity as fluffer-in-chief, about how much his appointees love freedom and have support in the Senate anyway. After all, recall what Condoleeza Rice said about John Bolton: "John Bolton is personally committed to the future success of the United Nations and he will be a strong voice for reform at a time when the United Nations has begun to reform itself to help meet the challenging agenda before the international community."

Of all the loads of shit to come out of the mouths of this administration, saying someone who's said if the UN building were to lose 10 floors it wouldn't matter is committed to the success of the institution might be one of the biggest, right up there with that entire speech Bush gave in support of the Family Marriage Amendment. This seems natural, of course, given that the entire rationale for why Bolton should be UN Ambassador was twofold: 1) he was appointed by Bush, and 2) he apparently has never given a foreign leader a bukkake alarm clock. Correct me if I'm wrong, but were any other reasons ever given at all? I mean, this is a guy whose departure from a group makes things better (via Pepper). If we were really the partisan tools the right would have you believe, wouldn't we be jumping up and down that Bush has chosen an absolute incompetant to be his guy at the UN?

But hey, he also apparently forced his wife to swing back in the late 70s. So that's something, and I expect the fine folks at townhall.com, especially the Virgin Ben Shapiro, to address why Bush is setting such a horrible example for the children, just like they roundly denounced Bill O'Reilly. I swear to god, it never ceases to amaze me how much these Republicans do everything they can to make Michel Foucault laugh his heavily sodomized ass off in heaven. The avowed homophobes and opponents of postmodernism prove one of its leading lights, a homosexual's homosexual, completely right. Go figure, huh?

Update: Pepper notes Fox Nooz's take on the matter, which is, of course, to blame Bill Clinton.