Ken Layne asks (in different words) if a Slick-Willy First-Ladyship is compatible with returning dignity to the White House. I'm going to take the question more literally than Wonkette's authors, who have more fun than Larry Flynt with a madame's client list during a GOP Primary.
In comparison to the 300 milion anal-rape victims of Bush-Cheney, Bill Clinton's consentual BJ's are seeming like the good ol' conservative days of wooing a gal with a cigar and dirty talk. The rest of us got a $300 tax break that, it turns out, was a lien on our asses!
I don't support Hillary. I think she's a soft neocon, to be honest. But after looking at W's wild-eyed enabler wife and watching him dry-drunk his way through the incineration of our Bill of Rights, I could laugh myself through 8 years of Bill diddlin' the help and Hillary taking Chuck Schumer as a "special friend", which might distract him from his Wall Street errands in committee.
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Richard Viguerie: "It's Aliiiiive!!!"
The "Funding Father" (as he is most often known) of the modern conservative movement has become so disenfranchised with his pwesident that he now criticizes his GOP on Thomm Hartmann's wonderful Air America program. It reminds me of when "Fog of War" came out, and how it stank of an old man (Robert McNamara) on his death bed trying to justify his sins, and disown those he could not justify. Viguerie's creations are his responsibility, and he won't be able to distance himself from their consequences at his judgment.
Viguerie is actually the Dr. Frankenstein of our politics over the last 40 years. He has taken something that was dead and buried; buried by direct armed conflict with fascism, by the overwhelming guilt that accompanied the belated end of segregation and Jim Crowe, and by the unnecessary fear of nuclear annihilation put upon us by Democrats and Republicans, alike. That body to be resurrected was conservatism.
It was unnatural to exhume the New England protestant royalty-intelligentsia and refashion it as a champion of the poor, of the devout, of the simple working family man.
It was an abhorration to assemble the old "government off my back" libertarians with the religious oppressors in the Moral Majority leadership;
...the blue-collar worker, who hasn't the time to understand the root of his condition, with free-for-all trade econo-fascists at Chicago U;
...the anti-tax libertarians with the military industrial complex and its think tanks;
...the Mexican-hating Southwestern candidate with the checkbooks of executives whose bonuses are dependent upon exploitable immigrant labor;
...the "We're always #1" nationalists with the "Our government is incompetent" free-marketeers;
...the outdoors-loving followers of the gun lobby with the anti-environmentalists who wish to leave no cache unmined, no deer unextinct, no wood uncut;
...and most of all, the proud veterans, servicemen and women, and their families with those cowboy candidates whose dismissive rhetoric and hard hearts sounded flat-out disrespectful.
Of course, it was doomed to fail, just as Frankenstein's monster would never assimilate and be able to function of its own free will. This is because neither has a free will, no purpose common to its parts, other than to be. For the GOP, that was to be in power. Once it had completely achieved that in the Spring of 2005, its independent parts attempted to do their independent things, and could no longer work for the whole. The brain, left over from the 1950's and probably cloned from Prescott himself, could only sense and think in horror as its legs, back, feet, mouth, and eyes did things of their own free will, angry at each other over their lack of cooperation, and frightened the villagers.
We'll go ahead and stop with the allegory, I think. It seems like enough to have gotten the point across, but I reserve the right to go back if necessary, or funny.
Viguerie's sins are those of uniting the incompatable. Fear and arrogance, hate and pride, wealth and poverty, constraints and boundlessness, faith and pessimism, were functional together insomuch as none of them were in a position to expect treatment all at once. As soon as they were, they tore eachother apart.
Did Viguerie understand what he was doing, or was he the first true-believer, as W is a believer, in the common purpose of this unrealistic "assemblage"? Or, did he know he was simply empowering a beast of parts to serve the purposes of the rich? The answer is irrelevant.
Just as McNamara may have actually believed the domino theory, and that we could win in Viet Nam, an educated man should have seen that he was simply feeding the military industrial complex and the anti-communist sentiment that would keep it full for the coming decades... Viguerie is smart enough to know that these parts of his neocon alliance are competing more than they are complimentary, and this alliance could only fail when it had completely succeeded. Judgment of him will probably be the same, regardless of his intentions or level of consciousness.
Despite his irritability at the GOP and its current condition, Viguerie is not for impeachment. But I'd bet he would forever banish Bush and Cheney to the Seventh Circle of Republican Hell. Their damning offense: overreaching and blowing the GOP's cover. For those of you who haven't visited, it's a good show. It's inhabitants include Joe McCarthy, Henry Kissinger, whose soul was recently found to have been there since 1967 (he's been working on conract for Luke, his endearing name for his buddy Satan, since then), and Calvin Coolidge. It's run by Huey Long, who tortures them all for fun, and in true Huey Long fashion, taxes them for the honor of being his subjects. What could be more painful for a Republican?
Viguerie believes that blaming the beast, for being the beast, will absolve him of his sin of unnatural creation. In the end, he can hope only for Purgatory, and only if he takes the very life he gave from the beast. To ignore the criminality of his creation is to plead "not guilty" to the crime of creating it, and his sentence must certainly be more harsh for his lack of contrition.
Viguerie is actually the Dr. Frankenstein of our politics over the last 40 years. He has taken something that was dead and buried; buried by direct armed conflict with fascism, by the overwhelming guilt that accompanied the belated end of segregation and Jim Crowe, and by the unnecessary fear of nuclear annihilation put upon us by Democrats and Republicans, alike. That body to be resurrected was conservatism.
It was unnatural to exhume the New England protestant royalty-intelligentsia and refashion it as a champion of the poor, of the devout, of the simple working family man.
It was an abhorration to assemble the old "government off my back" libertarians with the religious oppressors in the Moral Majority leadership;
...the blue-collar worker, who hasn't the time to understand the root of his condition, with free-for-all trade econo-fascists at Chicago U;
...the anti-tax libertarians with the military industrial complex and its think tanks;
...the Mexican-hating Southwestern candidate with the checkbooks of executives whose bonuses are dependent upon exploitable immigrant labor;
...the "We're always #1" nationalists with the "Our government is incompetent" free-marketeers;
...the outdoors-loving followers of the gun lobby with the anti-environmentalists who wish to leave no cache unmined, no deer unextinct, no wood uncut;
...and most of all, the proud veterans, servicemen and women, and their families with those cowboy candidates whose dismissive rhetoric and hard hearts sounded flat-out disrespectful.
Of course, it was doomed to fail, just as Frankenstein's monster would never assimilate and be able to function of its own free will. This is because neither has a free will, no purpose common to its parts, other than to be. For the GOP, that was to be in power. Once it had completely achieved that in the Spring of 2005, its independent parts attempted to do their independent things, and could no longer work for the whole. The brain, left over from the 1950's and probably cloned from Prescott himself, could only sense and think in horror as its legs, back, feet, mouth, and eyes did things of their own free will, angry at each other over their lack of cooperation, and frightened the villagers.
We'll go ahead and stop with the allegory, I think. It seems like enough to have gotten the point across, but I reserve the right to go back if necessary, or funny.
Viguerie's sins are those of uniting the incompatable. Fear and arrogance, hate and pride, wealth and poverty, constraints and boundlessness, faith and pessimism, were functional together insomuch as none of them were in a position to expect treatment all at once. As soon as they were, they tore eachother apart.
Did Viguerie understand what he was doing, or was he the first true-believer, as W is a believer, in the common purpose of this unrealistic "assemblage"? Or, did he know he was simply empowering a beast of parts to serve the purposes of the rich? The answer is irrelevant.
Just as McNamara may have actually believed the domino theory, and that we could win in Viet Nam, an educated man should have seen that he was simply feeding the military industrial complex and the anti-communist sentiment that would keep it full for the coming decades... Viguerie is smart enough to know that these parts of his neocon alliance are competing more than they are complimentary, and this alliance could only fail when it had completely succeeded. Judgment of him will probably be the same, regardless of his intentions or level of consciousness.
Despite his irritability at the GOP and its current condition, Viguerie is not for impeachment. But I'd bet he would forever banish Bush and Cheney to the Seventh Circle of Republican Hell. Their damning offense: overreaching and blowing the GOP's cover. For those of you who haven't visited, it's a good show. It's inhabitants include Joe McCarthy, Henry Kissinger, whose soul was recently found to have been there since 1967 (he's been working on conract for Luke, his endearing name for his buddy Satan, since then), and Calvin Coolidge. It's run by Huey Long, who tortures them all for fun, and in true Huey Long fashion, taxes them for the honor of being his subjects. What could be more painful for a Republican?
Viguerie believes that blaming the beast, for being the beast, will absolve him of his sin of unnatural creation. In the end, he can hope only for Purgatory, and only if he takes the very life he gave from the beast. To ignore the criminality of his creation is to plead "not guilty" to the crime of creating it, and his sentence must certainly be more harsh for his lack of contrition.
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
RIP: The Permanent GOP Majority
Is the 100-Year Republican Majority, the dreamchild of coked-up GOP operatives, the conservative "intelligentsia" of the PNAC-Heritage-ChicagoU fiction-writing club, and the laundry list of Republican office-holders who seem to have been a part of a gerrymandering pyramid scheme for the last 40 years, finally dead?
The last 3 years have been a beautiful illustration of the inherent incompatibilities of the GOP alliance that has made the GOP more powerful and more intractible over much of the South and parts of the Midwest and West. The major misconception is that the current malevolence of voters towards the Republican Party is due entirely to the Iraq War. This is not the case. The voters were made aware of the Republican lie that was itself long before they lost patience with Iraq. That awareness has manifested itself in the form of a guilty opposition to a war that "apparently," said the dumbass voter, "was not an honest endeavour."
In the Spring of 2005, the neo-conservative alliance was where it had never been before; in charge of everything with the sense of entitlement to do and take whatever it wanted. They were going to change Social Security, the courts, end taxation as we know it, and use our military might to achieve every foreign objective that the Carlyle Group could find profit in. They could barely hide their excitement, and the other 6 billion of us held our breath, and waited for the end.
But there was one problem that the neo-con leadership had never planned on having to deal with, assuming they even had the foresight to know it was coming. They had no idea how to cash all the checks they'd written over the last 40-years. The only way to achieve such an unnatural condition as suddenly existed (GOP control over everything), they had to make promises to groups and agendas that were contradictory.
Their candidates in the Southwest pandered to xenophobia to get elected by white voters, but their national committee took money from the major agricultural, construction, and other immigrant-exploiting corporations. So when immigration reform met its foreseeable and agonizing demise, it was more a case of Southwestern Republicans biting the moneyed hands that feed them than it was a partisan issue.
They promised to cut taxes to harness the anger of the middle and lower-middle classes, but their record-deficit spending and a discretionary war were in such close proximity to those tax cuts, that it was obvious they had no intention of letting us keep those $300 checks. They were merely pay-day loans from China.
They promised to help the elderly with their prescription drugs, but by leaving gaping holes in their plan and not restricting drug prices, then following it up with a dangerous assault on Social Security, they gave birth to a whole new generation of lifelong Democrats who are 55 or older.
They won the White House by promising to act like the business professionals they were; then when they actually kept that promise, they made us feel stupid for not having seen Enron and Tyco coming. Their typical CEO short-term mindset, and irresponsible overreaching has made all Americans cynical of good news from Wall Street and untrusting of business leadership.
Their main bullhorn, Fox News, is part of a corporation whose product is self-contradictory. They push family values on their news network, and bash everything left of fascism, all while parading Foxy blonde talkers across the screen to keep their old-man audience captivated while they pick the most obscure fights (who really gives a damn about Ward Churchill?). But their "news" outlet was made possible by the success of the "offensive" Bart Simpson and the collage of trashy teensoaps in the 1990's. As a family values critic, I think Dan Quayle's only error was in criticising the informed adult decision of Murphy Brown while ignoring the teen-sex merry-go-round on 90210, or the promiscuity-is-glamorous Melrose Place. There were easier targets, and only his personal fear of the shows' main benefactor made him shy from them.
They promoted the idea that American family was under assault, that liberals do nothing to protect the integrity of the American family. But when the GOP dropped everything to intervene on the Terry Schiavo matter, it was obvious who was really pushing its backwards ideals on families. That an American must be at the very medical end or beginning of life to get some health care out of the GOP was not lost on those blue-collar Republicans who've been misdirecting their rage all these years. And it made religious conservatives slightly uncomfortable, and much more on their toes to watch what happened next.
Katrina was the hammer to the eggshell holding together the Republican image. That they couldn't manage a forecasted disaster was obvious to those who've been voting out of fear since 9/11. That they didn't give a damn must have made the true Christians in the Republican Party feel overwhelming guilt. Then there were those prowar Southerners who forgot what the National Guard is really for. They remember, now, and you can bet "that's what they signed up for" isn't how most of them respond to deployment stories in the news any longer.
The religious conservatives were expecting Roberts and Alito to turn the tide for them on abortion. Suddenly, both nominees had said that it was law and there wasn't a way to take back Roe. What they were adomate about was presidential powers, a mighty executive above the other two branches of government. Had the GOP been using abortion as a cover issue to get judges with pro-corporate, pro-executive agendas on the courts at all levels? Of course, and now both sides of the argument should feel stupid for having argued the abortion debate in the scorched-earth way they did.
The event that really triggered this separation of the GOP from its most necessary element was not what you think it was. Believe it or not, it was Terry Schiavo. When the GOP went completely outside the bounds of its authorities to interfere with this one family's horrible situation, yet would do nothing tangible to stop millions of abortions, it became clear that the entire "pro-life" position of the GOP was lip-service. And this awareness, whether conscious or not, put Alito's and Roberts' testimonies into a new light, and made it apparent that Katrina was less incompetence than indifference. This may not have made religious conservatives angry about their representatives, but it has certainly made them feel guilty and unenthusiastic. The electoral effect is that they stay home, at least for a few elections.
This is the most important point. When the Republican candidates have their nominations in hand, for office at any level, their campaign is manned by religious conservatives. Sure, there are always gun folks and anti-tax yuppies, but they're fewer in number and not nearly as committed. When a Republican candidate, outside of New York or California, doesn't have the physical presence of the religious conservatives, he or she is dead in the water. As things stand now, no GOP candidate can expect to have them to hand out literature, put up signs, register voters, make phone calls, write letters, raise money, or do any of the other critical volunteer duties that have given Republican candidates their edge for so long.
And at the end of the day, there's no indication that they can get that support back. The religious conservative community has been betrayed, and they know it. As long as they feel used and dismissed by the GOP, they will not be the foot soldiers that every slimy Republican needs as the buffer between their crazed ideologies and humanity.
The last 3 years have been a beautiful illustration of the inherent incompatibilities of the GOP alliance that has made the GOP more powerful and more intractible over much of the South and parts of the Midwest and West. The major misconception is that the current malevolence of voters towards the Republican Party is due entirely to the Iraq War. This is not the case. The voters were made aware of the Republican lie that was itself long before they lost patience with Iraq. That awareness has manifested itself in the form of a guilty opposition to a war that "apparently," said the dumbass voter, "was not an honest endeavour."
In the Spring of 2005, the neo-conservative alliance was where it had never been before; in charge of everything with the sense of entitlement to do and take whatever it wanted. They were going to change Social Security, the courts, end taxation as we know it, and use our military might to achieve every foreign objective that the Carlyle Group could find profit in. They could barely hide their excitement, and the other 6 billion of us held our breath, and waited for the end.
But there was one problem that the neo-con leadership had never planned on having to deal with, assuming they even had the foresight to know it was coming. They had no idea how to cash all the checks they'd written over the last 40-years. The only way to achieve such an unnatural condition as suddenly existed (GOP control over everything), they had to make promises to groups and agendas that were contradictory.
Their candidates in the Southwest pandered to xenophobia to get elected by white voters, but their national committee took money from the major agricultural, construction, and other immigrant-exploiting corporations. So when immigration reform met its foreseeable and agonizing demise, it was more a case of Southwestern Republicans biting the moneyed hands that feed them than it was a partisan issue.
They promised to cut taxes to harness the anger of the middle and lower-middle classes, but their record-deficit spending and a discretionary war were in such close proximity to those tax cuts, that it was obvious they had no intention of letting us keep those $300 checks. They were merely pay-day loans from China.
They promised to help the elderly with their prescription drugs, but by leaving gaping holes in their plan and not restricting drug prices, then following it up with a dangerous assault on Social Security, they gave birth to a whole new generation of lifelong Democrats who are 55 or older.
They won the White House by promising to act like the business professionals they were; then when they actually kept that promise, they made us feel stupid for not having seen Enron and Tyco coming. Their typical CEO short-term mindset, and irresponsible overreaching has made all Americans cynical of good news from Wall Street and untrusting of business leadership.
Their main bullhorn, Fox News, is part of a corporation whose product is self-contradictory. They push family values on their news network, and bash everything left of fascism, all while parading Foxy blonde talkers across the screen to keep their old-man audience captivated while they pick the most obscure fights (who really gives a damn about Ward Churchill?). But their "news" outlet was made possible by the success of the "offensive" Bart Simpson and the collage of trashy teensoaps in the 1990's. As a family values critic, I think Dan Quayle's only error was in criticising the informed adult decision of Murphy Brown while ignoring the teen-sex merry-go-round on 90210, or the promiscuity-is-glamorous Melrose Place. There were easier targets, and only his personal fear of the shows' main benefactor made him shy from them.
They promoted the idea that American family was under assault, that liberals do nothing to protect the integrity of the American family. But when the GOP dropped everything to intervene on the Terry Schiavo matter, it was obvious who was really pushing its backwards ideals on families. That an American must be at the very medical end or beginning of life to get some health care out of the GOP was not lost on those blue-collar Republicans who've been misdirecting their rage all these years. And it made religious conservatives slightly uncomfortable, and much more on their toes to watch what happened next.
Katrina was the hammer to the eggshell holding together the Republican image. That they couldn't manage a forecasted disaster was obvious to those who've been voting out of fear since 9/11. That they didn't give a damn must have made the true Christians in the Republican Party feel overwhelming guilt. Then there were those prowar Southerners who forgot what the National Guard is really for. They remember, now, and you can bet "that's what they signed up for" isn't how most of them respond to deployment stories in the news any longer.
The religious conservatives were expecting Roberts and Alito to turn the tide for them on abortion. Suddenly, both nominees had said that it was law and there wasn't a way to take back Roe. What they were adomate about was presidential powers, a mighty executive above the other two branches of government. Had the GOP been using abortion as a cover issue to get judges with pro-corporate, pro-executive agendas on the courts at all levels? Of course, and now both sides of the argument should feel stupid for having argued the abortion debate in the scorched-earth way they did.
The event that really triggered this separation of the GOP from its most necessary element was not what you think it was. Believe it or not, it was Terry Schiavo. When the GOP went completely outside the bounds of its authorities to interfere with this one family's horrible situation, yet would do nothing tangible to stop millions of abortions, it became clear that the entire "pro-life" position of the GOP was lip-service. And this awareness, whether conscious or not, put Alito's and Roberts' testimonies into a new light, and made it apparent that Katrina was less incompetence than indifference. This may not have made religious conservatives angry about their representatives, but it has certainly made them feel guilty and unenthusiastic. The electoral effect is that they stay home, at least for a few elections.
This is the most important point. When the Republican candidates have their nominations in hand, for office at any level, their campaign is manned by religious conservatives. Sure, there are always gun folks and anti-tax yuppies, but they're fewer in number and not nearly as committed. When a Republican candidate, outside of New York or California, doesn't have the physical presence of the religious conservatives, he or she is dead in the water. As things stand now, no GOP candidate can expect to have them to hand out literature, put up signs, register voters, make phone calls, write letters, raise money, or do any of the other critical volunteer duties that have given Republican candidates their edge for so long.
And at the end of the day, there's no indication that they can get that support back. The religious conservative community has been betrayed, and they know it. As long as they feel used and dismissed by the GOP, they will not be the foot soldiers that every slimy Republican needs as the buffer between their crazed ideologies and humanity.
Friday, July 20, 2007
TSA: Dozens of Lighters on Planes not as Dangerous as Dozens of Niccing White People in Line
So the TSA has dropped just one of their retarded bans for air travel. Unfortunately, they picked the least retarded of all of them. I as an occasional smoker, and someone susceptable to anxiety and spontaneous rage when faced with the spectre of having a cross-eyed foreigner, or a obvious alcoholic whose blood-shot eyes give away that he slept in employee parking the night before, size me up to determine if I'm a "threat", love to have access to my cigarettes right after the flight. But I'm willing to wait for that it in the logical order it should be given back. There are some other things that you should feel more comfortable giving back to airline passengers than lighters.
First off, your logic that searching for lighters causes too much delay and is too expensive for its safety payoff applies to just about everything else you do to screen passengers. The same would not be true for their checked baggage, but you still haven't gotten to that, have you? The fact is that it doesn't matter who you let on a plane, any longer. The condition where someone can stand up on a plane with anything less than a gun with lots of bullets and say, "Everything will be fine if you just do as your told," no longer exists. 9/11 was a paradigm shift in many ways, just one of which is how a plane-load of people will react to a wild-eyed nut with a boxcutter. No one will believe him any longer. The next time someone tries to do that, he's going to get his ass kicked and probably be killed, and will be lucky not to be thrown from the plane in mid-flight. So just scan for explosives and weapons, and stop with the third degree you give each passenger, and the no-fly list that keeps a 13-year old soccer player from his tournament because he has the same name as some guy who sent a threatening letter to the National Review.
And can we please stop with the whole ziploc bag, 3 ounce container deal? Every time I fly, there's some girl who's not flown in the last 2 or 3 years who has a giant bag of stuff that has to be dumped out and reorganized, and she ends up drawing the ire of her fellow passengers. This makes no sense, though, because the only reason there's even still a threat is that the Bush administration can't keep it in long enough to finish the job (I'm talking of course about Afghanistan, but many Republican women will assume I know why they're okay with their husbands going to hookers). Our anger should be directed at the administration for wasting world sympathy and backing after 9/11 and converting it to a greater threat.
Also, can I please bring liquid from outside the airport again? I hate paying $9 for a beer because you won't let me bring a water bottle through security (note: an Aquafina bottle full of vodka passes as water just about everywhere but the airport). If I'm a little sauced, I'm much less likely to say degrading, smartass things to your screeners, and much less likely to have a problem with the "authority" of the flying cocktail waitresses.
In the end, there are only two things that can prevent terrorism: 1) Diligent police and intelligence work, done with the cooperation of a public that trusts their government's capacities and intentions and will support their effort, and; 2) a reduction in the supply of angry foreign males who blame their suicidal feelings on America.
So thanks again, TSA, for letting me hang on to my lighter. Now, when I spend the entire flight fretting about the threat posed by all the baggage underneath that wasn't scanned because we've put all of our resources into taking away lighters and making us redistribute and organize our lotions and shampoos, I can put myself at ease with a smoke when I land.
First off, your logic that searching for lighters causes too much delay and is too expensive for its safety payoff applies to just about everything else you do to screen passengers. The same would not be true for their checked baggage, but you still haven't gotten to that, have you? The fact is that it doesn't matter who you let on a plane, any longer. The condition where someone can stand up on a plane with anything less than a gun with lots of bullets and say, "Everything will be fine if you just do as your told," no longer exists. 9/11 was a paradigm shift in many ways, just one of which is how a plane-load of people will react to a wild-eyed nut with a boxcutter. No one will believe him any longer. The next time someone tries to do that, he's going to get his ass kicked and probably be killed, and will be lucky not to be thrown from the plane in mid-flight. So just scan for explosives and weapons, and stop with the third degree you give each passenger, and the no-fly list that keeps a 13-year old soccer player from his tournament because he has the same name as some guy who sent a threatening letter to the National Review.
And can we please stop with the whole ziploc bag, 3 ounce container deal? Every time I fly, there's some girl who's not flown in the last 2 or 3 years who has a giant bag of stuff that has to be dumped out and reorganized, and she ends up drawing the ire of her fellow passengers. This makes no sense, though, because the only reason there's even still a threat is that the Bush administration can't keep it in long enough to finish the job (I'm talking of course about Afghanistan, but many Republican women will assume I know why they're okay with their husbands going to hookers). Our anger should be directed at the administration for wasting world sympathy and backing after 9/11 and converting it to a greater threat.
Also, can I please bring liquid from outside the airport again? I hate paying $9 for a beer because you won't let me bring a water bottle through security (note: an Aquafina bottle full of vodka passes as water just about everywhere but the airport). If I'm a little sauced, I'm much less likely to say degrading, smartass things to your screeners, and much less likely to have a problem with the "authority" of the flying cocktail waitresses.
In the end, there are only two things that can prevent terrorism: 1) Diligent police and intelligence work, done with the cooperation of a public that trusts their government's capacities and intentions and will support their effort, and; 2) a reduction in the supply of angry foreign males who blame their suicidal feelings on America.
So thanks again, TSA, for letting me hang on to my lighter. Now, when I spend the entire flight fretting about the threat posed by all the baggage underneath that wasn't scanned because we've put all of our resources into taking away lighters and making us redistribute and organize our lotions and shampoos, I can put myself at ease with a smoke when I land.
"From the Adam's Apple #1: The Dillusional Mann Coulter"
In our “From the Adam’s Apple” posts, we’ll dissect the latest rant from that manly brute, Ann Coulter. And in the spirit of keeping any of her readers who may ever stumble on this site entertained, we’ll dish out as much insult on her as she’s so fond of putting out.
The title, “From the Adam’s Apple”, hopefully needs no explanation. But, since this is the first post of the series, we’ll go ahead with some background anyways. Little is more entertaining to fascist conservatives than her regular questioning of the sexuality or manliness of Democrats. It makes their little ones seem bigger, sort of like a verbal hedge-trimming. But she forgets that she’s got an Adam’s Apple, a big, fat, manly throat that, coupled with her rhetoric, makes her seem more like a long-haired insecure man than a woman. So, just to help maintain karmic equilibrium on her behalf, we’ll call her gender into question as often as possible.
In her latest diatribe, in Human Events, against the commonly-held belief that the Iraq occupation is making us less safe, she defends her pwesident while attacking the 2008 Democratic field.
She starts out by repeating the classic, “Bush administration has kept America safe for 6 years” garbage. Not that it’s hard, being that the first WTC bombing and 9/11 were spaced by 8 years, under the “failed” anti-terror regimes of the Clinton administration. Basically, most presidents should be able to get in and out of two terms without giving up a big one like that. This administration has only made America “safer” by providing the enemy with more accessible targets… our troops. In typical Republican fashion, they’ve outsourced our victims for terrorism to Iraq.
The Republicans’ entire national security calculus is based on the intestinal inconsistencies of Chertoff. Memos, intelligence, and facts have no bearing on the level of preparedness this administration feels is appropriate. But Chertoff farts, and Cheney takes over as the fourth branch of the federal government.
She thinks that despite all the polls and the general trend away from neo-conservatism, that people will rally behind Bush and abandon the Democratic push against the war, when the next attack comes. The fact is, when there’s another terrorist attack, it’s game-over for the Republican fun bag they brought to the playground on 9/12. The Patriot Act, spying on civilians, ineffectual torture, the misinterpretation of the Constitution and the Geneva Convention, and the entire “father knows best” dismissive attitude towards dissent and thoughtful deliberation become abandoned relics we can ignore and will become permanent cues for the true sociopath putting him or herself forward as “the candidate we’d most like to have a beer with.”
In Iraq, we are not fighting the enemy; we are creating more of them. The original, not very effective, rally cry of the Islamic fundamentalist was our presence in the Holy Land, actually just a decade-long living allegory of our prior support for repressive and corrupt governments in Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Now, they can claim we kill women and children. Yes, it’s generally in the course of killing those who attack our troops, but that fact generally fails to dissuade an orphan or widower from seeking vengeance.
Coulter claims that support for redeployment would fade in the wake of another terrorist attack. In last year’s Foreign Affairs poll of national security experts, 87% said that the war in Iraq was undermining the war on terror. This opinion was obviously shared by the American people who swept the Republicans out of power in Congress, because of the Iraq War.
Coulter’s continued use of Obama’s middle name, Hussein, is certainly one of the slimier tactics she employs to keep the Bumpersticker clan of the inbred Republican extended family on board with this moronic policy (she figures they’ll be afraid that we’re going to show up to the polls and vote into the White House a Saddam-Osama hybrid in Barrack). She’s wasting good rhetoric in this effort, as this group is kept in line more by their fear of black men and any women than they are by terrorist-sounding names.
In regards to her attack on Dodd’s position (Damn that Bush, he’s inflamed an imaginary enemy!), she obviously is to busy insulting to understand what reality is; that the Bush administration has cried wolf too many times to be taken seriously; so much, in fact, that they’ve blinded themselves to real dangers. Sort of like a girl who attacks everyone for being homosexual would’ve broadened that definition too far to realize that she had crossed that actual line herself ages ago!
Mann Coulter imagines that we blame all future terrorist attacks on Iraq, but 9/11 disproves our faulty logic. Unfortunately for her, the reality is much sadder. We blame all future terrorist attacks on this administration’s failure to defeat those who attacked us on 9/11; we blame 9/11 on her pwesident’s distaste for reading, be it a newspaper, or a national security memo.
Finally, in typical Fox News fashion, Coulter tries to tie the Iraqi insurgency to the Third Reich, claiming Democrats wouldn’t have fought Germany after it declared war on us. Let me say this clearly enough that it gets past the curly black hairs in your ears, Ann; IRAQ NEVER DECLARED WAR UN US. In fact, even the invasion didn’t seem to bother most Iraqi’s, including their troops. It was her pwesident’s mismanagement of the entire affair that has led to this.
The Republican Party is in chaos, and there’s no one in charge over there. It’s a wounded animal that should be left to die painfully in the woods, to serve as a small part of the penance it owes the higher power it’s blasphemed for the past four decades. In the mean time, it will lash out, anytime anyone goes near it. The key, Mrs. Edwards, is not to get close enough to be bitten. Just point and say, “How sad, someone should put that thing down.” But for those of us not campaigning, who don’t have to stick to a script, we can laugh, and hope that this beast’s demise is agonizingly loud, for our own amusement.
The title, “From the Adam’s Apple”, hopefully needs no explanation. But, since this is the first post of the series, we’ll go ahead with some background anyways. Little is more entertaining to fascist conservatives than her regular questioning of the sexuality or manliness of Democrats. It makes their little ones seem bigger, sort of like a verbal hedge-trimming. But she forgets that she’s got an Adam’s Apple, a big, fat, manly throat that, coupled with her rhetoric, makes her seem more like a long-haired insecure man than a woman. So, just to help maintain karmic equilibrium on her behalf, we’ll call her gender into question as often as possible.
In her latest diatribe, in Human Events, against the commonly-held belief that the Iraq occupation is making us less safe, she defends her pwesident while attacking the 2008 Democratic field.
She starts out by repeating the classic, “Bush administration has kept America safe for 6 years” garbage. Not that it’s hard, being that the first WTC bombing and 9/11 were spaced by 8 years, under the “failed” anti-terror regimes of the Clinton administration. Basically, most presidents should be able to get in and out of two terms without giving up a big one like that. This administration has only made America “safer” by providing the enemy with more accessible targets… our troops. In typical Republican fashion, they’ve outsourced our victims for terrorism to Iraq.
The Republicans’ entire national security calculus is based on the intestinal inconsistencies of Chertoff. Memos, intelligence, and facts have no bearing on the level of preparedness this administration feels is appropriate. But Chertoff farts, and Cheney takes over as the fourth branch of the federal government.
She thinks that despite all the polls and the general trend away from neo-conservatism, that people will rally behind Bush and abandon the Democratic push against the war, when the next attack comes. The fact is, when there’s another terrorist attack, it’s game-over for the Republican fun bag they brought to the playground on 9/12. The Patriot Act, spying on civilians, ineffectual torture, the misinterpretation of the Constitution and the Geneva Convention, and the entire “father knows best” dismissive attitude towards dissent and thoughtful deliberation become abandoned relics we can ignore and will become permanent cues for the true sociopath putting him or herself forward as “the candidate we’d most like to have a beer with.”
In Iraq, we are not fighting the enemy; we are creating more of them. The original, not very effective, rally cry of the Islamic fundamentalist was our presence in the Holy Land, actually just a decade-long living allegory of our prior support for repressive and corrupt governments in Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Now, they can claim we kill women and children. Yes, it’s generally in the course of killing those who attack our troops, but that fact generally fails to dissuade an orphan or widower from seeking vengeance.
Coulter claims that support for redeployment would fade in the wake of another terrorist attack. In last year’s Foreign Affairs poll of national security experts, 87% said that the war in Iraq was undermining the war on terror. This opinion was obviously shared by the American people who swept the Republicans out of power in Congress, because of the Iraq War.
Coulter’s continued use of Obama’s middle name, Hussein, is certainly one of the slimier tactics she employs to keep the Bumpersticker clan of the inbred Republican extended family on board with this moronic policy (she figures they’ll be afraid that we’re going to show up to the polls and vote into the White House a Saddam-Osama hybrid in Barrack). She’s wasting good rhetoric in this effort, as this group is kept in line more by their fear of black men and any women than they are by terrorist-sounding names.
In regards to her attack on Dodd’s position (Damn that Bush, he’s inflamed an imaginary enemy!), she obviously is to busy insulting to understand what reality is; that the Bush administration has cried wolf too many times to be taken seriously; so much, in fact, that they’ve blinded themselves to real dangers. Sort of like a girl who attacks everyone for being homosexual would’ve broadened that definition too far to realize that she had crossed that actual line herself ages ago!
Mann Coulter imagines that we blame all future terrorist attacks on Iraq, but 9/11 disproves our faulty logic. Unfortunately for her, the reality is much sadder. We blame all future terrorist attacks on this administration’s failure to defeat those who attacked us on 9/11; we blame 9/11 on her pwesident’s distaste for reading, be it a newspaper, or a national security memo.
Finally, in typical Fox News fashion, Coulter tries to tie the Iraqi insurgency to the Third Reich, claiming Democrats wouldn’t have fought Germany after it declared war on us. Let me say this clearly enough that it gets past the curly black hairs in your ears, Ann; IRAQ NEVER DECLARED WAR UN US. In fact, even the invasion didn’t seem to bother most Iraqi’s, including their troops. It was her pwesident’s mismanagement of the entire affair that has led to this.
The Republican Party is in chaos, and there’s no one in charge over there. It’s a wounded animal that should be left to die painfully in the woods, to serve as a small part of the penance it owes the higher power it’s blasphemed for the past four decades. In the mean time, it will lash out, anytime anyone goes near it. The key, Mrs. Edwards, is not to get close enough to be bitten. Just point and say, “How sad, someone should put that thing down.” But for those of us not campaigning, who don’t have to stick to a script, we can laugh, and hope that this beast’s demise is agonizingly loud, for our own amusement.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)