BUSHIES: BUSH IS STILL A BETTER PERSON THAN YOU, YOU MISERABLE WORM
Legend has it that after Elvis Presley died, his manager, Colonel Tom Parker, was asked what he intended to do and he said, "Well, I'll just keep on managing him!" George W. Bush hasn't actually died, but he is a private citizen now -- and apparently his acolytes and coat-holders have similar plans.
In the Daily Beast, Mark McKinnon, a former Bush media adviser, writes about the mood on the Bush plane as it left Washington yesterday -- and uses his opportunity to reminisce to remind us, as so many other fans of the ex-president have of late, that we peasants weren't worthy:
...The group of 100 or so watching, of which 100 percent were George Bush supporters, all offered their enthusiastic applause for the new commander in chief. Not to say there weren't some critical reviews of the speech, complaints about taking unnecessary shots, and grousing about borrowed ideas, but there was an absence of malice one normally sees among the constituencies of the vanquished....
... while I expected the president’s mood to be defiant, bitter, defensive, or vengeful toward his critics, he was anything but. As he toured the cabin of the airplane throughout the flight, visiting with old friends, family, and staffers, he was filled with equanimity, grace, and a generosity of spirit.
...And while I’m reluctant to quote the president directly from private conversations, I think I can fairly report that he feels a genuine warmth for President Obama....
And it's nice to see that while some partisans have yet to sheath their swords, Obama too has warmed to President Bush during this period of peaceful, diplomatic, and graceful transition. He now believes, as does anyone who knows President Bush, that he is a "good guy" and that "he made the best decisions that he could at times under some very difficult circumstances."
I also know the Obama team has deeply appreciated the degree to which President Bush and his staff went out of their way to make for a smooth transition.
...There was a lot of talk of old days and old times. About how eight years had flown by. About how children had grown. There was no high-fiving or celebration. And no weeping or whining....
OK, OK, Mark -- you and every other Bushie believe that George W. Bush is the living embodiment of moral decency and his critics aren't fit to lick the dirt off his cowboy boots. And his aura is such a force for good that those of you who are his followers are equally morally superior and high-minded.
You know what? We get it. We know you believe this.
Now will you all please stop? Sometime in our lifetime?
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
THE INSANE CONSPIRACY THEORIES NEVER STOP
You know those pending regulations the Bush administration pushed through in its last days -- the ones that have now been put on hold by the Obama administration?
Well, what no one is telling you is that the decision to put the regulations on hold was an attempt by Barack Obama to prevent an investigation into his eligibility to be president!!!!
Obama Cancels Bush Exec Order to Review Qualifications! ...
The order went out shortly after Obama was inaugurated president.... It's urgency may have been to head off the Executive Order filed by President Bush on Jan. 16, 2009: 'President George W. Bush enacted an Executive Order providing for, in part, "Reinvestigating Individuals in Positions of Public Trust." ... The Order provides in pertinent part that, "It is necessary to reinvestigate individuals in positions of public trust in order to ensure that they remain suitable for continued employment."
YIKES!!!!
... Or, um, perhaps not. The text of the executive order is here. The order actually focuses on mid-level bureaucrats and federal contractors, not elected officials -- the full title is "Granting Reciprocity on Excepted Service and Federal Contractor Employee Fitness and Reinvestigating Individuals in Positions of Public Trust." A brief article explaining the executive order is here.
If anything, it appears intended to reduce the number of reinvestigations to which federal workers are subject -- so you'd think, if Obama had a sinister purpose (and if this even applied to him), he'd actually want it to stay in effect. But the facts aren't going to stand in the way of a PUMA/Freeper/Paulbot freakout.
Ah well, it guess it keeps them from wandering aimlessly in the streets.
You know those pending regulations the Bush administration pushed through in its last days -- the ones that have now been put on hold by the Obama administration?
Well, what no one is telling you is that the decision to put the regulations on hold was an attempt by Barack Obama to prevent an investigation into his eligibility to be president!!!!
Obama Cancels Bush Exec Order to Review Qualifications! ...
The order went out shortly after Obama was inaugurated president.... It's urgency may have been to head off the Executive Order filed by President Bush on Jan. 16, 2009: 'President George W. Bush enacted an Executive Order providing for, in part, "Reinvestigating Individuals in Positions of Public Trust." ... The Order provides in pertinent part that, "It is necessary to reinvestigate individuals in positions of public trust in order to ensure that they remain suitable for continued employment."
YIKES!!!!
... Or, um, perhaps not. The text of the executive order is here. The order actually focuses on mid-level bureaucrats and federal contractors, not elected officials -- the full title is "Granting Reciprocity on Excepted Service and Federal Contractor Employee Fitness and Reinvestigating Individuals in Positions of Public Trust." A brief article explaining the executive order is here.
If anything, it appears intended to reduce the number of reinvestigations to which federal workers are subject -- so you'd think, if Obama had a sinister purpose (and if this even applied to him), he'd actually want it to stay in effect. But the facts aren't going to stand in the way of a PUMA/Freeper/Paulbot freakout.
Ah well, it guess it keeps them from wandering aimlessly in the streets.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
THE CORPSE OF OUR DEAD LEADER WILL SAVE US!
How pitiful are right-wingers on this day? Here's Jeffrey Lord of The American Spectator hoping to rally the troops by imagining an inaugural address delivered today by -- yes -- Ronald Reagan from beyond the grave:
... There is, it turns out, a heavenly White House. Roomier than the one at 1600 Pennsylvania, it is built to accommodate former presidents who have left the proverbial mortal coil behind....
To the irritation of some and the amusement of others, former President Reagan was concerned enough about the direction of current events to pen what some of his peers began referring to ... as "Reagan's Third Inaugural Address." ... Not surprisingly, someone got a hold of a copy and leaked it to the media down here.....
The "speech" itself is the same old rant against corrupt big-government appeasenik Democrats, put in the mouth of a corpse.
It compares the New Deal to slavery:
...2009 is not 1933. We must be candid that retreating to the provably failed big government answers of eight decades ago is no more of an advance than summoning forth the philosophy that once insisted slavery was both an American value as well as a constitutional right.
It blames the breaching of the levees in New Orleans on Democrats in the local government (Army Corps of Engineers? What Army Corps of Engineers?):
It is still remarkable to me that yet another governmental disaster that was Hurricane Katrina seems not to have caused any wonder at all about the situation the good citizens of New Orleans found themselves in before the hurricane -- a situation that involved a city run completely by liberal big government principles even as those principles shortchanged residents with everything from bad schools to bad housing to, tragically, abysmally bad levees that were supposed to protect the people.
It invokes the Smoot-Hawley tariffs -- twice. It describes the Dred Scott decision as "big intrusive government," as if slavery was somehow an add-on to the Constitution. And it declares that "the tide of history is -- yes, even to this day -- moving in the direction of conservatism."
This is how righties buck themselves up: one of them volunteers to don a turns and conduct a sad, pathetic seance, and the others weep at what they've lost. This is all they've got.
How pitiful are right-wingers on this day? Here's Jeffrey Lord of The American Spectator hoping to rally the troops by imagining an inaugural address delivered today by -- yes -- Ronald Reagan from beyond the grave:
... There is, it turns out, a heavenly White House. Roomier than the one at 1600 Pennsylvania, it is built to accommodate former presidents who have left the proverbial mortal coil behind....
To the irritation of some and the amusement of others, former President Reagan was concerned enough about the direction of current events to pen what some of his peers began referring to ... as "Reagan's Third Inaugural Address." ... Not surprisingly, someone got a hold of a copy and leaked it to the media down here.....
The "speech" itself is the same old rant against corrupt big-government appeasenik Democrats, put in the mouth of a corpse.
It compares the New Deal to slavery:
...2009 is not 1933. We must be candid that retreating to the provably failed big government answers of eight decades ago is no more of an advance than summoning forth the philosophy that once insisted slavery was both an American value as well as a constitutional right.
It blames the breaching of the levees in New Orleans on Democrats in the local government (Army Corps of Engineers? What Army Corps of Engineers?):
It is still remarkable to me that yet another governmental disaster that was Hurricane Katrina seems not to have caused any wonder at all about the situation the good citizens of New Orleans found themselves in before the hurricane -- a situation that involved a city run completely by liberal big government principles even as those principles shortchanged residents with everything from bad schools to bad housing to, tragically, abysmally bad levees that were supposed to protect the people.
It invokes the Smoot-Hawley tariffs -- twice. It describes the Dred Scott decision as "big intrusive government," as if slavery was somehow an add-on to the Constitution. And it declares that "the tide of history is -- yes, even to this day -- moving in the direction of conservatism."
This is how righties buck themselves up: one of them volunteers to don a turns and conduct a sad, pathetic seance, and the others weep at what they've lost. This is all they've got.
THEY STILL DON'T GET IT
Barack Obama delivered an inaugural address that promised Keynesian economics, green energy, a focus on the economic condition of the non-rich, more careful regulation of markets, respect for the rule of law in the conduct of foreign policy, renewed use of diplomacy, and the honoring of real science -- sentiments his speech tried to present as fully within the American grain, and as fully consistent with a strong defense and overall economic prosperity.
No one who's been paying attention to Obama for the past two years should find that the least bit surprising -- and yet, apparently because he didn't come out in a dashiki and a bandolier saying "Kill whitey!" and "Off the pigs!," the folks at National Review's Corner are scratching their foreheads ... and some of them are imagining that a crypto-Republican got elected by mistake.
Mark Krikorian: I've got to say, he knows which buttons to push. Mentioning Khe Sanh with Concord and Normandy signals he wants to be above the culture wars. Whether it's true or not, we'll have to see, but it's a good start.
Cliff May: Most of what he is saying could just as easily have been said by John McCain or Mitt Romney -- or Ronald Reagan.
Pete Hegseth: His speech ... could have -- in large part -- been given by John McCain, George W. Bush, and Ronald Reagan.... President Obama re-affirmed the threat we face, and our need to defeat it -- signaling that we will continue the Bush policy of treating radical Islam as an enemy, not a police action. He also called for individual action, not government solutions, in light of the economic ills we face.
David Freddoso: From a friend in California who voted for Obama, but is not necessarily comfortable with left-wing politics: It is nice to see people who, I think, have been reluctant to do so in the past, so unabashedly express their love for this country and for the principles upon which it is based....
K-Lo: I, too was relieved to hear this ... : "We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you."
No matter how many times Barack Obama insists that, as far as he's concerned, significant moves to the left of Bushism/Cheneyism are patriotic and pro-American, the right hears pro-America and imagines ... itself. The right can't even conceive of a pro-Americanism that isn't right-wing. More specifically, the right can't imagine that a guy who thinks Al Qaeda is the enemy might also want to (at least sometimes) respond to terrorism with law-enforcement tactics, or that a guy who asks for individual sacrifice still intends to (at least sometimes) wield big-government power to solve domestic problems.
To right-wingers, it's all or nothing, so they don't even hear what Obama is actually saying. This is why he's always able to keep right-wingers off balance, an ability he'll probably never lose.
Barack Obama delivered an inaugural address that promised Keynesian economics, green energy, a focus on the economic condition of the non-rich, more careful regulation of markets, respect for the rule of law in the conduct of foreign policy, renewed use of diplomacy, and the honoring of real science -- sentiments his speech tried to present as fully within the American grain, and as fully consistent with a strong defense and overall economic prosperity.
No one who's been paying attention to Obama for the past two years should find that the least bit surprising -- and yet, apparently because he didn't come out in a dashiki and a bandolier saying "Kill whitey!" and "Off the pigs!," the folks at National Review's Corner are scratching their foreheads ... and some of them are imagining that a crypto-Republican got elected by mistake.
Mark Krikorian: I've got to say, he knows which buttons to push. Mentioning Khe Sanh with Concord and Normandy signals he wants to be above the culture wars. Whether it's true or not, we'll have to see, but it's a good start.
Cliff May: Most of what he is saying could just as easily have been said by John McCain or Mitt Romney -- or Ronald Reagan.
Pete Hegseth: His speech ... could have -- in large part -- been given by John McCain, George W. Bush, and Ronald Reagan.... President Obama re-affirmed the threat we face, and our need to defeat it -- signaling that we will continue the Bush policy of treating radical Islam as an enemy, not a police action. He also called for individual action, not government solutions, in light of the economic ills we face.
David Freddoso: From a friend in California who voted for Obama, but is not necessarily comfortable with left-wing politics: It is nice to see people who, I think, have been reluctant to do so in the past, so unabashedly express their love for this country and for the principles upon which it is based....
K-Lo: I, too was relieved to hear this ... : "We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you."
No matter how many times Barack Obama insists that, as far as he's concerned, significant moves to the left of Bushism/Cheneyism are patriotic and pro-American, the right hears pro-America and imagines ... itself. The right can't even conceive of a pro-Americanism that isn't right-wing. More specifically, the right can't imagine that a guy who thinks Al Qaeda is the enemy might also want to (at least sometimes) respond to terrorism with law-enforcement tactics, or that a guy who asks for individual sacrifice still intends to (at least sometimes) wield big-government power to solve domestic problems.
To right-wingers, it's all or nothing, so they don't even hear what Obama is actually saying. This is why he's always able to keep right-wingers off balance, an ability he'll probably never lose.
HEY, DOWNTRODDEN, WHERE'S YOUR SENSE OF FAIR PLAY?
Mona Charen, writing for National Review and pretending, not very convincingly, to feel good about the transition:
I did not vote for the man who today becomes the 44th president of the United States, and in fact, advocated for his opponent. But I am not immune to the happiness of those who did support him, particularly African-Americans, and -- to slice it a little thinner -- particularly older African-Americas who actually lived through the contempt and cruelty of Jim Crow America. I do not for a minute deny the symbolic greatness of the moment, and despite my wariness of President Obama's policies, it makes me happy to see so many of my fellow Americans in a celebratory, patriotic mood. (If the shoe were on the other foot, however, I doubt that they would reciprocate these sentiments.)
Yeah, that's right -- I bet those damn Obama supporters, particularly older African-Americans who actually lived through the contempt and cruelty of Jim Crow America, would be disappointed if we'd elected another rich right-wing white guy who had no interest in making life better for blacks and the less fortunate. The ingrates!
Hell, I bet those older blacks would have been more than disappointed forty years ago if Bull Connor had won the Nobel Peace Prize! I'd bet they actually would have been angry! And wouldn't a little graciousness in response to an award like that just have been a simple matter of reciprocity and fairness?
Mona Charen, writing for National Review and pretending, not very convincingly, to feel good about the transition:
I did not vote for the man who today becomes the 44th president of the United States, and in fact, advocated for his opponent. But I am not immune to the happiness of those who did support him, particularly African-Americans, and -- to slice it a little thinner -- particularly older African-Americas who actually lived through the contempt and cruelty of Jim Crow America. I do not for a minute deny the symbolic greatness of the moment, and despite my wariness of President Obama's policies, it makes me happy to see so many of my fellow Americans in a celebratory, patriotic mood. (If the shoe were on the other foot, however, I doubt that they would reciprocate these sentiments.)
Yeah, that's right -- I bet those damn Obama supporters, particularly older African-Americans who actually lived through the contempt and cruelty of Jim Crow America, would be disappointed if we'd elected another rich right-wing white guy who had no interest in making life better for blacks and the less fortunate. The ingrates!
Hell, I bet those older blacks would have been more than disappointed forty years ago if Bull Connor had won the Nobel Peace Prize! I'd bet they actually would have been angry! And wouldn't a little graciousness in response to an award like that just have been a simple matter of reciprocity and fairness?
OBAMA IS MARRIED TO A RACIST! ISN'T A CITIZEN! WANTS TO BE A DICTATOR!
Before the festivities begin, I just want to take a minute to note that the crazy Obama-haters won't be easily deterred: tell 'em there's no "whitey tape" and they move on to preposterous efforts to question his citizenship -- and when all possible avenues for the use of that conspiracy theory are blocked, well, it seems they just move on to something else, like this, as reported a couple of days ago by World Net Daily:
Hail King Obama: President for life
Move under way to repeal Constitution's term limits
As Inauguration Day approaches and Barack Obama prepares to assume his first term as president, some in Congress are hoping to make it possible for the Democrat to not only seek a second term in office, but a third and fourth as well.
The U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary is considering a bill that would repeal the Constitution's 22nd Amendment prohibiting a president from being elected to more than two terms in office.
Rep. Jose Serrano, D-N.Y., earlier this month introduced the bill, H. J. Res. 5, which, according to the bill's language, proposes "an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President." ...
The reactions were immediate.
Ace of Spades: "Didn't comrade Hugo Chavez propose such a thing too?"
Atlas Shrugs: "...disturbing news that Obama might take a page from his role models Chavez and Castro."
Club for Growth: "Rep. Jose Serrano (D-NY), an obvious Obama fan, is proposing (H.J.Res. 5)..."
There's just one small problem with the theory that Serrano is doing this so Obama can make a dangerous scary dictatorial jackbootish naked grab for power -- though you can't blame the above-quoted bloggers for not noticing the problem because they would have actually had to read nearly all the way to the end of the WND story to discover it, and we can't expect them to maintain that level of concentration, can we?
Paragraph #11 of the WND story:
H. J. Res. 5 is not the first attempt by Serrano to repeal the 22nd Amendment. In 2003, Serrano introduced H. J. Res. 11 to the 108th Congress to accomplish the same purpose.
Yup -- Serrano also introduced this bill six years ago, before Barack Obama was a U.S. senator, or even a national figure of any kind.
(Incidentally, Serrano also proposed the amendment in 2005, 2001, 1999, and 1997.)
But I suspect this conspiracy theory will live on ... until it's replaced by a theory that's equally crazy.
****
Bonus fun from World Net Daily: WND's founder and editor, Joseph Farah, says out loud what the rest of the Republican base is thinking:
Pray Obama fails
... nowhere does the Bible ever suggest evil rulers are to be obeyed. When the rule of men conflicts with the commands of God, the Bible leaves no doubt about where we should stand.
That's why I do not hesitate today in calling on godly Americans to pray that Barack Hussein Obama fail in his efforts to change our country from one anchored on self-governance and constitutional republicanism to one based on the raw and unlimited power of the central state.
...I want Obama to fail because his agenda is 100 percent at odds with God's. Pretending it is not simply makes a mockery of God's straightforward Commandments.
So you will not see me joining in the ritual of affirming Obama and his mission in public or private prayer this week -- or any other week....
I'm actually surprised we haven't heard anything like this yet during the transition from, say, Michelle Bachmann or Sarah Palin or John Boehner. But don't worry, we will, from some mainstream figures, very soon.
****
UPDATE: Farah link added.
****
UPDATE: Limbaugh admits he hopes Obama fails.
Before the festivities begin, I just want to take a minute to note that the crazy Obama-haters won't be easily deterred: tell 'em there's no "whitey tape" and they move on to preposterous efforts to question his citizenship -- and when all possible avenues for the use of that conspiracy theory are blocked, well, it seems they just move on to something else, like this, as reported a couple of days ago by World Net Daily:
Hail King Obama: President for life
Move under way to repeal Constitution's term limits
As Inauguration Day approaches and Barack Obama prepares to assume his first term as president, some in Congress are hoping to make it possible for the Democrat to not only seek a second term in office, but a third and fourth as well.
The U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary is considering a bill that would repeal the Constitution's 22nd Amendment prohibiting a president from being elected to more than two terms in office.
Rep. Jose Serrano, D-N.Y., earlier this month introduced the bill, H. J. Res. 5, which, according to the bill's language, proposes "an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President." ...
The reactions were immediate.
Ace of Spades: "Didn't comrade Hugo Chavez propose such a thing too?"
Atlas Shrugs: "...disturbing news that Obama might take a page from his role models Chavez and Castro."
Club for Growth: "Rep. Jose Serrano (D-NY), an obvious Obama fan, is proposing (H.J.Res. 5)..."
There's just one small problem with the theory that Serrano is doing this so Obama can make a dangerous scary dictatorial jackbootish naked grab for power -- though you can't blame the above-quoted bloggers for not noticing the problem because they would have actually had to read nearly all the way to the end of the WND story to discover it, and we can't expect them to maintain that level of concentration, can we?
Paragraph #11 of the WND story:
H. J. Res. 5 is not the first attempt by Serrano to repeal the 22nd Amendment. In 2003, Serrano introduced H. J. Res. 11 to the 108th Congress to accomplish the same purpose.
Yup -- Serrano also introduced this bill six years ago, before Barack Obama was a U.S. senator, or even a national figure of any kind.
(Incidentally, Serrano also proposed the amendment in 2005, 2001, 1999, and 1997.)
But I suspect this conspiracy theory will live on ... until it's replaced by a theory that's equally crazy.
****
Bonus fun from World Net Daily: WND's founder and editor, Joseph Farah, says out loud what the rest of the Republican base is thinking:
Pray Obama fails
... nowhere does the Bible ever suggest evil rulers are to be obeyed. When the rule of men conflicts with the commands of God, the Bible leaves no doubt about where we should stand.
That's why I do not hesitate today in calling on godly Americans to pray that Barack Hussein Obama fail in his efforts to change our country from one anchored on self-governance and constitutional republicanism to one based on the raw and unlimited power of the central state.
...I want Obama to fail because his agenda is 100 percent at odds with God's. Pretending it is not simply makes a mockery of God's straightforward Commandments.
So you will not see me joining in the ritual of affirming Obama and his mission in public or private prayer this week -- or any other week....
I'm actually surprised we haven't heard anything like this yet during the transition from, say, Michelle Bachmann or Sarah Palin or John Boehner. But don't worry, we will, from some mainstream figures, very soon.
****
UPDATE: Farah link added.
****
UPDATE: Limbaugh admits he hopes Obama fails.
Dear American South*
I feel your pain. Today, or yesterday, was only the worst day of the year, when the whole country celebrates that Martin Luther King fella, who only threw a monkey wrench into your whole damn system of government and society. Fucked your shit up serious like. And the whole goddamn country loves him. WTF?!
And tomorrow, or that would be today, one of those people, who the year he was born couldn't have gotten a seat in one of your fine, one star eatin' establishments, is only going to be annointed president of these United States. How the fuck did that happen? You didn't vote for him. And now you gotta watch everybody on CNN and every damn station celebratin' like it's mutherfucking New Year's Eve all over again.
Well, American South, I got three words for ya. Suck. On. This.
*present company excepted of course.
I feel your pain. Today, or yesterday, was only the worst day of the year, when the whole country celebrates that Martin Luther King fella, who only threw a monkey wrench into your whole damn system of government and society. Fucked your shit up serious like. And the whole goddamn country loves him. WTF?!
And tomorrow, or that would be today, one of those people, who the year he was born couldn't have gotten a seat in one of your fine, one star eatin' establishments, is only going to be annointed president of these United States. How the fuck did that happen? You didn't vote for him. And now you gotta watch everybody on CNN and every damn station celebratin' like it's mutherfucking New Year's Eve all over again.
Well, American South, I got three words for ya. Suck. On. This.
*present company excepted of course.
Monday, January 19, 2009
See ya, W
Preferably in court.
Patty Griffin says it better than I ever could, even though I seriously doubt she was thinking of W when she wrote this:
To the end of the Earth, I'll search for your face
For the one who laid all of our beauty to waste
Threw our hope into Hell and our children into the fire
I am the one who crawled through the wire
I am the one who crawled through the wire
There's a million sad stories on the side of the road
Strange how we all just got used to the blood
Millions of stories that'll never be told
Silent and froze in the mud
Silent and froze in the mud
I know a cold as cold as it gets
I know a darkness that's darker than cold
A wind that blows as cold as it gets
Blew out the light of my soul
Blew out the light of my soul
I dream in my sleep, I dream in my days
Of some sunny street not so far away
Where up in a window a curtain will sway
And you and I'll meet down below
You and I'll meet down below
I know a cold as cold as it gets
I fight a war, I may never see one
I live only to see you live to regret
Everything that you done
Everything that you done
Everything that you done.
Preferably in court.
Patty Griffin says it better than I ever could, even though I seriously doubt she was thinking of W when she wrote this:
To the end of the Earth, I'll search for your face
For the one who laid all of our beauty to waste
Threw our hope into Hell and our children into the fire
I am the one who crawled through the wire
I am the one who crawled through the wire
There's a million sad stories on the side of the road
Strange how we all just got used to the blood
Millions of stories that'll never be told
Silent and froze in the mud
Silent and froze in the mud
I know a cold as cold as it gets
I know a darkness that's darker than cold
A wind that blows as cold as it gets
Blew out the light of my soul
Blew out the light of my soul
I dream in my sleep, I dream in my days
Of some sunny street not so far away
Where up in a window a curtain will sway
And you and I'll meet down below
You and I'll meet down below
I know a cold as cold as it gets
I fight a war, I may never see one
I live only to see you live to regret
Everything that you done
Everything that you done
Everything that you done.
Give Me a Child Until He is A Republican
Somewhere in these bloggospheres it has been said that Conservatives "love" their country like a child loves an abusive parent, right or wrong, and all attempts to correct the abuse are taken as an attack on the child itself, rather than an attempt to right a wrong. Or if it hasn't been said that way, it should. So what happens to that child when the abusive daddy moves to a condo in Texas and a new, shiny, clean, adoptive family steps in promising kisses, love, good food, clean clothes, an education and all that stuff? Unabashed, near incoherent Rage, is what.
Its going to take a long time for the battered children of the right to forgive the new daddy for showing up the old one. For a long time they will continue to act out the old relationship--hoarding food, acting out sexual abuse, lying, hitting the other children. Its to be expected, but its not going to be pretty.
Nowhere is that more obvious than in this petulant post by Patterico, already ably pilloried by Roy, in which Patterico and his posters go ballistic over Obama's anodyne call for his own children not merely to be happy and successful but also noble and good. Incredible presumption! Why, Patterico shrieks, if the entire country were to inculcate in their children a desire for more than mere self interested skill acquisition and material success the entire engine of the American dream would fall, crushed, under the bootheel of liberal programs. Telling your child you hope they give back to America some of what America has given to them is indicted, savagely, as the tip of the Stalinist iceberg.
But more important even than the pragmatic results of all this selflessness is the rage Patterico and the little Pattericites express at the les majeste implicit in any slur that may have been cast on them, I mean on America,
The gloves come off over that remark with posters immediately jumping to the obvious flaw in the argument--this was said by a woman (!) who was insufficiently nationalistic (!) and had sex (!) with more than one daddy!
Another lets slip the more central issue--when Obama says "America" he means "me" and if America isn't perfect than what does that make me? And what if he doesn't love me?
Yeah, that's the problem, the new daddy doesn't really love the old children. He can't be trusted. We want our old daddy back. He may have knocked us around but by gum he never implied we weren't perfect:
Watching America's children of the damned score points with each other with increasingly hysterical attacks on Obama's mild appropriation of mom and apple pie is going to be ugly. And we are going to see a lot more of it as Bush's last defenders see their own drunken daddy wave a hearty farewell and go off into a golfing sunset. How long before they figure out he was just not that into them? I can assure you that the Obama Foster Family for damaged and angry youth is going to end up being their rebound family. They won't be able to accept the hand of friendship or the new rules (no grabbing, no shouting, no hitting) and will end up running off to live in the streets until the next abusive pimp daddy of a Republican candidate picks them up and tells them they are beautiful just the way they are and puts them back out on the street to turn tricks. In an unconciously accurate moment of self judgment one commenter observes:
I'd say, signs are promising.
aimai
Somewhere in these bloggospheres it has been said that Conservatives "love" their country like a child loves an abusive parent, right or wrong, and all attempts to correct the abuse are taken as an attack on the child itself, rather than an attempt to right a wrong. Or if it hasn't been said that way, it should. So what happens to that child when the abusive daddy moves to a condo in Texas and a new, shiny, clean, adoptive family steps in promising kisses, love, good food, clean clothes, an education and all that stuff? Unabashed, near incoherent Rage, is what.
Its going to take a long time for the battered children of the right to forgive the new daddy for showing up the old one. For a long time they will continue to act out the old relationship--hoarding food, acting out sexual abuse, lying, hitting the other children. Its to be expected, but its not going to be pretty.
Nowhere is that more obvious than in this petulant post by Patterico, already ably pilloried by Roy, in which Patterico and his posters go ballistic over Obama's anodyne call for his own children not merely to be happy and successful but also noble and good. Incredible presumption! Why, Patterico shrieks, if the entire country were to inculcate in their children a desire for more than mere self interested skill acquisition and material success the entire engine of the American dream would fall, crushed, under the bootheel of liberal programs. Telling your child you hope they give back to America some of what America has given to them is indicted, savagely, as the tip of the Stalinist iceberg.
But more important even than the pragmatic results of all this selflessness is the rage Patterico and the little Pattericites express at the les majeste implicit in any slur that may have been cast on them, I mean on America,
The letter deals with America’s imperfections, and nowhere is that more obvious than in this section where Obama talks about what he learned from his mother:“She helped me understand that America is great not because it is perfect but because it can always be made better-and that the unfinished work of perfecting our union falls to each of us. It’s a charge we pass on to our children, coming closer with each new generation to what we know America should be.”
The gloves come off over that remark with posters immediately jumping to the obvious flaw in the argument--this was said by a woman (!) who was insufficiently nationalistic (!) and had sex (!) with more than one daddy!
Another lets slip the more central issue--when Obama says "America" he means "me" and if America isn't perfect than what does that make me? And what if he doesn't love me?
-
That’s the liberal truth: they love that perfect America that lives only in their imagination. OTOH I love our values, our founding principles, and our generous, self-reliant countrymen.
What will it be like to have a man who doesn’t particularly like his people or his country run the government? As Hotair headlined, “Does he even like us?”
Comment by Patricia — 1/18/2009 @ 5:51 pm
Yeah, that's the problem, the new daddy doesn't really love the old children. He can't be trusted. We want our old daddy back. He may have knocked us around but by gum he never implied we weren't perfect:
When George Bush was President, many liberals viewed America as less of a nation because of his actions on FISA, interrogations, and detentions. Even if everything Bush did was wrong, how does that translate into America being a flawed nation? And how could Obama’s Presidency redeem it?
Comment by DRJ — 1/18/2009 @ 10:08 pm
Watching America's children of the damned score points with each other with increasingly hysterical attacks on Obama's mild appropriation of mom and apple pie is going to be ugly. And we are going to see a lot more of it as Bush's last defenders see their own drunken daddy wave a hearty farewell and go off into a golfing sunset. How long before they figure out he was just not that into them? I can assure you that the Obama Foster Family for damaged and angry youth is going to end up being their rebound family. They won't be able to accept the hand of friendship or the new rules (no grabbing, no shouting, no hitting) and will end up running off to live in the streets until the next abusive pimp daddy of a Republican candidate picks them up and tells them they are beautiful just the way they are and puts them back out on the street to turn tricks. In an unconciously accurate moment of self judgment one commenter observes:
-
The Obama Years: an endless stream of platitudes targeted to the historically ignorant and gullible.
Comment by JVW — 1/18/2009 @ 5:56 pm
I'd say, signs are promising.
aimai
A Modest Proposal:
John Aravoisis and La Figa and others are reporting that Bishop Robinson's invocation was cut from the HBO special--he apparently gave it ten minutes before the Obamas and the invited guests were seated. That is bizarre and, to my mind, indicates that it was planned that way because you never give the invocation before all the guests are there, do you? You have been called in to bless the proceedings, not perform the *&^% sound check. When you remember that the entire programme went like clockwork and had been organized down to the last moment its clear that Obama's handlers, the producers, and the HBO staff had decided to eliminate controversy (which, mercifully, was reinstated by Bono mentioning "Palestininian Dreams" and Pete (g-d bless him) Seeger singing against private property and mentioning the Relief Office.) by simply dropping the Bishop in before the cameras were officially rolling.
Much as I loved the inaugural concert I was a bit stunned to discover that there are only two races in this country. My limited grasp of American history would definitely have inclined me to think that Native Americans, Chinese Americans, Indian Americans (ok, I'll give you Kal Pen), Muslim Americans and a lot of other hyphenated Americans were also part of America's conflicted racial past and her post racial future. Still, I'm down with the Ebony and Ivory theme they chose for this Inaugural. However, on the question of gay and straight they really muffed it. My very modest proposal is that the Obama transition and Inaugural team make up for it by offering us a similar "let two or three flowers bloom" moment at the actual Inaugural. Bishop Robinson and Pastor Warren can be given dueling microphones and asked to perform cheek to cheek. And the one that refuses to share the stage with the other? Goes home the sorehead we know he is.
aimai
John Aravoisis and La Figa and others are reporting that Bishop Robinson's invocation was cut from the HBO special--he apparently gave it ten minutes before the Obamas and the invited guests were seated. That is bizarre and, to my mind, indicates that it was planned that way because you never give the invocation before all the guests are there, do you? You have been called in to bless the proceedings, not perform the *&^% sound check. When you remember that the entire programme went like clockwork and had been organized down to the last moment its clear that Obama's handlers, the producers, and the HBO staff had decided to eliminate controversy (which, mercifully, was reinstated by Bono mentioning "Palestininian Dreams" and Pete (g-d bless him) Seeger singing against private property and mentioning the Relief Office.) by simply dropping the Bishop in before the cameras were officially rolling.
Much as I loved the inaugural concert I was a bit stunned to discover that there are only two races in this country. My limited grasp of American history would definitely have inclined me to think that Native Americans, Chinese Americans, Indian Americans (ok, I'll give you Kal Pen), Muslim Americans and a lot of other hyphenated Americans were also part of America's conflicted racial past and her post racial future. Still, I'm down with the Ebony and Ivory theme they chose for this Inaugural. However, on the question of gay and straight they really muffed it. My very modest proposal is that the Obama transition and Inaugural team make up for it by offering us a similar "let two or three flowers bloom" moment at the actual Inaugural. Bishop Robinson and Pastor Warren can be given dueling microphones and asked to perform cheek to cheek. And the one that refuses to share the stage with the other? Goes home the sorehead we know he is.
aimai
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Under George W. Bush, neoconservatism entered its "Hoo Hah!" period; then, as the invasion of Iraq turned into something for which one looks to assign blame instead of credit, entered its "Who, me?" phase; and has now been officially inaugurated by the Prince of Darkness himself, Richard Perle, into its "Who am I?" period. You might have heard some silly rumors that a group of people called "neocons" had a lot to do with pushing us into war. Perle is here to set you straight. "Understanding Bush's foreign and defense policy," Perle writes, "requires clarity about its origins and the thinking behind the administration’s key decisions. That means rejecting the false claim that the decision to remove Saddam, and Bush policies generally, were made or significantly influenced by a few neoconservative 'ideologues' who are most often described as having hidden their agenda of imperial ambition or the imposition of democracy by force or the promotion of Israeli interests at the expense of American ones or the reshaping of the Middle East for oil—or all of the above. Despite its seemingly endless repetition by politicians, academics, journalists and bloggers, that is not a serious argument. I may have missed something, but I know of no statement, public or private, by any neoconservative in or near government, advocating the invasion of Iraq primarily for the purpose of promoting democracy or advancing some grand neoconservative vision... This neoconservative conspiracy is nonsense, of course, and no serious observer of the Bush administration would argue such a thing, not least because there is not, and cannot be, any evidence to substantiate it."
"So if it was not a neocon master plan," continues Perle, "how did we end up invading Iraq?... I believe that Bush went to war for the reasons—and only the reasons—he gave at the time: because he believed Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the United States that was far greater than the likely cost of removing him from power." The terrible thing is that Perle doesn't seem to realize what a damning indictment this is. If Bush really thought that the efforts to "contain" Iraq that had begun under his father taken up so much time and labor had failed completely and that, despite all the intelligence showing otherwise, the dictator had managed to re-arm himself to a scary degree, the kindest explanation is that he must have been both very stupid and a paranoid fantasist. This would be the cue for someone to repeat the canard that "everyone" thought that the containment strategy was a complete sham and that Saddam was sitting on a mountain of WMDs. Sure; that's why so many Washington players, including the men Bush would appoint as his Secretary of State and Vice-President, had been insisting, as late as 2000, that we had nothing to fear from Iraq. (Did Bush ever think to ask them, when they were agreeing with him about the threat Iraq posed, why they'd been lying up to then?)
In 2003, Perle described the Iraq War as "a war with very few casualties and the opponents anticipated massive casualties," adding that "it is now clear that it was a war of liberation and is so regarded by the people of Iraq." Note the "was"--mission accomplished, right? Today, he sums it up a little differently, but his principal concern seems to be to insist that this was a failure of government, not one of ideological thinking. It's easy to see why: ideological thinking is his bag, whereas nobody ever got his speaking engagements to Republican audiences canceled by bitching about how government screws everything up. "I believe the cost of removing Saddam and achieving a stable future for Iraq has turned out to be very much higher than it should have been, and certainly higher than it was reasonable to expect. But about the many mistakes made in Iraq, one thing is certain: they had nothing to do with ideology. They did not draw inspiration from or reflect neoconservative ideas and they were not the product of philosophical or ideological influences outside the government. " Instead, Bush was undone by the unworkability of government and by the many back-stabbers and traitors who Perle would like to think that this most loyalty-obsessed and bubble-protected of presidents had to contend with at every turn. "If ever there were a security policy that lacked philosophical underpinnings, it was that of the Bush administration. Whenever the president attempted to lay out a philosophy, as in his argument for encouraging the freedom of expression and dissent that might advance democratic institutions abroad, it was throttled in its infancy by opponents within and outside the administration."
This kind of blame-shifting suggests that Perle may be the last person in the English-speaking world who thinks that there may still be something to be gained from staying on George W. Bush's good side. Perle, who back around 2003 praised Bush for admitting to how little he knew, probably thinks that Bush isn't smart enough to detect the shiv to the ribs in this, Perle's disavowal of his reputation as the "architect" of the Iraq War: "I certainly supported and argued publicly for the decision to remove Saddam... But had I been the architect of that war, our policy would have been very different." It's a shame that the man who not only knew what needed doing but, unlike the President over whom he now insists he held no special sway, knew how to do it right, doesn't run for office, thus denying us the chance to take full benefit of his wisdom. All he can do, apparently, is hang around the think tanks emitting these brilliant ideas for those foolish enough to believe in government to pick up on and screw up, not that he had anything to do with their picking up on them in the first place. Thank God we at least have his interviews, so that we can read about how right he was and always will be, and dream of the possibilities.
"So if it was not a neocon master plan," continues Perle, "how did we end up invading Iraq?... I believe that Bush went to war for the reasons—and only the reasons—he gave at the time: because he believed Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the United States that was far greater than the likely cost of removing him from power." The terrible thing is that Perle doesn't seem to realize what a damning indictment this is. If Bush really thought that the efforts to "contain" Iraq that had begun under his father taken up so much time and labor had failed completely and that, despite all the intelligence showing otherwise, the dictator had managed to re-arm himself to a scary degree, the kindest explanation is that he must have been both very stupid and a paranoid fantasist. This would be the cue for someone to repeat the canard that "everyone" thought that the containment strategy was a complete sham and that Saddam was sitting on a mountain of WMDs. Sure; that's why so many Washington players, including the men Bush would appoint as his Secretary of State and Vice-President, had been insisting, as late as 2000, that we had nothing to fear from Iraq. (Did Bush ever think to ask them, when they were agreeing with him about the threat Iraq posed, why they'd been lying up to then?)
In 2003, Perle described the Iraq War as "a war with very few casualties and the opponents anticipated massive casualties," adding that "it is now clear that it was a war of liberation and is so regarded by the people of Iraq." Note the "was"--mission accomplished, right? Today, he sums it up a little differently, but his principal concern seems to be to insist that this was a failure of government, not one of ideological thinking. It's easy to see why: ideological thinking is his bag, whereas nobody ever got his speaking engagements to Republican audiences canceled by bitching about how government screws everything up. "I believe the cost of removing Saddam and achieving a stable future for Iraq has turned out to be very much higher than it should have been, and certainly higher than it was reasonable to expect. But about the many mistakes made in Iraq, one thing is certain: they had nothing to do with ideology. They did not draw inspiration from or reflect neoconservative ideas and they were not the product of philosophical or ideological influences outside the government. " Instead, Bush was undone by the unworkability of government and by the many back-stabbers and traitors who Perle would like to think that this most loyalty-obsessed and bubble-protected of presidents had to contend with at every turn. "If ever there were a security policy that lacked philosophical underpinnings, it was that of the Bush administration. Whenever the president attempted to lay out a philosophy, as in his argument for encouraging the freedom of expression and dissent that might advance democratic institutions abroad, it was throttled in its infancy by opponents within and outside the administration."
This kind of blame-shifting suggests that Perle may be the last person in the English-speaking world who thinks that there may still be something to be gained from staying on George W. Bush's good side. Perle, who back around 2003 praised Bush for admitting to how little he knew, probably thinks that Bush isn't smart enough to detect the shiv to the ribs in this, Perle's disavowal of his reputation as the "architect" of the Iraq War: "I certainly supported and argued publicly for the decision to remove Saddam... But had I been the architect of that war, our policy would have been very different." It's a shame that the man who not only knew what needed doing but, unlike the President over whom he now insists he held no special sway, knew how to do it right, doesn't run for office, thus denying us the chance to take full benefit of his wisdom. All he can do, apparently, is hang around the think tanks emitting these brilliant ideas for those foolish enough to believe in government to pick up on and screw up, not that he had anything to do with their picking up on them in the first place. Thank God we at least have his interviews, so that we can read about how right he was and always will be, and dream of the possibilities.
Unabashed, Unashamed, Liberalism.
I've never bothered to watch one of these things before. I'm not a musical person and I can't sit through, as Giles said to Buffy, "a boy band chosen for their ability to dance" or any number of famous "acts" as they chew the scenery and ham it up for a freezing cold audience. I'd rather listen to music without pictures, thanks. But I tuned in anyway because, what the hell, I'm not all baracked out yet. And what I saw was an unabashed, unashamed, paen to liberal values, democratic precedents and presidents, and a full throated call to arms. I tuned in midway as they were introducing FDR's inaugural speech and watched them whip through the *&^%$ acts to get right to the point: JFK, Lincoln,Bobby, Lincoln and Teddy R. on the evironment, and the funniest five seconds of Marisa Tomei's life, certainly, when she got to represent the three seconds that Reagan devoted to being a human being at his own Inauguration. Man, they must have searched for those hopeful and humane words because they wouldn't have shown up on any ordinary google of our late lamented Ronnie's greatest speeches.
Tour de frakkin force laying the groundwork for the heavy job ahead. Hats off to everyone who participated.
aimai
I've never bothered to watch one of these things before. I'm not a musical person and I can't sit through, as Giles said to Buffy, "a boy band chosen for their ability to dance" or any number of famous "acts" as they chew the scenery and ham it up for a freezing cold audience. I'd rather listen to music without pictures, thanks. But I tuned in anyway because, what the hell, I'm not all baracked out yet. And what I saw was an unabashed, unashamed, paen to liberal values, democratic precedents and presidents, and a full throated call to arms. I tuned in midway as they were introducing FDR's inaugural speech and watched them whip through the *&^%$ acts to get right to the point: JFK, Lincoln,Bobby, Lincoln and Teddy R. on the evironment, and the funniest five seconds of Marisa Tomei's life, certainly, when she got to represent the three seconds that Reagan devoted to being a human being at his own Inauguration. Man, they must have searched for those hopeful and humane words because they wouldn't have shown up on any ordinary google of our late lamented Ronnie's greatest speeches.
Tour de frakkin force laying the groundwork for the heavy job ahead. Hats off to everyone who participated.
aimai
Saturday, January 17, 2009
LETTERS THEY DIDN'T PRINT*
Editor, The Chronicle:In attempting to justify waterboarding ("From Jack Bauer to Leon Panetta", January 13), Debra Saunders cites former CIA officer John Kiriakou's assertion that the torture of Abu Zubaydeh saved lives.
What she fails to mention is that Kiriakou was not present at the interrogation he refers to. And that Kiriakou's account is disputed by those who were present. And that Zubaydeh was not the high-value target torture supporters claim he was--that, in fact, Zubaydeh was at best delusional and at worst completely insane.
Worst of all, she neglects to tell us that Kiriakou himself opposes waterboarding. As he said in December 2007: "I've come to the belief that not only is it unnecessary, but that as Americans, we're better than that and we shouldn't be engaging in a practice like waterboarding."
There is, as ever, no honest argument in favor of waterboarding. Saunders' column is no exception.
Tom Hilton
San Francisco
*Not that I have any cause to complain; the Chronicle has run a few of mine, which is better luck than most people have.
HE DINES OUT ON DEATH
Did you know that the FALN was responsible for 9/11? Joseph F. Connor knows.Connor, the professional victim-of-terrorism the Republicans trotted out to oppose Eric Holder in his confirmation hearings, had a column in the L.A. Times yesterday. The short version is this: on Connor's 9th birthday (in 1975), his father was killed in a bombing generally attributed to the FALN; the folks Clinton pardoned in 1999 (none of whom were charged with any bombing) belonged to the FALN; Eric Holder supported the pardons; Look! Over there! 9/11!, in which Connor's cousin was killed; and that's why Holder is unfit to be Attorney General.
We're all familiar with the responsibility shifting he uses here (anyone in the FALN is responsible for bombings committed by any FALN members; any organization using terror (e.g., the FALN) is responsible for the acts committed by any other organization using terror (e.g., al Qaeda); anyone who supports the rights of people associated with terrorism is responsible for any acts committed by anyone labeled a 'terrorist'); it's the way wingnuts have been smearing all of us for the last 7 1/2 years. Connor's personal loss is just the emotional hook ("He was supposed to be home early on that Jan. 24 for a family celebration of my birthday") to draw us into his reprehensible illogic.
But that's just part of the story. It turns out Connor has written essentially the same column before, emotional manipulation and all ("My father had been very excited to get home from work that night to celebrate [our] birthdays with his young family"). In Commentary, in August:
In that one, he makes the FALN-9/11 link more explicitly:
As an "ordinary American," I sincerely question whether Barack Obama has the judgment to be president. His lack of judgment in choosing Eric Holder as a top adviser on his campaign -- the man partly responsible for pardoning terrorists who proudly claimed responsibility for my father's murder -- serves as primary evidence supporting that judgment.
Worse, releasing the terrorists placed the American people in danger. When I helped introduce the Pardon Attorney Reform and Integrity Act in February 2000, I warned about "the encouragement would-be terrorists must have received by the" FALN clemency grants. Unfortunately, that warning proved prophetic, and Sept. 11, 2001, took the life of my father's 41-year-old godson, Steve Schlag, and 3,000 other innocent lives as my brother and I watched in horror from our downtown offices.Yup: Eric Holder caused 9/11. Now you know.
But his target wasn't always just Obama. In May, he wrote the same column ("I was 9 and my brother Tom 11 when our father...was killed in the...bombing of Fraunces Tavern") about both Democratic candidates (throwing Ayers and Wright into the terrorism mix):
When it comes to Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, what they will find are two candidates with dangerous ties to terrorists and anti-American radicals....The relationships are as intertwined as they are astounding and chilling.And back in 2007, he was on wingnut radio slamming Clinton for her reaction to the Libby pardon:
...the need arises to remind Americans of the Clinton family’s unfathomable 1999 pardons of the 16 unrepentant FALN terrorists who proudly claimed responsibility for 130 bombings in the US including the murder of my 33 year old father Frank Connor...And in 2006, in the NY Post ("[The FALN's] most heinous attack....killed four people, including my father"):
I did get a chance to testify before a Senate subcommittee conducting hearings on Clinton's clemency.....I was trying to make the point that the release of the FALN killers would send a frightening invitation to other would-be terrorists. Little did I know that more anguish was yet to come.Admit it: when I said "professional victim-of-terror", you thought it was a little harsh. Now, not so much--right? This guy has clearly been working the same schtick for years. He refines it a little--he tones down the batshit wingnuttery, and amps up the emotional manipulation (the first couple of times he doesn't even mention his birthday)--but the message is the same: Democrats Killed My Father.
Almost two years to the day after my Senate testimony, my father's god son, our cousin Steve Schlag, was killed on 9/11. My brother and I watched in helpless horror from our downtown offices, ironically only blocks from Fraunces Tavern.
I feel bad for anyone who loses a father that way, but let's have a little perspective here. Lots of people suffer horrible, sudden, crippling loss. Many of them don't spin their loss into a viciously reactionary paranoid worldview...and of those who do, most don't make a career of it.
Friday, January 16, 2009
SEE YOU NEXT WEEK
I'm cutting out for the weekend, but there'll be guest blogging here, so please stop by. See you on (long-awaited) Tuesday.
Meanwhile, I've added a few Bigfoot and not-so-Bigfoot sites to the blogroll, some belatedly: bjkeefe, D-Day, FiveThirtyEight, The Garlic, Runnin' Scared (Roy Edroso at The Village Voice), and The Washington Independent. Read them, too.
I'm cutting out for the weekend, but there'll be guest blogging here, so please stop by. See you on (long-awaited) Tuesday.
Meanwhile, I've added a few Bigfoot and not-so-Bigfoot sites to the blogroll, some belatedly: bjkeefe, D-Day, FiveThirtyEight, The Garlic, Runnin' Scared (Roy Edroso at The Village Voice), and The Washington Independent. Read them, too.
"TERRORISTS TERRORISED THE PRESIDENT"?
The Economist's (anonymous) blogger has a curious and, I think, inaccurate reaction to the 9/11 part of George W. Bush's farewell speech:
It struck me as very plaintive. That was the morning, after months of smooth sailing as a most unlikely president, when Mr Bush's future broke away from his past. Nothing in his previous life could have prepared him, and perhaps he was unequipped to recover. Terrorists terrorised the president. Afterwards, perhaps, he lived with a constant sense of peril: "Our enemies are patient, and determined to strike again." Maybe then he saw things through a stark filter, with all presidential decisions weighed against America’s "solemn responsibility" in the global arena to promote liberty. How do you feel about that trade treaty, Mr President? "We must reject isolationism, and its companion, protectionism." And so on.
"Terrorised"? I don't think so. Did he ever actually seemed to fear terrorism? No emotion remotely resembling fear ever seemed to cross his face -- in fact, the only negative emotion we ever saw on his face was umbrage, a sense that he'd been insulted and not taken seriously.
I do think he liked the idea that terrorism was unrelentingly fearful, but not because he personally felt fear -- he liked it strictly because being the guy entrusted to vanquish the boogeyman made him feel important at all times.
As for that last bit -- "We must reject isolationism, and its companion, protectionism" -- that was Bush parroting what smarter right-wingers than himself had concocted as a rationale for the lamentable unwillingness of Americans to continue cheering on his colossal screw-ups. We weren't rejecting his incompetence, you see -- we were weary of war in the abstract,and so we'd simply become isolationist in the abstract. (And when the economy turned south -- never mind the fact that, for most of us, it never turned north during Bush's presidency -- we were said to have ignorantly embraced isolationism's economic companion, protectionism, in the abstract.)
This is sheer nonsense. Saying that our rejection of Bush's botched foreign and economic policies was the result of isolationism and protectionism is like saying that a refusal to get in a car driven by an angry drunk swilling from a flask of Jack Daniel's is the result of disapproval of the internal combustion engine.
The Economist's (anonymous) blogger has a curious and, I think, inaccurate reaction to the 9/11 part of George W. Bush's farewell speech:
It struck me as very plaintive. That was the morning, after months of smooth sailing as a most unlikely president, when Mr Bush's future broke away from his past. Nothing in his previous life could have prepared him, and perhaps he was unequipped to recover. Terrorists terrorised the president. Afterwards, perhaps, he lived with a constant sense of peril: "Our enemies are patient, and determined to strike again." Maybe then he saw things through a stark filter, with all presidential decisions weighed against America’s "solemn responsibility" in the global arena to promote liberty. How do you feel about that trade treaty, Mr President? "We must reject isolationism, and its companion, protectionism." And so on.
"Terrorised"? I don't think so. Did he ever actually seemed to fear terrorism? No emotion remotely resembling fear ever seemed to cross his face -- in fact, the only negative emotion we ever saw on his face was umbrage, a sense that he'd been insulted and not taken seriously.
I do think he liked the idea that terrorism was unrelentingly fearful, but not because he personally felt fear -- he liked it strictly because being the guy entrusted to vanquish the boogeyman made him feel important at all times.
As for that last bit -- "We must reject isolationism, and its companion, protectionism" -- that was Bush parroting what smarter right-wingers than himself had concocted as a rationale for the lamentable unwillingness of Americans to continue cheering on his colossal screw-ups. We weren't rejecting his incompetence, you see -- we were weary of war in the abstract,and so we'd simply become isolationist in the abstract. (And when the economy turned south -- never mind the fact that, for most of us, it never turned north during Bush's presidency -- we were said to have ignorantly embraced isolationism's economic companion, protectionism, in the abstract.)
This is sheer nonsense. Saying that our rejection of Bush's botched foreign and economic policies was the result of isolationism and protectionism is like saying that a refusal to get in a car driven by an angry drunk swilling from a flask of Jack Daniel's is the result of disapproval of the internal combustion engine.
WHAT PARTS OF THE AGENDA WOULD YOU SACRIFICE TO TRY TO PUT BUSHIES IN JAIL FOR TORTURE?
Today, when Paul Krugman is demanding efforts to prosecute, that's the question I find myself asking: What's worth giving up to try to put some of these sons of bitches behind bars? A fairer tax code? A better climate for labor? Insurance for all or at least most of the insured? Real economic stimulus that might genuinely help those who are suffering the most in this economy? Significant curtailment in greenhouse gas emissions? Anything else that might require the cooperation of some in the congressional minority? If Barack Obama's political capital is somewhat less than infinite, and if it would take a hell of a lot of that political capital to pursue the torture-enablers legally, with no guarantee of success, what part of the agenda are we willing to jettison?
Now, maybe you think it's not a question of political capital. Maybe you think that if Barack Obama barks loud enough, issues a forceful enough dominance challenge, the Republicans and the media will back down and let him pursue torture-enablers legally without turning against him as he pursues other matters. And, well, maybe you're right. But it's not unreasonable for Obama to think that there's a price to be paid -- and the rest of the agenda (a great deal of which, I think, is our agenda) is what it might cost.
I know, I know -- you're going to say that he just doesn't have a choice. He's required to pursue these cases. Krugman:
Meanwhile, about Mr. Obama: while it's probably in his short-term political interests to forgive and forget, next week he's going to swear to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." That's not a conditional oath to be honored only when it's convenient.
And to protect and defend the Constitution, a president must do more than obey the Constitution himself; he must hold those who violate the Constitution accountable. So Mr. Obama should reconsider his apparent decision to let the previous administration get away with crime. Consequences aside, that’s not a decision he has the right to make.
But every DA who ever declined to pursue a valid case because it was clear that the evidence wasn't enough to get a jury to convict, or because pursuing the case would jeopardize another, more important case, made a similar judgment. Are they all in violation of their oaths?
Sorry -- I'm not with program on this one. I'd love it if Obama had the wind at his back on this issue and could pursue the Bushies without political cost. But he probably doesn't.
Injustice happens. (How many days did Nixon spend in jail?) Obama's choice in this matter may be regrettable, but I also think it's valid.
Today, when Paul Krugman is demanding efforts to prosecute, that's the question I find myself asking: What's worth giving up to try to put some of these sons of bitches behind bars? A fairer tax code? A better climate for labor? Insurance for all or at least most of the insured? Real economic stimulus that might genuinely help those who are suffering the most in this economy? Significant curtailment in greenhouse gas emissions? Anything else that might require the cooperation of some in the congressional minority? If Barack Obama's political capital is somewhat less than infinite, and if it would take a hell of a lot of that political capital to pursue the torture-enablers legally, with no guarantee of success, what part of the agenda are we willing to jettison?
Now, maybe you think it's not a question of political capital. Maybe you think that if Barack Obama barks loud enough, issues a forceful enough dominance challenge, the Republicans and the media will back down and let him pursue torture-enablers legally without turning against him as he pursues other matters. And, well, maybe you're right. But it's not unreasonable for Obama to think that there's a price to be paid -- and the rest of the agenda (a great deal of which, I think, is our agenda) is what it might cost.
I know, I know -- you're going to say that he just doesn't have a choice. He's required to pursue these cases. Krugman:
Meanwhile, about Mr. Obama: while it's probably in his short-term political interests to forgive and forget, next week he's going to swear to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." That's not a conditional oath to be honored only when it's convenient.
And to protect and defend the Constitution, a president must do more than obey the Constitution himself; he must hold those who violate the Constitution accountable. So Mr. Obama should reconsider his apparent decision to let the previous administration get away with crime. Consequences aside, that’s not a decision he has the right to make.
But every DA who ever declined to pursue a valid case because it was clear that the evidence wasn't enough to get a jury to convict, or because pursuing the case would jeopardize another, more important case, made a similar judgment. Are they all in violation of their oaths?
Sorry -- I'm not with program on this one. I'd love it if Obama had the wind at his back on this issue and could pursue the Bushies without political cost. But he probably doesn't.
Injustice happens. (How many days did Nixon spend in jail?) Obama's choice in this matter may be regrettable, but I also think it's valid.
THANK GOD GOD NEARLY KILLED ME, THEN SAVED MY LIFE
As most people now know, the passengers on Flight 1549 had perhaps the best possible pilot under the circumstances -- Chesley B. "Sully" Sullenberger, a seasoned pilot and air safety expert. But that fact wouldn't lead me to the conclusion that Robert Stacy McCain draws:
"Miracle" and "omen" are good words to describe the survival of everyone aboard Flight 1549, but I like Michelle Malkin's choice: "Providential." What other word can describe the life-saving fact that a plane struck by such a near-certain disaster just happened to be piloted by a recognized air-safety expert?
Really? That's McCain and Malkin's idea of Divine Providence? Nearly being killed, and avoiding a horrible death only because God provided both a gruesome near-death experience and a rescuer?
I've flown many times. Every plane I've ever flown in started and ended its flight on a runway. I've never been on a plane that ditched into water on a bitterly cold January day.
I don't believe in God, but if I did, I'd believe that God loved me if He/She/It saw to it that all the planes I flew on didn't go into water at all. Wouldn't you?
As most people now know, the passengers on Flight 1549 had perhaps the best possible pilot under the circumstances -- Chesley B. "Sully" Sullenberger, a seasoned pilot and air safety expert. But that fact wouldn't lead me to the conclusion that Robert Stacy McCain draws:
"Miracle" and "omen" are good words to describe the survival of everyone aboard Flight 1549, but I like Michelle Malkin's choice: "Providential." What other word can describe the life-saving fact that a plane struck by such a near-certain disaster just happened to be piloted by a recognized air-safety expert?
Really? That's McCain and Malkin's idea of Divine Providence? Nearly being killed, and avoiding a horrible death only because God provided both a gruesome near-death experience and a rescuer?
I've flown many times. Every plane I've ever flown in started and ended its flight on a runway. I've never been on a plane that ditched into water on a bitterly cold January day.
I don't believe in God, but if I did, I'd believe that God loved me if He/She/It saw to it that all the planes I flew on didn't go into water at all. Wouldn't you?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Baracky’s mom loved making America better so much she determined to live as far away from it as she could and ball foreigners.
Comment by happyfeet — 1/18/2009 @ 3:28 pm