The Last Midnight

Pope Catholic, film at 11.

2006-12-05T13:42:00.000-05:00

Gates says U.S. not winning in Iraq.

When pressed, Gates further confirmed that the sky was blue and that a bear does, in fact, shit in the woods.

I vote for face time with Keith Olbermann.

2006-12-04T14:18:00.000-05:00

Anonymous C-Span Caller gets three segments on MSNBC.

MEDIA ALERT: The Witch was on C-SPAN two days ago and criticized the entire government! Email at thewitchnextdoor at gmail to arrange your exclusive interview, would ya? Please have all-kosher snacks in the green room.

Or, you know, a Harlequin novel...

2006-12-01T17:46:00.000-05:00

Which book will America base its values on? The Bible or the Koran?

If the bloody book had any relevance, you would have expected Bush to swear in on 1984.

Personally, if I ever take public office, I will be sworn in on a full stack of Sailor Moon manga.

It has just as much chance of happening.

2006-12-01T10:04:00.000-05:00

HHS is recommending that adults under 30 should not have sex if they are unmarried.

In other news, the Environmental Protection Agency is recommending that people pee in the bushes and stop using electricity entirely.

The hypocrisy of Ann Coulter's statement.

2006-06-12T15:02:00.000-04:00

Everyone's talking about what Ann Coulter said and how disgusting it was or wasn't. But the underlying hypocrisy in her words seems to be overlooked by everyone.

Please note that on the Today show, she put forward the concept of "liberal infallibility." She is miffed at the Jersey Girls because she feels is not allowed to refute their points without being told she's attacking their legitimacy.

But is there one word that she has said to refute their points? Where is her experience of doing so?

ALL she is doing is attacking their legitimacy. Talking about whether they are really grieving or not, whether they seek publicity.

It's supremely absurd that the Right is claiming it is being prevented from making anything but ad hominem attacks, when all along it has been making nothing but ad hominem attacks!

"You're forcing me to be mean because you call me mean even when I'm nice!"

Try being nice one more time. Honestly. Just try it.

A Right-Wingers’ Guide to Left-Wing Wackos

2006-06-09T12:16:00.000-04:00

This was inspired by a sudden idea last night that someone should make a Left-Wing Heroes counterpoint to the chickenhawk cards. Since that would be too derivative, I decided to take this tack instead. What do you think?

A Right-Wingers’ Guide to Left-Wing Wackos

Russ Feingold: Wacko who wants to censure Bush. How dare he take such a radical stand and advocate such a drastic step that does nothing? You can tell he’s doing it for political gain because of all the other lawmakers who are jumping on his bandwagon. Two whole co-sponsors!

Jack Murtha: Wacko who wants to cut and run from Iraq. What the hell does he know about combat? Also, he is going around condemning our Marines before they have been tried. Innocent until proven guilty, Murtha! Keep it up and we’ll lock you in Gitmo! (BTW, OJ was totally guilty.)

Michael Moore: Fat Hollywood liberal. Obesity, after all, like being rich, is only allowed if you are as dirty with your money as possible. Rich people and fat people are not allowed to be ethical. We are fairly sure that he wants to run for President someday. Hell, we’d nominate Mel Gibson.

John Kerry: Hopeless flip-flopper. He voted for the $87 billion before he voted against it. BTW, Senate Republicans should refuse to vote for any immigration legislation, no matter how important, unless Tancredo’s felony provision is preserved. Not that this has anything to do with what we just said about Kerry’s flip-flopping.

Al Gore: Screechy and unhinged or flat and boring, depending on the day. Also, have we mentioned he thinks he invented the Internet?

Al Franken: Absolutely the most far-out left-wing wacko on liberal radio. We can’t bring ourselves to listen to that crap. See also Randi Rhodes, Mike Malloy.

Randi Rhodes, Mike Malloy: Who?
Also, have we mentioned how far-out Al Franken is?

Harry Reid: He’s neither screechy nor far-out, so he must be corrupt. Quick, someone find something on him. C’mon.

Please add your own.

It's not blame. It's not surrender.

2006-06-02T21:34:00.000-04:00

The madness over Haditha has got me thinking. Always a bad idea, I know.

But all joking aside, the Haditha story has caused something of a split even among my lefty buddies. There are two camps: the "No, we don't excuse murder, blame it on the murderers" camp, and the "It's the higher-ups' fault for getting them into such an awful situation that they snapped" camp. In a sort of sad way, this echoes a lot of the right/left split on the issues of our day. People who blast Bush's response to Katrina are blaming Bush for a hurricane. And redeploying is the same as surrendering to the terrorists. And suggesting that the US's foreign policy has caused a bad situation is the same as blaming the US for terrorism. And saying that the US should adjust its policy in the Middle East is the same as giving in to Osama bin Laden's demands. Which is unacceptable not because of the demands, but because they come from Osama bin Laden.

Imagine you are a nursery school teacher and you have left your blackboard pointer on a desk within easy reach. One of your students gets hold of it and pokes another child, making him cry and disrupting the whole class. Do you punish that child, or do you put the pointer on a high shelf, where the children can't get to it?

You wouldn't have to choose one or the other. You'd do both, right?

You hold the malefactor accountable for his actions, but you also adjust the situation so the problem is less likely to happen again.

What if the child is particularly precocious, and the next day says to you, "Ah HA! You put the pointer on a high shelf, which means that you give in. If I can reach it, it's OK for me to poke people with, is that what you're saying?"

Have you really given in? What would you say to that child?

Why can't we hold people accountable for their actions, and at the same time create conditions where they are less likely to do them? When someone has done something wrong, do we never change our own behavior in response? What about when the problem behavior is increasing?

What kind of children would we raise if we refused to change our parenting tactics in the face of an obstinate problem? What kind of drivers would we be if we plowed ahead to spite the drunk driver weaving in front of us?

It's not about surrendering or not surrendering. It's about moving forward. You can do that and still place the blame where it belongs. We do it every day.

A new toy.

2006-04-25T22:10:00.000-04:00

I discovered StripCreator today.

So now I am a self-absorbed cartoonist as well as a self-absorbed blogger.

Presenting Witchcomix!

On the news that Bush wants to use nuclear weapons in Iran.

2006-04-08T23:37:00.000-04:00

This is a human being?
Look how the atom bomb changed it.
Flesh swells fearfully.
All men and women take one shape.
The voice that trickles from swollen lips
On the festering charred-black face
Whispers the thin words,
"Please, help me."
This, this is a human being.
This is the face of a human being.

--Hara Tamiko (1905-1951), genbakusha and poet

If I were Harry Taylor I would have a question for the President.

"Sir... have you ever been to Hiroshima?"

Only the pilots and those far away get to see mushroom clouds. Those on the ground see a far different sight.

Anything but this.
Anything but this.
Anything but this.
Anything but this. (And this. -highly graphic-)

I hope he has been to that museum and seen those images... I hope he knows what will happen to someone sitting on a park bench 200 meters from the hypocenter.

I hope he knows how someone like me can visit Hiroshima and still have nightmares about the experience.

The Witch gets some mojo

2006-04-05T10:04:00.000-04:00

Wow! One of my creations -- the Chevy Coulter -- has been picked up by One Good Move, one of my favorite videoblog/regular blog sites. Huzzah!

FWIW, I also made an ad for the Chevy O'Reilly.

If anyone knows how to convert these to video to put on YouTube, please share!

Democrats are not serious about the war on terror.

2006-04-04T12:13:00.000-04:00

Oh, fucking really?

That's what JeffyLube says today.

If you take one moment to even THINK about this, you'll see how ridiculous an argument it is.

I'm sorry, but did you just say I care more about political power then national security?

I LIVE in this nation, dumbass! I'd better damn well care about its security!

I don't know about YOU, but I certainly don't want my head cut off or my city blown up. Not a lot of political power to grab THEN, is there? So just shut up about that, because it makes no sense. I don't want to be DEAD any more than YOU do."

How have we let them get so far with such a ridiculous argument.

The answer to such a pronouncement is:

"Are you saying I have a death wish?"

a brief tax-time thought

2006-04-03T13:06:00.000-04:00

In 2005, I lived half the year in D.C. and half the year in Virginia.

In "red" Virginia, I owe over $500 in taxes.
In "blue" D.C., I am getting a $1,000 refund.

How's that tax-cut economy working out for the rest of you who make 30K or so?

Fax the Judiciary Commitee

2006-03-27T16:07:00.000-05:00

Firedoglake has a campaign to fax the Judiciary using the catchphrase "U.S. Constitution: DO NOT SHRED." (It's here if you haven't seen it yet...)

Here's my fax, due to send out to the whole committee before day's end:

U.S Constitution: DO NOT SHRED

NOTICE TO SENATORS RECEIVING THIS FAX

The following is a mission-critical document. It must not be destroyed.

Your mission, should you choose to accept it*, is to protect the right of the people to be secure in their persons by knowing, without a doubt, that the government lacks the authority to wiretap them without a warrant detailing probable cause.

*Please note that you may not reject this mission. You have already sworn to defend the Constitution. Not the president, not the party, not even the lives of the people. The Constitution.

Your target’s code name is Executive Power Abuse. It bears the following identifying features: Blatant disregard for Congressional law-making authority (and executive lack of authority to do same); tendency to withhold information from superiors (i.e., the public it ostensibly serves); self-important smirk.

No tolerance will be given to the tired argument that opposition to this illegal “program” somehow equates to opposing protection from terrorism. If that were a decent excuse, you could lock us all in our houses to keep us from getting run over by drunk drivers. That is the logic of a police state. It’s safe, but it’s not free.

Please be advised that any action to shield the administration, taken for pure political gain or threat of retaliation by the media and/or your fellows in government, will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of our votes against you.

DOCUMENT FOLLOWS.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

END TRANSMISSION.

TRANSMITTER: The American People

This message will not self-destruct, and hopefully, neither will your political career, if you do your job right.

Oh yeah, it's the DEMOCRATS that are always negative.

2006-03-24T13:36:00.002-05:00

Who is Lou Dobbs most out of touch with?

[ ] The Democrats' actual vision for America
[ ] His self-image as a no-BS, no-spin non-shill
[ ] Poor Randi Rhodes, who loves him so very much.

Talk about a push poll. Very soon you will see people saying "Hillary's out of touch with _______." Why? Because we're being asked who she's out of touch with. Not WHETHER she's out of touch.

You know why they're doing this? Because the Democrats have had HUGE success with the whole "Bush is out of touch" thing. Here's what the Republicans DON'T get and what we must exploit: Republicans create reality with words, so they automatically assume that if they use the words we're using, the reality will be created. But we are not using words that way. We use words to reflect reality. Whenever we hear one of these push-poll questions, we need to say "Those aren't words I associate with our side. You can say them, but it doesn't make them real."

Imagine you are a state trooper.

2006-03-15T09:29:00.000-05:00

Your job, of course, is to stop people who are speeding.

As you are sitting there in your squad car, munching your donut, on the side of the highway, a car zips by at an absolutely dangerous speed. You look up at your radar gun, but it looks like it's on the blink and stuck at 7 mph. Perhaps the sheer speed of that car fried its batteries.

Do you sit there munching your donut because you do not have proof the car was speeding? Do you let that car zip along until it comes to a sharp turn or an unfortunate motorist changing lanes at the wrong time? Or do you choke down your last bite, uncomfortable as that may be, and go after that car so nobody gets hurt?

Now, imagine you are a U.S. Senator. Your job, of course, is to check the power of the executive branch....

Censure Bush for breaking the law

2006-03-12T12:24:00.000-05:00

Hell YES, Censure Bush. Thank you, Senator Feingold.

Here's the deal. You start with the conception that this is America and bad stuff can't happen here, and of course you think it's ridiculous. But if you start with the assumption that bad stuff can happen here, you are pretty hard-pressed to argue it isn't. And we can all do the Janet Parshall fingers in ears move, but for how long?

I know I haven't written in a while, and since nobody reads this anyway I might as well not write -- but I still think, and I still burn with outrage.

On Hackett's withdrawal from the Senate race

2006-02-14T13:10:00.000-05:00

A lot of people are saying Hackett was not as qualified as Brown. Fine. I actually agree that Hackett would be better in the House. I felt the same way about Cindy when she considered running against DiFi.

However.

It's our job to decide who the best folks are. That's what the primary is for. Establishment Democrats have no business pressuring anyone to run or not run. They should open up the field and work with the folks the people select. This is cronyism politics at its worst no matter what party's doing it. When asked about the race, folks already in power should have said "They're both excellent candidates, and we'll see who the people of Ohio decide will be better to represent their party."
That's what Howie Dean said about it.

What's more, the influence of party leaders in this particular race was misplaced. It shows the establishment to be overly concerned about this particular "outsider" coming into the race. Concerned enough to take action. They should have had enough savvy to realize the following:

a) Their pressure would not remain in the background. Being an outsider, Hackett has no inside connections, and no reason to stay quiet about why he was dropping out. This sort of internal pressure only works when it isn't exposed.

b) The fact that Democratic party leadership stepped in makes it look like Hackett had a better chance of winning than Brown. Let's face it--if he had little to no chance to begin with, the public would take care of him in the primary. He had a good enough chance that the Democratic leadership had to step in on Brown's behalf. Now it looks like they've eliminated the more popular guy in favor of the less popular guy. And who wants to vote for second best?

If our party has lost faith in the ability of the political primaries to decide who should represent the party, we've lost faith in being the party of the people and are now the party of the establishment. To paraphrase you, Harry... I'm sure we can do better than that.

Just to be clear:

2006-02-01T15:08:00.000-05:00

(Thanks to the DU poster 8 year nightmare, who pointed this out.)

We should be outraged that anyone is arrested for wearing a T-shirt, whether or not it's against some organization's house rules.

The fact that it's Cindy Sheehan is beside the point.

If Cindy Sheehan WERE a media whore, she'd be very bad at it.

2006-02-01T13:20:00.000-05:00

Oh my goodness. There goes Cindy Sheehan, getting arrested again. My god, the women will do anything to get the cameras rolling on her. She'll pull a stunt and act up at the State of the Union address just to get face time on TV.

Wait a minute...
Did you just say that no video cameras caught the incident?
None at ALL?
Dear lord! She's going about this media-whore thing all wrong!

Is it at all possible, folks, that she just wasn't thinking about choreographing her every move? Let's go, for once, from the assumption that she was. Cindy Sheehan, Certified Media Whore, wants to create a stir during the State of the Union. Her plan is to get herself plastered across every TV screen in this nation. So she's going to take off her jacket during the SOTU speech. But she gets hot, and starts to take it off before the speech, and she's shuttled out before the chance ever comes... So she's a miserable failure at mediawhoring? Or just a victim of bad luck?

Does it seem at all plausible?

Now, let's assume she wasn't planning anything dramatic. She was wearing a T-shirt under her jacket -- a T-shirt she'd been wearing at events earlier that day. She got hot and started to take the jacket off because she had been climbing stairs. Someone noticed and she was shuttled out.

Seem a LITTLE more realistic?

I know we're used to a world where everything is politically motivated. But what draws me to Cindy is how personal her message is. She doesn't pull stunts. She goes places when she's invited and she speaks when she's asked to, but she really does not pull stunts. Crawford happened on the spur of the moment, as many of us who were around at the time remember. The fact that it made national news stunned us all.

So if Cindy was asked to join a Congresswoman at the State of the Union address and she accepted that invitation, could it be that she wasn't planning a stunt? Sure, she thought that maybe the media would put her onscreen for a second, but this was definitely not meant to get maximum media exposure or she would have been smarter about it. If you consider her a media hog, she's sure not good at it... but if you consider her to be someone who is being scapegoated and treated unfairly, she fits right in.

To sum it up:

Cindy didn't do anything.
She was arrested for being there.
Not for doing anything objectionable.
Not for saying anything objectionable.
But for being there.
And for being Cindy Sheehan.

And that's the reason a lot of people dislike her.

Not because she's done something outrageous.
Not because she's said something offensive.
But because she's Cindy Sheehan.
And because she's there.

And it's hard to face the fact that people like her, who make you feel uncomfortable about your view of the world, are out there, and you have to live with them.

If I were a Senator, this'd be my speech today.

2006-01-25T15:12:00.000-05:00

"I'm seeing all my colleagues on the other side of the aisle talking about how Judge Alito is qualified, how he's been through a long confirmation process and has answered 700 questions and how to deny him a vote or to oppose him would be so unfair to him. Well, no offense to Judge Alito, but this isn't about him. My hurting Judge Alito's feelings may be unfair, but that is nothing -- NOTHING compared to the potential harm that could come to millions of other people if this judge's brand of law becomes the norm in our highest court. So pardon me for not worrying so much about Judge Alito's feelings. And pardon me for not worrying so much about my fellow Senators' feelings. But you know what? The real world impact is the question here. And I'm not going to give the man the courtesy of an up-or-down vote if it means that Americans will not be given the "courtesy" of their civil liberties. And for that reason, I will vote "NO" on cloture as well, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same."

No news is... news, apparently.

2006-01-23T08:18:00.000-05:00

Bush to Take Unscripted Audience Questions

The mere fact that this is an eye-catching headline tells you a lot about the state of this country.

Excuse me, I need to go cry now.

Which relationship is better?

2006-01-12T06:45:00.000-05:00

This occurred to me last night.

Say you have two friends who are both dating total creeps in your opinion. You don't have any evidence per se... they just rub you the wrong way.

Finally, you say to one of your friends that you think the guy is wrong for her.
Her response is to burst into tears: "How dare you say that!? You jerk! Whose side are you on anyway!? Do you hate me or something?"

Undeterred, you say the same to your other friend. She responds differently: "I'm sorry you feel that way, thanks for sharing your concerns. I really think you're mistaken, though, and I don't think that anything you say is going to change my mind on that."

Which relationship is stronger?

And which attitude toward dissent makes for a more convincing argument that the war on terror/war in Iraq is going well?

If we were truly winning this war, no amount of dissent or rhetoric would change that fact.

The War on the War on Christmas

2005-12-05T09:02:00.000-05:00

(Note: there's another new post directly below this one; two posts in two hours, unbelievable!)

Blubberin' Bill O'Reilly has this to say (via Media Matters):

O'REILLY: [T]hey [secular progressives] don't want any message of spirituality or Judeo-Christian tradition because that stands in the way of gay marriage, legalized drugs, euthanasia, all of the greatest hits on the secular progressive play card.

Now. There is a connection between the progressive agenda and religion. But it doesn't work quite the way O'Reilly is insinuating. Actually, to be more accurate he only has to add a few words:

"they don't want any message of spirituality or Judeo-Christian tradition because that is all that stands in the way of gay marriage, legalized drugs, euthanasia, all of the greatest hits on the secular progressive play card.

Religion is the only thing that keps certain things from being legal in this country. Not morality -- that's murky, and murky moral dilemmas happen all the time without being illegal. Certainly not the Republican mantra of smaller government -- if anything, that advocates in the other direction! But religion says it's wrong wrong wrong no matter what, so that's what they cling to.

If religion ceased to be a force in policy, there'd be no argument for government prohibition of these things. Good policy has a number of reasons -- secular and/or religious morality as well as good financial sense as well as proven results as well as improved perception of government, etc. etc. etc. But these things are one-legged policies, and if you knock out the stool of religion from beneath them they go crashing to the floor. So the Far Wrong needs religion. They're using religion. And they're using you by making you think religion's under assault. The truth is, were their policies really sound, they'd make sense even without religion as a prop.

If these folks' ideas were worth their salt, they wouldn't need to declare war on the "war on Christmas." Because we wouldn't be able to take them out with the "war on Christmas" anyway.

The past that might have been

2005-11-30T12:28:00.000-05:00

I have been reading Phillip Roth's "The Plot Against America." It is a truly disturbing, somewhat thought-provoking book. In this book, Charles Lindbergh runs against FDR on an anti-war platform and wins, and an anti-Semitic culture is instituted in America, little by little.

To some extent, the book feels rabidly left-wing. It talks about discrimination being subtly instituted and civil liberties being subtly infringed upon. It portrays a Republican government that plays upon people's fears and unites them against a phantom "other" that is trying to drag their country down. Patriotism becomes nationalism and discrimination becomes a necessity for homeland security. It's hard not to feel the book is a condemnation of Bush's politics and policy.

But there's a twist. Lindbergh was an isolationist, and in The Plot Against America he runs against FDR with the slogan: "Vote for Lindbergh or Vote for War." His campaigns and speeches constantly look at the opposition as the evil creature that wants to send our sons and daughters off to fight and die for the sake of some other country, some other menace. To boot, it portrays FDR and crew as being interested in war not for the sake of liberty, but for the sake of their own private interests.

There's a bitter pill here for antiwar activists to swallow. There are some differences, and they're notable ones: FDR doesn't commit to war or peace, for one (as you know, we didn't go in until Pearl Harbor). And Hitler invaded other countries; when Saddam did that, we did go to war against him, an action that I think most politicos now say was the right one. That distinguishes the World War II actions (or potential actions, as portrayed by Lindbergh in the book) from the current action in Iraq.

But what's important to note here is that antiwar interests can be just as detrimental to a country as pro-war interests. We, too, can demonize a racial or ethnic group. We, too, can brand all those disagreeing with us as unpatriotic. We, too, can encourage blind faith in a single point of authority.

We can doesn't mean we have, of course. But we should at least look at ourselves with a critical eye and ask, seriously: have we?

Answering "The Right Brothers"

2005-11-16T13:46:00.000-05:00

Opium in Afghanistan, say hi American Taliban
Rigged elections in Iraq, Saddam Hussein’s lawyers dead
Osama’s hiding underground, and we cannot smoke him out
America won’t turn and run once the spinning has begun
North Korea makes some nukes, hurricanes are running loose
Syria tries to deceive, and the sheeple still believe

Bush was right?
Bush was right?
Bush was right?

Democracy is on the way, but not in our USA
All over New Orleans, in water up to their knees
Don’t know what they’re gonna do, their worst nightmare is coming true
Where’s the National Guard, you ask? Not enough to do the task

Bush was right!
Not a mite!
See the light!

WMDs - wrong!
9/11 link - wrong!
Abu Graib - WRONG!
Zell Miller - NUTS!

Economy is on the rise (up from its complete demise)
Angry workers can’t believe their jobs have gone to the Chinese
Education’s staying down, ’cause ID has come to town
Poverty is going up, can you say “Tax Cuts”

Bush was right!
Far to the right!
Out of sight!

Kerry was right, Edwards was right,
Fitzie was right, Wilson was right
You were right, We were right, “The left” was right
and Bush can’t fight!
The right bites!
Thanks… g’night!