Fear Itself

On a serious note...

Today on Fox News, commentator E.D. Hill went into a berserk frenzy over the NYT story and exclaimed: “We want to be safe! We want to be safe! The government’s #1 job is to keep us alive. You can’t pay your taxes if you’re dead.”

This is exactly the kind of fear-induced hysteria Karl Rove loves. Rove wants Americans fearing for their lives and willing to sacrifice anything to be kept safe.

That way, Americans stop caring about torture, extraordinary rendition, corporate influence of elections, political corruption, illegal wars, presidential lies, egregious civil rights violations, environmental degradation, the evisceration of the First Amendment, and all of the other American values and principles that Rove wants to trample and destroy.

But this course is precisely what has made our country weaker. By torturing, using extraordinary rendition, launching illegal wars, etc., we have bred more terrorists, created more terrorist attacks, and given terrorists legitimate reasons to want to kill us. The facts back this up 100%.

The lesson is clear: fear makes us weaker. These Fox News arguments are declarations of weakness and cowardice, not strength.

A few years ago Kofi Annan said, "America is the world's greatest power; everything it does should be exemplary." I was embarrassed as hell when I heard that, because I couldn't believe that Americans had so quickly forgotten it themselves.

This country shapes the world. If we torture, others will. If we launch unjust wars, others will. If we spread lies to do what we want, others will. If we brutalize civilians wantonly, others will. We are creating the antithesis of the world we want with our current policies, and that makes us weak, not strong.

For all their chest beating, this administration rules by cowardice, not courage. Things have to change before it’s too late and we have completely forgotten what America is supposed to be.

Twin Peaks

Like a lot of people, I never cared about politics when I was younger. After watching a press conference a few days ago with a fairly attractive spokeswoman, I got to thinking about how a hormone-driven 14-year-old boy might have covered the event. Could it have gone something like this?


Washington, DC, 2/14/02—Two enormous, luscious, and perfectly-mounded breasts were hungrily ogled today by a crowd of excited spectators. The breasts, apparently belonging to some woman or other, were adorned in a blue double-breasted business suit that coyly offered just enough cleavage to make observers lust to see more. Many in the crowd used cameras and sketch pads to visually capture the image of the lovely bosom for future ogling.

The breasts remained playfully still to begin the show, seductively peeking out from behind a podium while the woman moved her mouth behind some kind of phallic object resembling a black foam dildo. The breasts teased the crowd like that for some time, simply resting while the woman moved her mouth and occasionally gestured with her hands.

The spectators grew anxious for the two stars of the show to break forth in all their majesty, but the breasts made them wait, simply pushing against the fabric concealing them so that onlookers could fantasize about the succulent nipples and areolas that lay just underneath.

At the zenith of the onlookers’ frenzied anticipation, the breasts finally started strutting their stuff. Someone from the crowd shouted out a question or something.

The woman appeared to laugh, as her cheeks flushed deeply and her highly desirable melons bobbed tantalizingly up and down on her chest like waves gently –but oh so firmly– lapping the shore.

After that, the woman started taking all requests. Upon one shout from the audience, she stuck her lips out in a pout, lowered her chin, and thrust her breasts out in a way that made the audience ooze with sexual tension. She posed like that for several moments as she began to playfully move her mouth behind the dildo again. After another shout from the crowd, her eyes grew fiery and she pointed sternly while swaying her breasts clockwise in short, tight jiggles. Several gasps and inhalations were heard, so powerful was that subtle, yet lascivious movement.

Overall, the woman created a titillating, interactive experience that few performers are able to establish in today’s world of impersonal, large-scale, corporate-sponsored displays. But this woman, even standing in front of the House of Congress of all places, managed to transcend her surroundings and transport that small group of spectators to their own private nightclub where she would do everyone’s favorite lap dances and laugh at everyone’s jokes.

She’ll be performing tomorrow at an area club called the White House, made famous by local swinger Bill Clinton.

Troubles at home

So the wife and I are at odds. We’ve got a neighbor that I don’t like at all, so a few months back I had our sons go over there, enter the neighbor’s household, and whack the step-dad living there. To justify this, I concocted some story about how I was pretty sure that the guy was growing meth in his basement and that his meth lab could explode, and thus it posed a threat to our household security. [Of course, I had made that up, and my sons have found no evidence of any meth lab. But, they did find a bulb syringe and a measuring cup in the kitchen, so really they were just a few test tubes away from making meth. If you really look at it objectively, that is.]

We argued over that mess, the wife and I did, but my sons were able to knock off the step-dad very quickly, and my wife hated the guy, too. She knew he was abusive to his own wife and kids, and whenever she questioned my legitimacy in invading their household, I would just ask her why she hates women and children and wants them to be abused by a tyrant. That would generally shut her up.

But the real trouble came over bringing my kids back home. You see, the neighbor’s household really melted down without the step-dad to hold it together. The water and power were turned off because the bills weren’t being paid, there was too little food left, and my sons needed to stay to make sure the kids who lived there didn’t kill each other as they clashed to be the new household leader.

It’s now been ten months since we last saw my sons, and my wife is growing weak. She keeps on sobbing about how she misses her babies, about how they’re wasting their lives in a hellhole for no good reason, and about how there never was a meth lab.

In any situation where there is doubt, you only have to do two things: look supremely confident and denigrate your skeptics.

So I lambasted my wife for “undermining our sons.” I was all like, “Why do you hate our sons? Why do you want to humiliate them by bringing them home? When did you decide that our sons were so insignificant?”

And she was all like, “Booboody-boo hoo, I miss them, they’re in danger, they aren’t helping anything, they never should have been there.”

And I got all like, “No you didn’t. Silence your pusillanimous apocrypha, vile termagant, and cease vitiating my noble casus belli, bitch.” That shut her up.

But the complications didn’t stop there. Now, the Koreans who live two houses up really ARE making meth, but I don’t have any sons to respond with. Further, household polling shows that my popularity is at an all time nadir. And I’m not getting laid.

Now this. I have insisted that we would not bring our sons home until the neighbor’s household was completely stable and able to support itself peacefully. When my wife asked me how long that would take, I would call her craven for even asking and assert that the boys would be there indefinitely. (See how well it works? Look confident and denigrate skeptics.)

But then she found this note on my desk where I had been scribbling a timetable for bringing my sons home in the next few months. So now she’s accusing me of grandstanding and hypocrisy. And I’m all like, “You wanted your sons home, didn’t you? So just shut up and stop asking questions.”

It’s her arrogance that really bugs me.

Shoot the Vote!!!

Ever wonder what that NRA stance on abortion might be? I think it might go something just like this:

Abortion. The wrenching of a young babe from its womb. The taking of its innocent life. The ignominious disposal of its carcass. The young, supple, splayed legs of its mother.

This is the ugly face of abortion, friends, and it’s a face that most of us would like to spray with our favorite .12-gauge.

Unfortunately, dealing with abortion isn’t as simple as shooting your no-good boss or your cheating wife. It’s a convoluted issue that demands convoluted thinking.

Obviously, we all agree that the right to self-protection is the most basic, God-given, Constitutionally mandated, and inalienable right we humans beings have, right?

But unborn children are typically unable to protect themselves, which is why so many of our NRA brothers and sisters support pro-life organizations.

Whether they donate money, write their Senators, or savagely gun down abortion clinic workers, NRA members are very involved in the protection of the unborn, and we very much support legislation that will outlaw this barbaric procedure.

But recently our friends in the government have gone too far. In their noble quest to protect fetuses from abortion, they are foolishly stripping you and me of our right to defend ourselves.

Specifically, House bill J91.258.199M would make it illegal to terminate the life of an aborted fetus by shooting it. The NRA abhors this regressive bill and intends to challenge its legality should it ever become law.

While the NRA is sympathetic to the pro-life cause, we strongly believe that the right to shoot an aborted fetus in self-defense cannot be taken from us.

Consider Sandra Bermelli. Sandra was 4 months pregnant when doctors told her that there was an 11% chance that her baby would be born breech. Knowing that breech births accounted for the deaths of over 58 million females last year (across all species worldwide), Sandra realized that it was either her or her fetus.

Faced with this heart-wrenching decision, Sandra opted to abort the fetus before it could kill her. After removing the fetus from her body with a coat hanger, she used her Browning BDA 380 double action semi-automatic pistol –with contoured solid walnut stock, high polished blue finish, grooved trigger, and adjustable fixed sights– to finish it off.

Revolting? Yes. But Sandra was simply defending herself from an imminent threat, and the NRA will always support self-defense shootings.

To make the NRA’s stance perfectly clear, I say to Sandra:

We disagree with your decision to abort your fetus,
but we’ll defend to the death your right to obliterate it with a personal firearm.

Shooting aborted fetuses isn’t the only front on which our right to self-defense is being beset. House bill N12-445-669L would make it illegal to use a firearm against in utero fetuses, thus taking away our best chance at preemption.

Five years ago, Bradley O’Connely was in despair about his wife being pregnant with twins. As a down-on-his-luck, out-of-work investment banker selling bathtub crank to eke out a mere $11,000 a year, Bradley knew that supporting his wife and children would kill him.

There was simply no way for him to feed them and himself. Bradley had a decision to make, and he chose life. Thus, in an inspiring act of self-sacrifice and self-defense, Bradley shot his twins while still inside his wife, Kate.

The twins died, but somehow, Kate didn’t make it. Bradley was crushed.

Today, Bradley is remarried and has a young son. He earns over $45k a year smuggling Mexicans across the border, and he’s earned an Associate’s degree in Hotel, Restaurant, and Tourism from the Brood County Community College.

Yes, he’s living the American dream, but Bradley will be the first to tell you that shooting those fetuses in utero has made all the difference in his life. If he hadn’t defended himself, he might not be here today. And neither would about 650 Hispanic workers– see how many lives can be altered by one brave decision?

For those of you who find yourselves in similar life-threatening situations, I urge you to consider using ammunition specially designed for maximum fetal stopping power.

Zeron currently offers the Draconian 785, a bullet featuring a soft lead core, a thin jacket, and a significantly hollowed point. The Draconian actually expands in human tissue, thus providing more certainty when going after wily in utero fetuses.

Until next time, my friends, remember to Shoot the Vote, and kill these babies... err... I mean bills.

Pushing the Envelope on Hypocrisy

From the AP on Bush's new push to institute a line-item veto:

***
"Under the current system, many lawmakers are able to insert funding for pet projects into large spending bills," Bush said in his Saturday radio address.

Bush says this leaves lawmakers with two bad options: They can vote against an entire bill even though it contains worthwhile spending, or they can vote for a bill even though it includes money for special-interest projects.

"The president is left with the same dilemma -- either he has to veto the entire bill, or sign the bill and approve the unnecessary spending," Bush said, adding that governors in 43 states have line-item veto authority.
***

How to get this out...THE REPUBLICANS HAVE CONTROLLED THE ENTIRE GOVERNMENT FOR FOUR FREAKING YEARS!!!

IF ANYONE IS ABUSING SPENDING ON SPECIAL-INTEREST PROJECTS, IT'S REPUBLICANS, REPUBLICANS, AND MORE REPUBLICANS.

Wow, sucks to be my keyboard during the Bush years.

Let's face it, the only special projects that the Dems get are the small cumshaws the Repubs throw them to keep their mouths shut about the egregious theft perpetrated by Frist, Hassert & company, or to get the Dems to break party rank and vote for ludicrous conservative measures.

This is so much hog-wash posturing by Bush to try and appear like he actually understands fiscal responsibility. This after he's spent $2 trillion in Iraq, and after HIS party voted to raise the national debt limit to $9 trillion.

This after he has grown the government more than Clinton, sent spending through the roof, and wasted our surplus in a matter of months.

And worst of all, he's been cutting taxes for the rich with the zeal of Fred Phelps bashing gays.

And now he has the gall to claim that the country would have better control of its spending if he had more authority to cut measures?

Look, can you name a time when his Congress or his party has even sort of reigned him in? I can't. Sure, a few ran from the Social Security catastrophe he was pimping. But otherwise, his word is law. If he told Frist and Hassert to cut spending, you can bloody well believe that spending would be cut.

But he never has. Because Repubs LOVE spending when money they're the ones who spend it.

Just like Repubs love growing the government when they're the ones growing it, and just like Repubs LOVE judicial activists when they're judges are the ones twisting the law.

These people necessitate a stronger word than hypocrisy.

The Message

So as Josh discussed in that last link, the Dems just can't find their message, and they don't know how to stop letting Rove dictate not just the argument, but the language and framing of the argument.

Here's my suggestion: Bush's incompetence is no excuse to let more soldiers die.

He has had no plan from the start. Over three years, and he still has no plan.

Worse, this entire campaign has only diverted attention away from fighting terrorism. Remember when we attacked Iraq and Americans were all united and the world supported and respected us? That's how it was. And if we had just focused on fighting terrorism, then we would have captured bin Laden and Mullah Mohammad Omar (leader of the Taliban) and probably dismantled al Qaeda, and we'd still be a respected world leader.

Instead, we've totally destabilized Iraq and created a wonderful breeding ground for terrorists.

Worse yet, by invading a non-threatening sovereign nation, condoning and perpetrating torture, and secretly "rendering" innocent people into secret prisons, we have actually given bin Laden recruiting tools he never could have manufactured on his own. Because now when bin Laden calls the U.S. the great Satan, he some facts on his side.

We did invade a non-threatening sovereign nation, we are condoning and perpetrating torture, and we are using extraordinary rendition (which is the most horrifying cold-war tactic I can think of...particularly when it snatches innocent people away from their families, which is proven to have occurred).

So here are some more slogans for the Dems:
-Let's get back to fighting terrorism
-Let's stop recruiting for bin Laden
-Let's remember that the world looks to us for guidance; do we want to live in a world where military might is wantonly thrown about and torture is deemed acceptable?

Yeah, that last one's too long. It's probably Kerry's favorite...

Anyway, the Dems need to take this fight to Rove. He can't answer these charges. We have no bin Laden or Mullah Omar. Terrorist attacks have increased exponentially since we invaded Iraq, as has terrorism recruiting. We are only undermining our safety.

Perfect example: four years ago, the world would have been aghast about American soldiers being tortured. Now the world shrugs and says, "Turnabout is fair play."

So we've totally ceded the moral high ground thanks to this absurd invasion, and the bodies keep mounting and the terrorists just keep getting more excited, so Bush keeps fighting, and the bodies keep mounting, and the terrorists just keep getting more excited...

Last slogan: Break the cycle of stupidity

Bravura

Josh Marshall's site should be required reading for Americans. He just added a post that really speaks to what I've been talking about.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/008830.php
Make sure to bookmark his site.

When Unity Trumps Wisdom

One of the media's favorite themes today involves unity. The Repubs have it, the Dems don't. And it certainly does seem true, as the Rebubs stick doggedly to their party line, while the Dems are much more fractured.

The big problem is that the media lapdogs (thank you, Eric Boehlert) value unity over thoughtful disagreements, and this is patently absurd.

Let's say it again: Iraq is the quagmire of quagmires. No one knows how to fix it. So is it really surprising that thoughtful people would disagree on the best way to proceed? It seems perfectly reasonable that a group of smart people would have different solutions to one of the most complex military/political puzzles we've ever faced. But the Dems are getting killed in the media for not all having the same vision, while the Repubs have their praises sung for all having the same misguided and vacuous slogan (“stay the course”) posing as a strategy.

Carl Schurz once wrote: “My country right or wrong; when right, to keep her right; when wrong, to put her right.”

Whether you agree with their plans or not, what the Dems are trying to do is put our country right. What the Repubs are trying to do is ensure their reelections by corroborating Bush’s absurd and untrue claims that progress is being made in Iraq.

One side is struggling with the issue and showing the strains of dealing with such an impossible situation (that was caused by the other party, mind you). The other is sticking to talking points and mindless rhetoric. And why shouldn’t they? As long as the idiots in the media continue to equate consensus with strength and wisdom, there is no incentive for the Repubs to abandon their threadbare talking points of “turning the corner” and “we won’t cut and run.”

So why doesn’t the media condemn the empty sloganeering of the Repubs and hail the honest deliberations of the Dems?

I guess unity makes a better story. In one of the best examples of Republican-spun articles that I’ve seen in a while, the NY Times had a cover story on 6/16/06 by Robin Toner and Kate Zernike rubbed the reader’s face in the fact that the Dems are divided and the Repubs unified. A few excerpts:
“Democrats, divided over the wisdom…” (graph 8);
“Democrats have been divided over the issue…” (graph 18)
“Republicans mocked the democrats for their divisions…” (graph 19);
“…this resolution…left many Democrats in a bind…” (graph 22).

Hey, do you think the Dems are divided on this topic? Do ya? Do ya? Huh?

In the same article, Tom Cole, Repub Representative from Oklanoma, is quoted as saying, “Whether we are right or wrong, we…do have a unified position.”

Compare this to the quote by Schurz above. According to Cole, being unified is preferable to being thoughtful or right. Maybe it makes more impact when the sentence is shortened to: Being unified is preferable to being right. That’s Cole’s argument. That’s the media’s implicit stance. And it’s so backwards that I can’t believe it’s even happening in the United States in 2006.

Kerry tried in vain to portray our political problems in nuanced and complicated terms, and the media killed him for it. Bush talks in moronic black/white terms that are totally divorced from reality and he’s called a man of conviction. It’s completely backwards.
Yes, I hate Repubs, but by deeper disdain is for the media. They admire pols who can stick to their talking points (Ken Mehlman), but blast pols who are willing to have an honest discussion and risk occasionally saying something a bit outlandish but well-intentioned (Howard Dean).

And the media keeps glorifying unity among dishonest, fatuous slogan-slingers on the right while disparaging the honest, thoughtful, difficult deliberations occurring on the left.

Profligate, really. And so sadly typical.

More Double Standards

And I'm getting really sick of hearing people carp about the Dems not having a plan to get us out of Iraq. Are you kidding me? The Dems didn't get us into this quagmire of quagmires; Bush did. So where is HIS plan? And no, "stay the course" does not count as a freaking plan.

Look, the Dems control NO part of the government; they have no power right now at all. So even if they had a plan, they couldn't do anything about it. Yet the bloody media loves beating them up (led to this idea by Republican talking points, of course) as if this whole thing is their fault (which it is partly, but just a small part for being cowards...the invasion never would have happened if Gore/Kerry were president).

On the contrary, Republicans control EVERYTHING. They could enact a new plan tomorrow if they wanted to. But they don't. Why? Because THEY DON"T HAVE A PLAN!!! For crying out loud, you media patsies. "Stay the course" isn't a plan. Call Bush on it the way you are trying to take the Dems to task.

It's sheer cowardice to attack the pawns when the king is the culprit. Ask Bush for his plan. Ask Frist. Ask Rove and Hastert, Cheney and Rummy. Go ask them.

Then explain to me why the Dems should be ridiculed for not having plan to extricate the US from the biggest political blunder in 30 years. Face it; no one knows how to solve this nightmare of a problem. The problem is too deep and too complicated for any plan to sound good. People are going to die no matter what we do.

But doesn't it make sense to expect more from the persons/party directly responsible for this unmittigated disaster than from Dems?

Doesn't it?