Government of the crooks, by the crooks, for the crooks

Of late, the trend in the political blogosphere has been towards group blogs and I have a theory as to why.

The Bush administration.

I know I've talked about this before, but I suspect BushCorp™'s myriad sins have simply left solo bloggers like your CaliBlogger too exhausted for proper outrage.

Torture.

Renditions.

Gitmo.

Abu Ghraib.

Illegal surveillance.

Katrina.

Global warming.

War in Iraq.

War in Afghanistan.

War in Iran.

"Justice" Department.

Alberto Gonzales.

Right wing Supreme Court.

And now, Scooter Libby.

Sigh.

I started this blog in order to express my rage and incredulity over the outcome of the '04 elections. At that time I couldn't bear the thought that my fellow citizens had really re-elected this idiot.

And in the intervening time I've done my level best to keep up, but, in the face of so much incompetence and corruption I'm frankly overwhelmed.

So, though I suppose that commuting the sentence of a convicted perjurer in a country where possessing an ounce of pot can land you in jail should put me in a proper lather, I find it does no such thing.

It just makes me feel tired.

So, for those of you seeking some proper outrage I can only recommend checking out a few of my brethren in the blogosphere:

Shaun Mullen:

It would have been one thing if the Libby commutation had been an aberration. But here is a man who as governor of Texas openly mocked a woman whom he had just put to death by pursing his lips and squeaking “please don’t kill me” after she had appealed to him for clemency.

Digby (multiple posts).

mcjoan (at Daily Kos) has a nice roundup of candidate reactions.

And if you want some true hair-singeing, read the comments to MissLaura's news post on Libby (also at Kos).

I could go on, there's plenty of well-earned bile out there.

But frankly I need a nap.

And a shower.

Defeat in Iraq

President Bush has claimed that the only way we can lose in Iraq is if we leave.

But what if that assertion is no more accurate than any other assertion he makes?

What if the US Army, for all its might, stays in Iraq and is defeated none-the-less?

James Wolcott puts into words an idea that's been rattling around your CaliBlogger's brain for some time now:

On the op-ed pages and the pundit panels and in the presidential debates, the onus is put on those who advocate withdrawal, even wimpy, slow-mo, phased withdrawal. They're put on the defensive as the questions are posed, "What happens if the US withdraws? What would that do to American credibility? Are you prepared to take responsibility for a bloody aftermath?"

But the counter-question also needs to be asked:

"What happens if the US stays--and loses? How prepared are you to deal with that eventuality?"

Mr. Wolcott's article should be read, as always, in full to appreciate the depth of his analysis, but especially this time for the citations from William S. Lind, Larry C. Johnson, and Timothy Garton Ash, which flesh out the increasingly real possibility of American military defeat.

Cool covers

Jesus' General has a very manly post up featuring a player and a great list of cover songs.

No it's not political, though, as always with the general with the songs all rate an 11 on the scale of absolute gender.

Check 'em out here.

And while you're at it drop a dime in the General's tip jar. Bandwidth ain't cheap.

How to deal with a giant talking head

How could I possibly pass up an article titled: Sweet Jesus I love Bill O'Reilly!?

I couldn't.

The LA times op-ed is Rosa Brooks' account of how her appearances on BillO's show landed her a job as a columnist at the Times.

You see, I am probably the only member of the Left-Wing Media who can truly say that I owe my career in punditry in part to O'Reilly.

Here's how it happened. Two years ago, I was not a member of the Left-Wing Media. I was just a lowly member of a somewhat different left-wing conspiracy, otherwise known as academia, from whence I wrote the occasional radical Op-Ed article, supported various far-left causes and strove ceaselessly to poison the minds of young Americans.

It was hard but rewarding work. Then one day, I got a call inviting me on to "The O'Reilly Factor" as live bait — excuse me, as a "guest." Because I was perhaps the only person in North America who had never actually seen the show, I foolishly agreed.

After a couple of appearances where she served as Bill's liberal punching bag, Ms. Brooks came to the realization that no-one talking with O'Reilly will ever win the shouting matches he initiates and which serve as "debate" on his show.

Michael Kinsley, who was then Times' editorial page editor was so impressed by her calm performance in the face of the huge gusting windbag that he invited her to write a column for the paper.

How was Ms. Brooks able to counter Bill's bombastic bullying?

I emerged from the [first] experience bloody but still unbowed (we radical leftists are a scrappy lot, when we're not advocating surrender to terrorists). And I was invited back.

This time, I practiced beforehand with my overtired toddler. She'd shriek out meaningless invective, and I'd just keep talking calmly. It must have helped, because by my third O'Reilly appearance, I made it through with hardly a scratch. Bill, though, was spluttering madly.

The "topic" that third time was members of the "left-leaning press," such as Michael Kinsley, then-editorial page editor of The Times who — unlike Bill — failed to fully appreciate the terrorist threat (as evidenced by an unpatriotic desire to provide Guantanamo detainees with due process). Bill suggested that Kinsley might find pedagogical value in having his head chopped off by terrorists. I upbraided Bill for going soft and explained that I'd figured him more as a boiling-in-oil kind of guy. Bill appeared disconcerted and abashed and assured me that he, personally, would "never do that to Mr. Kinsley."

Mr. Kinsley's invitation came the next day.

Mission Accomplished: 4 years later

Every night as part of his sign-off, Keith Olbermann gives a count of the number of days since Bush's infamous "Mission Accomplished" speech.

Today he can give a rounder number: 4 years.

And while the president vetoes the funding bill which would set benchmarks for withdrawal from this ghastly mess, and interestingly timed reports of the death of yet another al Qaeda muckety-muck, Juan Cole gives a thorough Fisking (in links) of Bush's speech and how it compares to the present grim reality.

A quick survey of the topics gives a feel for just how well we're doing:

• -Riots, Looting? Stuff Happens
• -7 of 8 major reconstruction projects in danger of failing.
• -US has failed to reconstruct Iraq.
• -Trudy Rubin: ”Wolfowitz told me he believed that the London-based Iraqi opposition (headed by Ahmed Chalabi) would return to Baghdad and assume the reins of power . . ."
• -Al-Maliki Government uses Saddam-era law to block corruption probes.
• -The Iraq Effect: War has Increased Terrorism Seven Fold.
• -"Iraq civilian attacks send worldwide terror deaths soaring: US".
• -Toppling of Saddam statue faked.
• -Study: War Blamed for 655,000 Iraqi Deaths.
• -Bloody Iraq Uprising Rocks US.
• -One thing is certain: the Death of Saddam was About Revenge, not Justice.
• -David Kay: No Evidence Iraq Stockpiled WMD.

Prof. Cole's post must be read in full to appreciate the tragic irony of that speech, and to follow the links if you want to read further.

Happy anniversary y'all.

Why we love the interenet

He used often to say there was only one Road; that it was like a great river: its springs were at every doorstep, and every path was its tributary. "It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out of your door," he used to say. "You step into the Road, and if you don't keep your feet, there is no knowing where you might be swept off to. - J.R.R. Tolkien

With all the grim news out there it's easy to forget just how cool the internets tubes really are.

I was reminded of the fact by an article and discussion at WashingtonPost.com about the possibility of genetic linkages between modern humans and homo neanderthalis.

Without going into the specifics of the science involved what strikes me most is just how much information is available to someone interested in virtually any subject no matter how arcane.

On any subject imaginable a simple Google query leads to thousands of articles containing links to thousands of other articles on virtually any subject.

And once you take that path it can lead to, virtually, anywhere.

An elevator pitch on Iraq

An elevator pitch is a type of sales tool designed to present whatever you are selling, yourself, a product, an idea, in a clear concise manner, as during a happenstance elevator encounter.

Andrew Sullivan, as channeled by Kevin Drum, has an excellent and brief presentation as to why we should get out Iraq:

[W]e are "occupying a sovereign Muslim country indefinitely, against the wishes of a clear majority of Iraqis, [and Americans]," a project with little chance of success and considerable chance of creating ever more problems as long as it continues.

[snip]

So we should leave. Soon. Let the Shia and tribal leaders and the Kurds confront al Qaeda. It's about time they did. And they have as good a reason as we do and far better knowledge of the enemy and the terrain. Until they own this war against Islamist terror, it won't be won. And by continuing to stay, we postpone the day when they have to fight for their own country and their own religion — and win the war we cannot win for them.

Memorize these two brief paragraphs and you will forever be ready for any circumstance where a GOP talking point spouting wingnut besmogs the air with BushCorp™ inanities in your presence.

Instant gratification and the internet

(First, my apologies, but this post has nothing to do with porn. Sorry.)

This morning as I was going through my usual routine of reading the news on-line, drinking coffee, and smoking cigarettes, Mrs. CaliBlogger was flipping through the cable-guide, looking for a Sunday afternoon movie to watch.

One movie she mentioned was Dark Horizons, which stars Vin Diesel.

Not being a particular fan she asked me if I was familiar with the film, which I'm not.

However I did vaguely recall that I'd read once that the movie was a sequel to another Vin Diesel movie I also hadn't seen at the time Dark Horizons was being advertised. A movie whose name I couldn't recall.

Now there was a time, not so long ago, when that would have ended the conversation. She would have gone back to channel flipping and I'd have gone back to whatever I was doing, and perhaps I'd think of the movie later, perhaps not.

But as you've no doubt guessed, this being the Internet age and all, that sort of situation has an entirely different ending.

A quick search of "Dark Horizon" yields the IMDB page where reading the reviews reveals the name of the movie in question. (Google it yourself if you're really interested).

What occurred to me is just how frequently this sort of thing happens to me, and just what a boon it is.

You see, once was, when a thought, "just on the tip of your tongue" as the saying goes, could be quite troublesome for me.

One case in point. Back in the (pre-Internet) dark ages I was talking with a friend about the Eagles, (and yes, this was in the eighties, so I might well have been a little stoned at the time) and I could not for the life of me recall the name of the guy who first joined the group for the Hotel California album.

The net result was that at 11 o'clock at night I found myself driving to Tower Records (RIP) which I knew stayed open 'til midnight, where I spent a half hour thumbing through the alphabetized record bins until I realized that just finding Hotel California would probably answer my question (did I mention that I was probably a little stoned?).

Anyway.

That is just the sort of episode I'll never experience again, and not just because I no longer smoke pot, but because of the Internet.

Frankly, nothing remains at the tip of my tongue for any longer than I take to Google it.

No song lyric remains indecipherable so long as I can remember the singer or the title, not even Blinded by the Light.

Now I wish I could say that having freed my neurons from pondering such trivia has improved my mental abilities, though frankly, I have no empirical evidence that this is the case.

But it certainly leaves my mind clearer for the important things in life.

Like blogging.

Bush Derangement Syndrome explained

The redoubtable Lance Mannion offers some parables explaining what is referred to sneeringly by the wingnutosphere as Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS), the idea that most opposition to BushCorp is rooted in an almost pathological (and to the right) irrational hatred for George W. Bush:

Say you know a guy who likes to kick his dog.

Every morning you see him out walking his dog and whenever the dog stops to sniff around the guy gives the poor mutt a swift kick in the ribs.

You tell your neighbors about him. One of the neighbors says, "Boy, you really don't like this guy, do you?"

"No, I don't," you say, "Who likes someone who's mean to his dog?"

Little time later you hear this guy who kicks his dog wants to open a kennel in the neighborhood. Board pets, groom them. Where he wants to put the kennel is zoned residential so he's asking the town board for a variance. You go to the town board meeting and stand up and say you don't think he should get the variance. It'd ruin the neighborhood, you say. Besides that, you add, this guy abuses animals.

Your neighbor, the one who observed how much you dislike the guy for kicking his dog, stands up and tells the town board not to pay any attention to what you say. Because you just dislike the guy.

The left opposes Bush because he's a dog-kicker, so to speak.

And, as Lance points out, as annoying as it is when the wingnutosphere blithely attributes the left's dislike of W to BDS, it's especially irresponsible when the MSM picks up on the meme as did Ruth Marcus in her recent WaPo column.

But more Lance:

I would just like to point out, as if it hasn't been pointed out a thousand times and won't need to be pointed out a thousand more, that the reason Liberals don't like George W. Bush's plans is that they are bad plans that he makes worse by managing them incompetently and corruptly---in fact, incompetence and corruption are usually built into them as selling points to Republicans.

And the reason we don't like him is that he has a long history of pushing bad plans that he makes worse by managing them incompetently and corruptly.

We don't like people who kick dogs.

We don't like corporate executives who abuse employees and hurt their own companies.

We don't like dishonest electricians who do substandard work.

We don't like incompetence and corruption.

And we don't like Presidents who start unnecessary wars and lose them, who let cities drown, who bankrupt the Treasury and give away the store to their rich pals and cronies, who write legislation specifically designed to undermine existing government services, make things worse for the poor and the middle class, and give away the store to their rich pals and cronies.

Too bad for us.

We're irrational on the subject.

This of course is anathema to members of the DC press elite like Marcus (her co-worker David Broder is notorious for this) because it violates their only article of faith: that the people they attend cocktail parties with should all just get along.

Regardless of who kicks dogs.

Confessions of an office wife

Nora Ephron channels Condi:

Then I got back to the office afterwards, and there were all these messages from the White House. I was sure they were calling to tell me how much the P. loved my testimony. But it turned out he hadn't seen any of it - he'd spent the entire day on the treadmill watching the World Series of Poker on the Tivo.

Carter Book Controversy Rages

Apparently Jimmy Carter's new book about the Palestinian-Israel (conflict, subjugation, fiasco?) is still causing quite a brouhaha in some quarters.

I confess that I haven't yet read the book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, but it seems to me that the man who hammered together the Camp David Accords might have a valuable insight or two into the region's ongoing quagmire.

Until such a time as I get to read the book, and in light of the ongoing controversy(?), I'll defer to the judgment of my betters. Wolcott:

Anyone can link to anything on the web, and anyone who thinks that Jimmy Carter shares sympathies with White Supremacist groups is a liar, a fool, or a tool.

Let me see if I understand this irony: To counter Carter's claim that the Israeli lobby stifles debate in this country, the Anti-Defamation League is going to stifle debate and slime the former president with guilty (sic) by association to prove how wrong he is. [Emphasis mine-CK]

Bush's escalation surge speech: A viewer's guide

Golly, you're thinking, the president has been hinting at having a new* plan for Iraq ever since Democrats kicked his party's collective butts in the last election. And now we're finally going to be made privy to Dear Leader's no doubt decisive decisions on what to do with the mess in Mess-o-potamia (© The Daily Show).

So in anticipation of this highly touted event, Arianna has posted a helpful viewing guide, just to let you know what to look out for.

When it comes to the White House's latest "new approach" to Iraq, we are definitely entering "the lunatics have taken over the asylum" territory.

The judgment behind it -- looking at the advice of military experts, and the unambiguous results of the November election, and deciding the proper response is to escalate our involvement in Iraq -- is straight out of One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest.

Psychiatric literature defines delusional thinking as "false or irrational beliefs maintained despite clear evidence to the contrary."

Sound like any commander-in-chief you know?

Read it here.

*"New" meaning: stay the course with a few more troops and different sounding names for things.

Let's put the execute back into executions.

Yet another reason for HuffingtonPost to exist.

Elayne Boosler.

Starting last month the veteran comic (comedian, comedienne?) joined Arianna's motley band of celeb posters.

I've always enjoyed her comedy, and like some (Steve Martin) and unlike others (Harry Shearer, Dennis Miller) her wry, unblinking look at the weirdness that infects all current events has not been lost in the translation from stage to page.

For example her 1/5/07 post takes a look at the brouhaha surrounding Saddam's lynching execution.

Sure

Saddam Hussein, [was a] mass(ive) murderer, dictator, tyrant, Stalin worshiper, torturer, contortionist by proxy, mass grave filler, public beheadings Master of Ceremonies, (the Kurds found him a gas), fingernail-extracting, eye-gouging, genital-shocking, bucket-drowning, multi-tasker...

But, and I think we can all agree here, that is no excuse for taunting. Taunting is just plain rude. And how did they taunt him? They chanted the name of a different leader. I mean, talk about kicking a guy when he's down. I wasn't around for the hanging of Wilhelm Frick after Nuremberg, but I'd like to think I wouldn't have said anything.

Now before you choke on your Cheerios, be clear, Elayne isn't defending the Sadrist lynch mob. Her point:

Come on people, let's make up our minds about capital punishment. I'm against it, morally and ethically, unless someone kills someone I know and love, then I'm for it.

If we're against it, then let's not do it. But if we're going to do it, then let's do it!!!! Why make it as pleasant, painless and considerate as possible? Let's GO for "deterrent". It won't be "cruel and unusual" if it becomes usual. No painkillers, slow injections, easy slipping into the twilight, with doctors and priests and bed and blanket. So we don't lose ourselves, let's get the best in the business to do the job for us; let the already convicted murderers do it. They need the work, and a chance to think outside the box. [Emphasis mine-CK]

Which I believe is why executions, like wars, and torture sessions for that matter, should be televised, and if I could arrange it somehow, mandatory viewing.

Let's put the execute back into executions.

It's easy enough to let our government carry out this sort of grisly business behind closed doors. Out of sight, out of mind.

But for all those who give tacit support to war, to executions capital punshiment, to torture, I believe being forced to watch exactly what's being done in our names might have a most salutory effect.

A daily read

If you don't already read Dan Froomkin's White House Briefing column regularly all I can say is this.

You should read Dan Froomkin's White House briefing column regularly.

I know, I know, it's not easy. He doesn't have a permanent URL so you have to search the front page at WashingtonPost.com.

But still, it's worth the effort.

Today's column about the fultility of a troop escalation surge is a case in point. Not only does he provide clear-eyed opinion, but links to many others of the same ilk.

Froomkin:

If the vox populi and the cognoscenti agree that throwing more American bodies at the problem will only result in more American deaths, then how is the apparent Bush plan anything short of a betrayal of the troops and an expression of contempt for the will of the people?

And is there any more plausible explanation for Bush's behavior than that he is willing to sacrifice more troops so he won't have to admit -- at least not yet -- that he made a mistake? Is that a good enough reason to ask even one more soldier to die?

And, among others, links to:

Keith Olbermann (text, video):

"Mr. Bush, your judgment about Iraq -- and now about 'sacrifice' -- is at variance with your people's, to the point of delusion.

"Your most respected generals see no value in a 'surge' -- they could not possibly see it in this madness of 'sacrifice.'

"The Iraq Study Group told you it would be a mistake.

"Perhaps dozens more have told you it would be a mistake.

"And you threw their wisdom back, until you finally heard what you wanted to hear, like some child drawing straws and then saying 'best two out of three . . . best three out of five . . . hundredth one counts.'

"Your citizens, the people for whom you work, have told you they do not want this, and moreover, they do not want you to do this.

"Yet once again, sir, you have ignored all of us. . . .

"First we sent Americans to their deaths for your lie, Mr. Bush.

"Now we are sending them to their deaths for your ego."

And Jane Smiley at Huffingtonpost.com, as well as Robert Hodierne for the Military Times.

And many more.

A reason for HuffingtonPost to exist

A year and a half ago, any number of bloggers were, shall we say, a wee bit hostile to the creation of Huffingtonpost.

Arianna and her coterie of celeb dilettantes were going to destroy the populist heroism of the blogosphere. There goes the neighborhood.

Or something like that.

But that was never your CaliBlogger's belief. I welcome the cacophony of voices found on the internets. Even those of the (typically semi-) famous.

But today HuffPo published an article which I posit makes its entire existence, though it were 'til now entirely quisquilious*, yet absolutely worthwhile:

Steve Martin on Hussein's death:

Oh, my Saddam, how I loved your funny little ways. The way you held your teacup; the way you enjoyed those who coaxed a smile from you. I love that you found a way to exist in this mixed up world, how you thought, "why be mean when you can be nice?" Saddam, I will miss the way you would point to someone and then they would be dead, the way your puppy Pluto became a rug.

Yes, it's all been worth it after all.

*I love on-line dictionaries.

Top 10 Iraqi myths

Incredibly, given that everything they've advocated so far has failed, neo-conservative wankers like William Kristol and Frederick Kagan continue to advocate troop increases of 10,000 to 30,000 in order to somehow "win" the war in Iraq.

In an effort to clarify what the hell's going on with Iraq, middle-east expert and University of Michigan, Ann Arbor history professor Juan Cole has published his list of the top ten myths about the Iraq war.

His arguments are both incisive and compelling and should be read in full by anyone seeking a clear understanding of what's going on in Iraq, and why people like Kristol and Kagan are so full of shit.

But here, in brief, are the myths:

1. Myth number one is that the United States "can still win" in Iraq.

Cole's supporting reasoning is more thorough than mine, but let me ask: How can an outside power EVER win someone else's civli war?

2. "US military sweeps of neighborhoods can drive the guerrillas out."

The most ambitious escalation being considered is Kagan's 30,000 and 20,000 seems the most likely number. But as professor Cole points out, when we recently surged 15,000 troops into Baghdad the effect was actually an INCREASE in violence.

Cole estimates that would take a serious invasion force of half a million (a number, curiously, which corresponds to an estimate I gave a golf partner recently while discussing this very question) in order to completely pacify Iraq.

Ten, twenty, even thirty thousand additional troops only provide more American targets. And further piss off the locals.

3. The United States is best off throwing all its support behind the Iraqi Shiites.

4. "Iraq is not in a civil war," as Jurassic conservative Fox commentator Bill O'Reilly insists.

As I've long suspected, academic historians actually do have a formula for defining civil war. And Iraq has qualified since its first elections were held.

5. "The second Lancet study showing 600,000 excess deaths from political and criminal violence since the US invasion is somehow flawed."

BushCorp™'s ability to get this devastating study buried in the press has been one of its great spin success stories.

6. "Most deaths in Iraq are from bombings."

7. "Baghdad and environs are especially violent but the death rate is lower in the rest of the country."

8. "Iraq is the central front in the war on terror."

It boggles the mind that anyone even needs to point this out.

9. "The Sunni Arab guerrillas in places like Ramadi will follow the US home to the American mainland and commit terrorism if we leave Iraq."

10. "Setting a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq is a bad idea."

As I've been saying for over a year and a half, a timetable would be very helpful for all concerned.

Professor Cole's arguments are vastly superior to my paltry observations and should be read in full by anyone interested in informed debate (i.e. any wingnuts who accidently stumble by can skip them in favor of Fox "News" lastest set of talking points).

Every one else: Go. Read. Now.

Conservative dog slapped on nose

I caught this quote the other day but didn't comment on it, though it truly deserves some.

This is conservative columnist John Derbyshire whining on his blog ay the conservative National Review:

"My health insurer has just notified me, in a brief form letter, that my monthly premiums are to rise from $472.33 to $857.00 on January 1st. That's an increase of 81 percent. ***E*I*G*H*T*Y*-*O*N*E* *P*E*R*C*E*N*T*** Can they do that? I called them. They sound pretty confident they can. Ye gods!"

He seems to have the hurt expression a dog gets when its master slaps its nose with a newspaper for (to the dog) no good reason.

Dontcha just love it when the vaunted free market's "invisible hand" slaps one of its own?

Blogging at Obsidian Wings, hilzoy has a nice rundown of some of the reaction and a few trenchant remarks herself.

Go read them here.

The General Speaks

You listen:

I'm seething with anger over Rove's assertion that people like you and I want our soldiers to come home in bodybags. Such a statement is unforgivable. It would not matter if it was a mistake, an unfortunate phrase spoken in anger. It would still be despicable.

It appears, however, that it is something more than loose words uttered at a weak moment: it's part of a calculated strategy to turn those of us who opposed the war into scapegoats for its failure. It's reminiscent of the scapegoating of Jews by German nationalists after WWW I. This new Bush strategy transcends being merely despicable; it is evil.

When you're the father of two beautiful daughters, your house becomes a gathering place for young men. That was certainly the case when my daughters were in high school. We were lucky, most of them were good kids. I spent quite a bit of time with them and got to know them very well.

Now they're coming home from war. The all American boy with a heart of gold talks of his hate for "hajis" and wishes we could nuke the place. The class clown sits in his room all day staring at the Cartoon Channel while self medicating with pot and booze. The nice liberal Jewish boy who melted my wife's yenta heart tells us in a dispassionate, far-away monotone that "killing those animals was like stepping on ants." Our "son" screams at night.

My heart breaks for these boys we adopted in their teenage years. They've lost their souls. And for what?

War does this to people. That's why it should never be entered into unless there is no other alternative. That wasn't the case for this war. As far as I can tell, we invaded Iraq because Bush and the necons wanted to be remembered as great men like Roosevelt or Lincoln, or perhaps more accurately, Augustus. It's there in the subtext of PNAC papers for all to see. The oil is just gravy. That's evil.

My greatest hope when I started posting about Operation Yellow Elephant was that I'd help make College Republicans a laughing stock. It offends me that these children of privilege--I'm referring to their most visible leadership--are so gung ho for a war they refuse to fight. It's as if they believe that the fighting should be left to the inferior lesser classes while they perform the intellectual heavy lifting--it's there birthright.

We need to beat these bastards. We need to have a presence, a non-violent presence, at the convention. Don't look for a leader; look for a map and get down there, now. Show them that we're not going to allow them to blame us for the evil they've accomplished. Be creative. Think of it as open source activism.

--patriotboy

'nuff said.

One of the truest posts on 9/11 you'll ever read

By all means please read the entire post by Lance Mannion (and thanks to James Wolcott for pointing me to it), but a single paragraph broke my heart with the truth of its sentiment:

The weekend after 9/11 the Mannions went apple picking at an orchard near where we lived in Syracuse. At the orchard we saw two of the bravest people in America that week. A husband and wife, both obviously Middle Eastern, devout Muslims---she was in her chador---carrying a bushel basket of apples between them.

I'm sure that a lot of people looked twice and even three times at them, but I'm also sure that just about everybody who did did what I did, smiled and said to themselves, Good for them.

Nothing I've ever read since that very bad day, and certainly in nothing ever pronounced by BushCorp™, have I felt the simple truth of the true American spirit: Good for them.

I hope someday we remember it.