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!

The adventures of Batrick Fitzgerald

2005-11-15T16:37:00.000-05:00

Re-posting from Democratic Underground to see if I can get Randi Rhodes message board people here. Yes, in fact, I AM desperate for traffic.

One night in Washington, D.C....

"I'm here, Ambassador. What can I do for you?"

"Batrick! Thank goodness you're here! They've got my wife... they've got her NAME!"

"Who do you mean?"

"All of them!..."

"There's Scoo-face..."

"And the Rover..."

"Ratwoman..."

"And the Diddler..."

"I think the Vulture is behind it all, but I can't prove it! Can you help me, Batrick?"

"Leave it to me, Ambassador. They won't get away with it."

To Be Continued....(?)

Oh please Mr. O'Reilly....

2005-11-15T06:41:00.000-05:00

Bill O'Reilly is threatening to put all Internet sites that want him fired for his SF comments on a big list on his Web site.

Oh, please, Mr. O'Reilly! Please Please put me on your site! I could use the traffic oh so much...!

Half of our babies are dying.

2005-11-01T11:53:00.000-05:00

I kid you not. I tell you right now that those who are pro-life are only interested in this whole abortion procedure and they're not paying attention to the fact that more than half of a time an egg is fertilized, it never attaches to the uterine lining. Where's the wailing for these miscarriages that happen so soon they're often mistaken for an early period? Because those eggs do this on their own, are they committing suicide? Does that mean they go to hell? But more importantly, why aren't we jailing every woman who has ever had a chemical pregnancy that doesn't attach?

I truly hope that people get the sarcasm.

The grammar gods shudder.

2005-10-27T12:29:00.000-04:00

Now, I'm not one to bash my own team, but what in the heck was the Democratic Party thinking?

Together, America can do better ...?

Together, we can do better makes perfect sense. But America is a collective noun. That means singular, folks, sin-gu-lar. And I don't mean the cell phone company. Who's America doing better with? France?

And never mind what exactly we're doing better at. I'm sure answering that would kerflummox any pundit.

Hyperbole

2005-10-24T14:01:00.000-04:00

When I was in college, I studied Allen Ginsburg's "Howl" and the gist of the teaching was this: Ginsburg purposely mixed the sacred and the profane to buck convention. He used religious and sex imagery because it hadn't been done up to then. And he further twisted convention by making the most loathsome imagery beautiful. Was he speaking with his own voice in all those poems? Not necessarily. His voice was the one behind the voice, the one saying "Look at all of this. Is it really all that shocking? Is it really all that wrong? Isn't it a contradiction that paints your world these days?" That way, Ginsberg became the father of modern poetry.

I also took an art history course that discussed Cezanne (I believe it was Cezanne). Until his time, painters were all about making the subjects of paintings look real. There were still lifes of fruit that looked so good and real you wanted to reach into the painting and take one. But Cezanne painted his oranges splotchy and uneven. They didn't look real at all-- they looked like paintings of oranges, not like oranges. Did Cezanne actually see oranges this way? No. Was he that bad a painter? Obviously not. He was saying to the world, "Look at these paintings. They're paintings. Why deny that they're made of paint? Let's accept and embrace that fact." And Cezanne helped revolutionize the art world with the impressionist movement.

Both of these I find to be excellent examples of hyperbole. The school of saying too much, saying more than you actually mean, to make a point that isn't explicitly stated. In other words, "I've told you a million times to stop exaggerating!"

Unfortunately, the average Joe probably doesn't "get" Ginsberg or Cezanne. The average Joe probably also thought "Bowling for Columbine" was a movie about gun control. It wasn't. Michael Moore is someone I consider to be one of the best users of hyperbole in our world today. He goes too far to point out that you haven't gone far enough.

And I think that's what's going on at Huffington Post with this article:
If You're a Christian, Muslim, or Jew... You Are Wrong.

The most telling sentence of the article is:

Have I offended you? That's too bad. Stop killing each other in the name of false and ridiculous Gods and I will stop ridiculing you. Trust me, your offense is much worse than mine.

The translation: If you find THIS outrageous, why not re-evaluate your priorities? What's more outrageous? An obnoxious essay or a war?

To that extent, this guy is doing it on purpose. Like Allen Ginsberg swore and used taboo sexual metaphors on purpose. Like Cezanne painted those oranges to look painted-on on purpose.

To make a point. And no, the point is not really that Christianity, Islam, or Judaism is wrong. The point is that there is a crisis of priorities in this country, and we had better get our heads out of our apses and deal with it.

They say we won' t be able to use...

2005-10-22T13:36:00.000-04:00

...Tom Delay's mugshot in campaign ads cause of his smile.

Hmm..

Dear Valerie

2005-10-21T08:27:00.000-04:00

Dear Valerie,

Do you mind if I call you Valerie? You must be sick of hearing your various last names these days.

This is just a bit of a fan letter. You, my dear, are a tougher cookie than I. If my name were being attached to some huge government scandal, there's no way I could keep quiet about it.

But then again, I suppose keeping quiet is what you do for a living. In which case you are a true asset to your field.

Anyway. The point is to say thank you. Thank you for lending your name to us to bat around like a badminton birdie. Plamegate. The Plame affair. Dear Lord, you must feel like a bug in a bell jar.

But believe me when I tell you that in the end, we won't take your name in vain. Your name will become synonymous with the exposure of corruption, truth spoken to power, justice finally done. It will become the name of imperial hubris gone bad. "He had it all set up, but then he went and pulled a Plame, and now he's screwed." In short, madam, you will be the one name that brings powerful men to their knees. The one NOBODY messes with.

And if this is any sort of fan letter, I'd better also say thank you for serving our country. If you weren't such a dedicated public servant in the first place, there's no way this would have gone so far to help clean up the mess in Washington. In that way, you've served our country even more.

Hang in there. When all is said and done, you will be able to breathe again.

Sincerely,

a fan.

Guns & abortion. What's the link?

2005-10-01T07:38:00.000-04:00

I just made a comment on C-SPAN. They are having a discussion on whether a gun ban would work in the US. I said the following:

"I consider myself a pragmatist Democrat. That is, I care how things work in the real world. Whether people are safer. That being said, I have this to say about gun control:

A gun is something you have and hope you're never going to have to use. But if you ban it, more people will get hurt.

Now why can't we think the same way about the abortion procedure?"

What if tomorrow, the US was gone from Iraq?

2005-09-21T12:27:00.000-04:00

I just thought it might be interesting to posit what would happen if, when the sun rose on Iraq tomorrow, all of the US soldiers sent there for the war had mysteriously vanished?

Good things and bad things, I suppose...

Good things

-A group of insurgents, determined to attack a convoy they'd sighted yesterday, goes to the rendezvous point and discovered nobody there.

-A woman who had fled a city in anticipation of a bombing returns to find her house intact.

Bad things

-News of the newly unguarded oil fields reaches the insurgents before it reaches the government.

-Saddam Hussein gets at least partly out of jail before the Iraqi contingent of his guards find him and force him back in.

-Prisoners of war are locked in their cells with nobody there to get them out.

-A diplomat who was counting on a US army-led escort to the nearest town gets assassinated.

What do you think? Please add on to the list in comments.

The battle lines are being drawn

2005-09-14T09:45:00.000-04:00

Senator Coburn just forced Roberts to say he believed the opposite of death is life. Yesterday Senator Sessions went off on a half-hour rant about abortion.

The battle lines are being drawn and the first shot will be fired soon. It may be when Roberts is confirmed, it may be when the first case comes before him or when he rules on it. But it will come.

And make no mistake. This Witch will be on the front lines fighting.

Meta-hearing much?

2005-09-12T13:08:00.000-04:00

I'm listening to opening statements in the Roberts confirmation hearings and everyone is talking about what Senators can ask and what Roberts can answer.

Enough. Discuss the rules in the Rules Committee. You'll ask what you ask and he'll answer what he answers. Let's get ON with it.

You're talking about talking about talking. Who are you hearing, anyway? Roberts or each other?

An insider's peek at the secret world of "Brownie"

2005-09-09T15:31:00.000-04:00

Pssst.

I have it on good authority that Michael Brown lets his dogs run around without a leash.

Pass it on.

Liberal media, my witchy behind.

2005-09-09T08:35:00.000-04:00

This from the Associated Press...

Katrina Divides Rather than Unites U.S.

WASHINGTON - The extraordinary showing of national and political unity displayed after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, is nowhere to be found in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

Finger pointing and blame games have replaced the images of stunned Americans rallying around President Bush and of members of Congress standing on the steps of the Capitol singing "God Bless America."

The two events are similar in terms of the amount of devastation wrought — possibly thousands of deaths, billions of dollars in structural damage and many, many lives turned upside down.

But it's the differences, observers say, that explain why a majority of the public and some lawmakers rushed to criticize Bush's response to Katrina and the flooding and subsequent evacuation of New Orleans.

Can you imagine the outcry if the article had read as follows?

Katrina Unites Rather Than Divides U.S.

WASHINGTON - The extraordinary showing of national and political singlemindedness displayed after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, is nowhere to be found in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

A self-critical sense of responsibility and accountability has replaced the images of stunned Americans desperately looking to President Bush and of members of Congress, instead of immediately moving to find and correct the root of the problem, standing on the steps of the Capitol singing "God Bless America."

The two events are similar in terms of the amount of devastation wrought — possibly thousands of deaths, billions of dollars in structural damage and many, many lives turned upside down.

But it's the differences, observers say, that explain why a majority of the public and some lawmakers rushed to ensure that the errors of management and infrastructure would be corrected as soon as possible and no more lives would be lost.

Personally, I think we're rather united right now. So the headline was bad enough. But the contents... oi! In other words, uniting good, seeking accountability bad. Firing someone who does a bad job bad. Patting self on back good. What. EVER.

Quote comparison from D & R in the House today

2005-09-02T14:42:00.000-04:00

Taken live as they come by.

"There will be time to ask these questions, but the people are asking this question now."
Adam Schiff (D-CA)

"The current operation will save lives, will repair infrastructure, and will speed the recovery."
Mark Steven Kirk (R-IL)

"What we do here is about making choices, and choices have consequences." Brian Baird (D-WA)

"It was critical that we deliver that help today. And we have."
Rob Simmons (R-CT)

"We must learn some lessons ... we are reaping the whirlwind ... Let us not continue our selfish disregard until we suffer a nuclear catastrophe. I am tired of passing disaster relief bills."
Jerrold Nadler (D-NY)

"It is not a time for recrimination or finger-pointing, and I want to draw attention to the superb job of the Coast Guard. There has been no criticism of the Coast Guard."
Dan Lungren (R-CA)

"During this time of crisis, I am very, very concerned that the American driving public is being gouged at the pump."
Ed Markey (D-MA)

"The real looting that's going on is the looting by the big oil companies."
Eliot Engel (D-NY)

Which of these quotes seem like they are the most likely to spawn legislation to actually help? Or action of any kind?

Work isn't about congratulating yourself on what you've already done. It's about doing MORE.

About the other side: an experiment

2005-08-30T14:58:00.000-04:00

Attention blog readers.

For the following questions, please comment with your answers. Do not give your political affiliation.

True or False?

The other side ...

1) simply repeats its talking points.
2) is full of corrupt politicians.
3) is not facing the realities of life today.
4) is full of unemployed loudmouths who still live with their parents.
5) aren't supporting the troops in the way that really counts.
6) wants to force their moral values on the rest of the country.
7) has control of the media.
8) is cowardly.
9) is making America less safe & secure.
10) is un-American/unpatriotic/treasonous.
11) is in the pocket of interest groups.
12) is full of pathological liars.

Please forward this survey to as many people of as many political affiliations as you can. If I get enough responses, I'll post a followup.

Bush = The Nome King

2005-08-25T16:11:00.000-04:00

Randi Rhodes is talking about Shrubya quizzing his various generals about the feasibility of war with Iraq. Apparently General Shinseki said 'No, you can't do this, we don't have the troops.'" Bush kicked him out. In comes General #2, who says 'Sure, I can do this,'" so Bush goes with him.

And I was thinking that this reminds me of something... but what was it...?

Aha! :lightbulb:

Bush is the Nome King.

Excerpts from The Emerald City of Oz by L. Frank Baum:

"But I want it! I must have it! Half my power is gone with that Belt!" roared the King.

"You will have to go to the Land of Oz to recover it, and your Majesty can't get to the Land of Oz in any possible way," said the Steward, yawning because he had been on duty ninety-six hours, and was sleepy.

"Why not?" asked the King.

"Because there is a deadly desert all around that fairy country, which no one is able to cross."
....

"Get out of my sight! Vanish! Go away--and send General Blug here," screamed the Nome King.
...

"Ha! So you're here!" cried the King.

"So I am," said the General.

"March your army at once to the Land of Oz, capture and destroy the Emerald City, and bring back to me my Magic Belt!" roared the King.

"You're crazy," calmly remarked the General.
...

"Give up the idea and mind your own business," advised the General. "You have plenty to do trying to rule your underground kingdom."

"But I want the Magic Belt--and I'm going to have it!" roared the Nome King.

"I'd like to see you get it," replied the General, laughing maliciously.

The King was by this time so exasperated that he picked up his scepter, which had a heavy ball, made from a sapphire, at the end of it, and threw it with all his force at General Blug. The sapphire hit the General upon his forehead and knocked him flat upon the ground, where he lay motionless. Then the King rang his gong and told his guards to drag out the General and throw him away; which they did.

...

"I have thrown away General Blug, because he did not please me. So I want another General to command this army. Who is next in command?"

"I am," replied Colonel Crinkle, a dapper-looking Nome, as he stepped forward to salute his monarch.

The King looked at him carefully and said: "I want you to march this army through an underground tunnel, which I am going to bore, to the Emerald City of Oz. When you get there I want you to conquer the Oz people, destroy them and their city, and bring all their gold and silver and precious stones back to my cavern. Also you are to recapture my Magic Belt and return it to me. Will you do this, General Crinkle?"

"No, your Majesty," replied the Nome; "for it can't be done."

"Oh indeed!" exclaimed the King. Then he turned to his servants and said: "Please take General Crinkle to the torture chamber. There you will kindly slice him into thin slices. Afterward you may feed him to the seven-headed dogs." "Anything to oblige your Majesty," replied the servants, politely, and led the condemned man away.

....

"We have fifty thousand soldiers!" cried the King proudly.

"Yes; but they are Nomes," remarked Guph, taking a silk handkerchief from the King's pocket and wiping his own pointed shoes with it. "Nomes are immortals, but they are not strong on magic. When you lost your famous Belt the greater part of your own power was gone from you. Against Ozma you and your Nomes would have no show at all."

Roquat's eyes flashed angrily. "Then away you go to the slicing machine!" he cried.

"Not yet," said the General, filling his pipe from the King's private tobacco pouch.

"What do you propose to do?" asked the monarch.

"I propose to obtain the power we need," answered Guph. "There are a good many evil creatures who have magic powers sufficient to destroy and conquer the Land of Oz. We will get them on our side, band them all together, and then take Ozma and her people by surprise. It's all very simple and easy when you know how. Alone, we should be helpless to injure the Ruler of Oz, but with the aid of the evil powers we can summon we shall easily succeed."

King Roquat was delighted with this idea, for he realized how clever it was. "Surely, Guph, you are the greatest General I have ever had!" he exclaimed, his eyes sparkling with joy. "You must go at once and make arrangements with the evil powers to assist us, and meantime I'll begin to dig the tunnel."

"I thought you'd agree with me, Roquat," replied the new General.

So THAT's where they get them!

2005-08-25T12:42:00.000-04:00

Pragmatism

2005-08-25T08:15:00.000-04:00

I'm listening to C-SPAN's Washington Journal (yes. I've started again.) and there's a fellow from Connecticut who is part of the lawsuit about No Child Left Behind. His point is very clear -- there is a violation of the law in not funding a Federal mandate. I don't believe this fellow wants NCLB repealed, although he may have not agreed with its passage. He wants funding. He's saying "Fine, if we're going to play by your rules, you better provide the dollars."

Yet, all of the callers calling in against him say the following: "The law is addressing a need. For all its flaws, it's a good law, so you're misguided."

Sound familiar? Substitute "war."

I never truly understood the word idealogue until now. The Republican stance on everything is that if it's a Good Idea(TM), it should not be examined. Democrats are interested in making things work. It's a practical thing. We won't declare a war or a policy if we can't pragmatically do it. If we don't have enough troops, and if we don't have enough dollars. That's the pay-go system that was so debated during the Presidential election.

Similarly, if something is a Bad Idea(TM), it should not be considered. Case in point, gay marriage. It's bad, even though it would be good for people, good for families, good for communities, good for the economy. If it were a Good Idea(TM), nobody would be able to pick a fight with it, because the practical considerations are all there. If gay marriage were, say, a tax cut, they'd be all over it.

The problem with this stance is that one man's Good Idea(TM) is another's Bad Idea(TM). Don't tell me I'm being a moral relativist, because moral relativity is inherent in this administration. (War is fine if it's for democracy and freedom -- that's their stance; I don't necessarily weigh it the same way.) And I think it's inherent in any administration.

Just look at the word administration. To be an administrator is to be a manager. What's important for a manager? Leadership, certainly, and enforcement of rules, but also compromise and communication. And meeting the bottom line.

So the question is as follows:

Is government a moral authority which declares right and wrong, or is it an administrative authority that provides practical management while protecting basic freedoms, rights, and law & order?

Personally, I lean toward the latter. But that doesn't mean I'm 100% there or that it's even an all-or-nothing thing. However, I do think that if government uses words like administration, that probably means its job is to manage things instead of declaring absolutes.

Which means being pragmatic before being authoritarian.

Prove it, goddamn it!

2005-08-24T14:45:00.000-04:00

CBS Affiliate Will Not Air Sheehan Ad Because There Is “No Proof” Of Absence Of WMD In Iraq...

Sheehan “claims the President lied about, among other things, the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq,” said Jeff Anderson the Vice President of sales at Fisher Broadcasting Inc., which owns KBCI (CBS). “There is no proof that we are aware of regarding the truthfulness of her claim. We require proof of claims such as this. Until that is provided, our station will not carry this ad.”

Way to go, CBS. Go for that vigorous fact-checking. And while you're there, there are a few other claims that you should require proof for before you carry ads.

Does www.PamZulauf.com really put clients first?

Is Titantv.com REALLY the definitive source for What's On?

Can I really find my next home at Idaho HomeFinder?And for that matter, do you have any stats to show that Wheel of Fortune and Jeopardy are really America's favorite game shows?

I demand proof, or you should stop running them on your Web site. Wish I knew who actually ran advertisements on the network.

Here it comes

2005-08-17T08:08:00.000-04:00

Ex-FBI Whistleblower to join "Peace Mom"

OAKDALE, Minn. - Former FBI whistleblower Coleen Rowley, along with a state senator whose son died in Iraq, are headed to Texas this week to join a growing anti-war demonstration near President Bush's ranch

Look for higher and higher visibility people to join Cindy in the weeks to come.

Token wingnut quote of the article:

"You have to have compassion for folks like Becky Lourey and Cindy Sheehan, who have lost sons in the war," said Bill Walsh, executive director of the Minnesota Republican Party. "I don't need to question their motives, but I don't think you should question the president's motives either. He's fully aware of the ramifications of sending people's children into battle, but he has to balance that with the question of how do we best address the serious problems facing our world."

Note the lack of parallelism here. "I don't need to question their motives" vs "I don't think you should question the president's motives." These are not equal things and he's painting them as equal.

Walsh was less kind to Rowley.

"You can't ignore the fact that Coleen Rowley is running for Congress right now," he said. "That has to be part of this equation."

Damn straight, and if this is a publicity stunt it's a damn good one. That's one way to be sure people know what you stand for.

Anyway. It's early and I'm not very eloquent.

A very telling figure

2005-08-15T09:16:00.000-04:00

This article about the Crawford protest (linked from Think Progress) has a very telling figure in it.

[The President's] aides released a list of 24 gatherings the president has had with 900 military family members -- including Sheehan and her husband a year ago.

24 gatherings with 900 family members.
Hm. That averages... 37 people per meeting.

So when a commenter on the Think Progress thread says "President Bush has not met with every KIA family, but he already has met with Mrs. Sheehan," I can't help but think that "meet with" is being used very loosely here. How much time could he have to express sympathy or make any sort of impression with 40 people to talk to?

Cindy wants an hour. She wants an hour to herself.

Now THAT's meeting with someone.

You don't get it, Mr. Bush.

2005-08-11T15:02:00.000-04:00

Apparently he thought a little news conference would be enough.

"I sympathize with Mrs. Sheehan," Bush said. "She feels strongly about her position, and she has every right in the world to say what she believes. This is America. She has a right to her position, and I thought long and hard about her position. I've heard her position from others, which is: Get out of Iraq now. And it would be a mistake for the security of this country and the ability to lay the foundations for peace in the long run if we were to do so."

You, sir, have NO RIGHT to even say her name.

She doesn't want to be mentioned in your corny news conferences.

She wants to talk to you.

I also have heard the voices of those saying: 'Pull out now!' " he said.

No, sir, you have NOT heard her voice. You have not even tried to listen.

Would she have gone to Crawford if she just wanted to have a rally and have her words transmitted over the airwaves to you? No. She wants to talk TO you. WITH you. A dialogue. A back and forth.

This press conference is worse than saying nothing. It is assuming that you can remain behind a layer of spin-- that same "media filter" that you decried in debates-- and believe what a third party will make you believe.

I've heard Cindy's voice from five feet away. I've heard her speak in person. Can you honestly say the same?

Cindy Sheehan's flip-flop? It's called good manners.

2005-08-11T08:24:00.000-04:00

LA Times nails it.

What that excerpt from her Vacaville paper, provided to the Drudge Report, conveniently left out was the part about the family's decision to behave in a decorous way on a solemn occasion, despite their feelings about the war.

She was being polite. She'd just lost her son and was in a presidential photo-op. Give me a break.

Hat tip to Sarah B. at Americablog for the link.

I desperately want to go to Crawford

2005-08-10T16:37:00.000-04:00

I desperately want to go.

My heart is already there.

Why am I not there?

........................... and as I say this someone tells me of a cindy support rally in lafayette park!! .........

UPDATE!

I went!

And... miracle of miracles... I talked to Randi Rhodes!

Yes, if any of you listened to her show today, you now know what the Witch sounds like ;-) I passed the phone off pretty quickly to the Reverend Yearwood, who is this amazing guy who helped organize the rally, but still...

The Witch is flyin' high on her broomstick tonight.

I know it's too early to post this,

2005-08-09T20:59:00.000-04:00

but I want to get my two cents in.

I am going to write the Cindy Sheehan musical.

I kid you not. It came to me while I was entering the Metro today on my way home from work. This is a musical.

You have the screen in back with the footage of Cindy's stakeout and then you have Cindy doing a solo reprise of the duet she has earlier in the show with an Iraq War supporter who has also lost her son, "Ask Why." They have sung counter melodies where they reach different conclusions... "Every mother wants to ask why" vs "Mothers don't ask why."

I know this sounds like a parody (and if it were I'd have Rosie O'Donnell do a cameo as Lila Lipscomb, with Harvey Feinstein as Michael Moore, HAH!) but I kid you not. I am so writing this.

Hm. Maybe I should ask *her* first.

(Yes, the Witch is a spaz tonight. Must be the full moon.)

If I were to call into C-SPAN this morning...

2005-08-04T08:11:00.000-04:00

...I'd call on the "enthusiastic supporter of NASA" line, and say:

"I'm an enthusiastic supporter of NASA, but I am NOT an enthusiastic supporter of C-SPAN's NASA coverage. This is what, the third time this week you've had a segment on whether the space program is worth it? We've exhausted the subject. Get Paul Hackett on the show. Get Ken Mehlman on the show. Talk about Traitorgate, talk about Iraq, talk about Iran's nuclear capability, talk about the role of precedent that Judge Roberts has been talking about. But enough about NASA, for cripes' sake!"

Take back intelligent design

2005-08-02T08:24:00.000-04:00

This is a framing idea I had in response to an Americablog post.

Why allow "intelligent design" to be the realm of creationists? Why not have a prominent politician argue thus:

"I believe that God exists and that He created the world. The incredible world around us, so full of possibilities, is proof of that. And because man was created in God's image, he has the desire to understand the world around him. So what should God do, in His infinite wisdom? He creates a world that man can explore and understand through science. He designs a plan for a world that is not just magically created but evolves over time in a way that makes sense to the scientific mind.

To that end, evolution is the ultimate form of intelligent design."

Enh. Just throwing it out there. It's early.

MST: The return of JeffyLube!

2005-07-29T12:01:00.000-04:00

We love him! We've mised him! He's dear ol' Jeffylube Gannon, the man who puts the "uck" in "Guckert!"

And now he's got a new editorial in the Blade explaining why gay bloggers are Bad 'n' Evil! You know what that means... time to shoot up to the Satellite of Love...

Gay bloggers’ dangerous liaisons

As in "they never hire me, so dangerous to my pocketbook."

A group of liberal gay bloggers is radicalizing our image, thereby hurting the cause of equality.

The cause of equality, which is so championed by the administration you support, I'm sure.

By JEFF GANNON Friday, July 29, 2005

Written in a scummy D.C. pad, all alone, on a rainy evening, while wearing "I Heart Dubya" boxers and very little else. (Wink.)

DURING THE 2004 election, the Internet became a potent force in political activism. Fund-raising, grassroots organizing, advertising and communication could all be done with a mouse click at a small fraction of the cost of television spots, direct mail and phone banks.

Sorry, this exposition is too boring even for me to comment on it. You call that a lede? Honestly, yawn.

One of the greatest technological advances in the history of civilization

Besides the vibrating strap-on and the toaster oven, you mean?

enabled anyone with a laptop and a DSL connection to become part of the process to decide the future of America.

I'm slightly amused, that Jeff doesn't think people had the power to decide the future of America until the Internet age, considering how many people in his party would like to turn back the clock.

But some gay activists have been exploiting this new medium to advance a political agenda that doesn’t reflect gay people in general.

Yes, absolutely not. Gay people in general are absolutely right-wing conservatives. Which is why 77 percent of gay & lesbian respondents to this poll voted for Kerry in the last election.

Instead of focusing on the key issues that affect the lives of men and women throughout the U.S., they appear bent on tearing down the Bush administration no matter the damage to the country as a result.

Key issues such as who can get married & raise children? Key issues such as whether our foreign policy deserves careful scrutiny in order to minimize the risk of future attacks that may increase due to anti-American sentiment? Key issues such as the erosion of our once-inalienable rights?

Oh, sorry. You're talking more about the key issues you used to raise in the press room, such as how the President feels about those damned obstructionist liberals and how he'll deal with people who... dare I say it? ...are so divorced from reality.

While disagreements about foreign or domestic policy should be part of a vibrant democracy, actively working to topple the government, particularly during a time of war, is irrational considering the threat faced by global terrorism.

Who the hell is trying to topple the government? Note to Jeffylube: we're pursuing the legal avenues of holding an administration accountable. We're not trying to mount an armed insurrection. There's no provision in the Constitution that says that when America is in a time of war, the executive branch has (undiplomatic) immunity. Take your strict constructionist Supreme Court nominee and disprove THAT one.

The tone of some gay activist sites — led by John Aravosis’ AmericaBlog and mimicked by others — is so vitriolic concerning every aspect of the current government that there is no room to express outrage at a particularly heinous event.

Maybe there's a limit on YOUR outrage, darling, but I have plenty to go around for ANYONE who's killing in the name of ideology. Us AND them.

Honestly, "no room"? What the hell does THAT mean? Did Haloscan delete your comment again?

EARLIER THIS MONTH, photographs made their way into cyberspace showing two Iranian youths being hanged for “committing the crime of homosexuality.”

Physician, heal thyself.

That story caused barely a ripple, but at the same time these activists waged a full-blown fax and telephone campaign against a town in Latvia that refused to issue a parade permit to a gay group.

I can only speak for myself here, but I have no idea what that Latvian story was about, and I saw the photographs on the Recommended Diaries list at Daily Kos (and everywhere else).

Incidentally, Jeff, how effective do you suppose a full-blown fax and telephone campaign would be against the Iranians who did this? I'm sure you've already decided Amnesty International's full of crap, and that's all THEY ever do.

But in the larger context, neither incident interrupted the incessant anti-Bush drumbeat.

You give us far too little credit. Both incidents, I'm sure, made it stronger.

Similarly, these activists make much about photographs of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib, but remain silent while humanitarian workers are murdered.

It's an economic thing, hon. You see, we can't do much about the workers. We're already at war. But the stuff OUR government controls, we can do something about. And as you mentioned, it's hard to find "room" to do both. ;)

The aim is to focus on incidents that may sap the will of the American people to remain on the front lines in the war on terror. But it doesn’t have as much impact on the Pentagon as it does the men and women in harm’s way.

Yes, I'm sure they stay up at night worrying about the impact of bloggers on their ability to fight. Perhaps they are suffering from lack of sleep and don't fight well. Absolutely.

And the Pentagon? Never caves in to pressure. Ever at all.

Either way, undermining support for the war in Iraq gives aid and comfort to those who have no regard for life, liberty or diversity.

Chewbacca called-- he wants his argument back. Would someone please tell me HOW A leads to B here? Honestly! You'd think we were giving them Ikea gift certificates or something. "Here, Osama, buy yourself a nice loveseat for that cave."

Losing this battle in the war on terror won’t bode well for anyone in the U.S.

Battle? Iraq is a BATTLE? I'm confused now.

THE WEB SITES of these activists are populated with extreme elements

PH34r Me! I am HELIUM! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH^H^H^H^H^H NO CARRIER

(old dialup modem users' joke, never mind)

who seek to compromise America’s security and cripple its economy.

Yes, because us extreme elements love being dead and poor. Or just dead poor. You idiot.

Intelligent debate over issues and strategies is crushed by expressions of blind rage and conspiracy theories.

Is your version of intelligent debate anything like intelligent design? Because I have trouble with that concept too.

With rhetoric so shrill, all but the most partisan readers are repelled.

OK, I'm gonna give you my standard disclaimer, so please do listen up. Going into a place like Americablog is very much like going into a sports bar at happy hour. You expect to be hanging out with like-minded people. If you were to go into a Red Sox fans' hangout at happy hour on Friday night with a full Yankees uniform going on and tried to start a discussion, however civil, about whether Manny or A-Rod is a better player, you're NOT going to receive a warm welcome. But you should have known better in the first place. So 'tis with blogs. Use your head and take responsibility for what bars you step into and whose jersey you're wearing when you do.

The operators of these sites and the opinions expressed therein are often represented to the rest of America as the core constituency of the gay community.

Sort of like the insurgents are often represented to the rest of America as the core constituency of the Muslim community. I said it before and I'll say it again: Physician, heal thyself.

You yourself said there are more important issues facing the world than how gays are portrayed, right? Why not worry about how people are being profiled and discriminated against because of a group of psycho bombers? Why is your concern only for people like yourself?

Or did I just answer my own question?

Only a few degrees of separation exist between these activists and some dangerously radical groups.

Somebody I know's been drinking Davey Horowitz's Kool-Aid.

Clinking just a few links will transport one to the Web sites of International ANSWER, Code Pink, United for Peace and Justice or Queers for Peace.

Oh, my GOD! With "Peace" in their names they MUST be dangerous! (Not that names are stunning indicators. Look at "Focus on the Family.")

All of these “antiwar” groups are part of a global anti-American movement that supports totalitarian regimes like Cuba and North Korea. History has shown how well despots treat gay members of society.

Turn ahead a few chapters in your "how to write" book and you will see the chapter on logic and transitions. Then get back to me with this paragraph. --editor

The gay community runs the risk of being marginalized by these associations and with it any hope of advancing its broader agenda.

Which is what, exactly? Can't be human rights. You've already voted against those.

It is already being taken for granted by one political party, some of whose members are blaming gay issues for losses in last year’s elections.

Funny 'bout that. Don't suppose there's any truth to it?

Hatred won’t produce victory at the polls and social change will only come by winning hearts and minds.

What? You mean we can't get people to love us through aggression? Holy shit! Someone call the White House!

It certainly can’t be achieved by aligning with forces that threaten the security and survival of the U.S.

Good to know. Honey, would you cancel my subscription to Unprovoked Invasion Quarterly?

Imitation is the sincerest form

2005-07-27T08:59:00.000-04:00

Thanks to Jeff for the heads-up.

Their Photoshopping skills far outstrip mine, and my idea was stolen anyway.

Cracks me up!

The Sci-Fi Republican Party

2005-07-26T08:07:00.001-04:00

It occurs to me that the Republicans read too much science fiction.

I've been listening to Tom Harkin this morning. Callers are talking about how his bill would "create life to destroy life," even though that is not what the bill says. (It would allow discarded embryos to be used for research with the donor's permission.) They are talking about "human cloning," even though that is not what the bill says.

It's all about drawing an imaginary line in the sand for these people.

Consider the drive to ban same-sex marriage. Now I had a very interesting conversation with the Giant about Rick Santorum's comment about man-on-dog sex or whatnot. He tried to impress upon me--and keep your mind open here--that Santorum was not actually trying to compare homosexuality with bestiality. He was making a larger point that, according to the Giant, liberals failed to grasp. The point? Let me quote the Giant's own words.

"[That] was the point Senator Santorum was trying to make last year, when he said that if you deny the existence of moral absolutes and embrace gay marriage, then what authority does society have to regulate bestiality or polygamy. Unfortunately, this argument was too complex for a lot of people on the left, and they claim that Santorum was comparing homosexuality to bestiality. Not so. His point was if there are no moral absolutes then who is to say that polygamy or bestiality is wrong?"

Now, this probably pisses a lot of you off. But like the Senator, I'm trying to make a larger point here, so bear with me and don't get hung up on this example, 'kay?

Suppose this is accurate. Suppose the Senator WAS trying to put this up as an example of an "existence of moral absolutes." If so, note what he's not saying. He's not saying that same-sex marriage is bad in and of itself. He's drawing a line in the sand. He's afraid of a slippery slope.

I myself am afraid of a slippery slope, but the first step is never a harmless one. That is, forget the future, forget possibilities, forget the sci-fi "what if"s. I'm afraid of allowing the torture at Guantanamo to go on. Because of what it says, yes, but also because the policy itself is harmful. Same with the nuclear option, same with the anti-judge rhetoric. Not only do I fear the future, but I fear the now.

But the other side talks a lot about "Well, if you do XX, this other thing might happen." But take away that future, and what's wrong with doing XX? They can't answer. They're afraid of a nightmarish future to the extent that they're afraid to take that first, harmless step.

Isn't that what science fiction is? Doesn't it play on the fears of technology gone wrong? We build robots and they take over the world. We clone humans and there is now an island where "spare parts" are grown. Incidentally, that movie is a ripoff of a certain manga I like. But I digress. But science fiction is just that, fiction. Every choice has potential good and bad implications. Science fiction always asks the question, "What if we go the worst possible route? What then?" Because the best possible route just doesn't make for good stories.

That's what I mean when I say that Republicans are living science fiction lives. They're afraid of the worst possible outcome, to the extent that they deny we might make the right choices.

And that's why I'm a proud member of the reality-based community.

As you might have noticed.

2005-07-25T20:19:00.000-04:00

As you might have noticed, I have locked the below thread. There will be no comments on this thread either. Do me some good and click on my google ads if you love me so much. I do hope to actually post something relevant myself soon, but I'm moving this weekend. Thanks for your patience. Kisses.

Original sin

2005-07-21T09:21:00.000-04:00

Growing up in a very Jewish area, I knew little about Christianity apart from Santa Claus. So when I first learned more about Christian beliefs, there were two things that struck me as very, very odd.

One was the idea that beliefs, not actions, get you into heaven. At the time, my young mind's first reaction was, "What the hell kind of logic is THAT?" If it's just what you believe in that gets you to heaven, what motivation does anyone have to be good? It went against everything I'd been taught-- that you get rewards when you do good things and you're punished when you do bad things. Besides, as someone with a tendency toward mood disorders (although at that point everyone just thought I was moody), I knew what it was to have less than perfect control over my own thoughts. Thoughts and beliefs are hard to control, but you always have a choice with your actions, and I thought it was infinitely more sane to believe in a God that cared what you did, not what you thought.

The second, and more relevant, surprise to me was the idea of original sin. Talk about guilty until proven innocent! I couldn't respect a God who'd stacked the deck against the race He was supposed to love. So we were without sin until we were born. Without sin again once we receive last rites. But we're hell-bound the entire time we're actually alive?

Recently it has occurred to me that this is very relevant to the Far Wrong's "culture of life" meme. Think about it. They oppose programs to help people while they're alive, but they want to outlaw abortion and keep braindead (white) women alive. It's because they're interested in preserving what's pure. Once you're alive, you're a sinner and you're not worth saving.

I haven't refined this theory a great deal, but it seems to me there's something very telling about the Far Wrong's mindset on this. Where does it come from? An elegaic sort of nostalgia for the purity they themselves can't recapture? A defeatist sense that the world has gone bad and can't go back? How can we fight back? What very strong tenet of faith can we harness to put the focus back on people who, for all their faults and original sin, are alive, have memories and aspirations, and can help make the world a better place?

The Jewish philosophy, by contrast, is that this life is better than the afterlife and that the Messiah's coming is hastened by the performance of good works. Can this be harnessed?

Comments, please.

Of trolling and freedom

2005-07-18T14:09:00.000-04:00

I seem to have a small infestation of trolls.

I've sprayed, but they seem to be immune to the stuff. That's all right. I kind of thought they would be. But trolls can be fun when you feed them correctly. You can even domesticate them-- or breed them feisty for some good wrestling when you feel the inclination. They're useful on occasion. They provide comfort in your moral superiority and they provide a good workout when you have some unresolved tension at work.

Occasionally, though, there are the kind that are just off. Perhaps they ate a bad billy goat gruff as a child. But they just can't be worked with, and it's necessary to exterminate them. That's been the case with a couple of trolls that have showed up recently, hence the sudden proliferation of "This comment has been removed by the moderator."

Briefly I considered doing a Witch's Patriot Act-- taking steps to ensure that the trolls are tracked down before they can troll again. But then I thought about what I stand for. The woods are a wild place, and there are nasty creatures out there. But it's a free place, too. If I were a truly wicked witch, I would crack down, allowing only an exclusive club of trusted friends to comment. But if I do that, I lose the ability to engage new readers and it turns into an egofest. My ego is big enough as it is.

In the end, this is how I see it. The difference between a free society and a police state is that in a free society, people are free to commit crimes, but they're punished if they do. In a police state, people don't have the freedom that would enable them to commit crimes to begin with. The danger in the latter is that someone has to enforce the restriction of freedoms. Someone has to be watching and listening-- someone has to patrol to make sure you don't go out after curfew-- and by definition, that someone has more rights and freedoms than you do. In other words, they are above the law. And that's a corrupting thing.

Police states are safe, to be sure. But they're not safe from the police.

In a free society, if anyone breaks a law, they will be punished for it. You have the freedom to buy a gun and possibly kill someone, but you might be sent to prison or killed yourself. We get the freedoms but we know the consequences. So a free society will have crime, and death of innocents, but a free society does not restrict the rights of criminals until after they've committed the act.

But that lets innocent people die!

Yes. Yes, it does. But the alternative is to let a group of people slaughter indiscriminately without fear of reprisals. And there are preventive measures. We can address the causes that lead people to commit crimes. We can put messages out there that crimes are bad and won't help. But we can't pre-emptively inhibit freedoms. That's what's wrong with the Patriot Act, and that's what's wrong with making this blog exclusive.

So post away, trolls. Tell me about sex with furry animals and nuclear destruction. But here's the policy: You post badness, it's deleted. And three posts of badness = that thread is locked. You have a problem with me, you write me. My e-mail address is above. But cut it out here because not only will your posts not get seen but you'll be stifling discussion.

A Meme from Mom

2005-07-18T00:21:00.000-04:00

Yes, the Witch has a mother. A lovely, liberal mother whom she wouldn't trade for the world. But said mother is quite naive about the proverbial internets, and she very often sends things around that she's been sent. More often than not, I reply rather snarkily. Sorry about that, Mom. But understand that what you sent this time was a little over the top.

What she sent was a chain letter detailing the judge's statement when the shoe bomber, Richard Reid, was sentenced. When I first read it, I was sure it was fake. I now see it was true, but it still needs some debunking.

First of all, the letter describes Reid's words as:

His response: After admitting his guilt to the court for the record, Reid also admitted his "allegiance to Osama bin Laden, to Islam, and to the religion of Allah," defiantly stated "I think I will not apologize for my actions," and told the court "I am at war with your country."

This portrayal oversimplifies the problem. The fellow, nutty though he is, went through a whole litany of why he feels he is at war with America. I won't give him the dignity of quoting his words, but until we understand that people are people even when they go bad, we will never get anywhere. I can't stand killers and I can't stand the ideology of vengeance no matter where it comes from.

Now some brief and extremely cuss-filled replies to the judgeman.

There is all too much war talk here and I say that to everyone with the utmost respect.

Then stop using the RNC talking points. They're the ones who want war, war, war.

You are not an enemy combatant. You are a terrorist. You are not a soldier in any war. You are a terrorist.

Do you think these guys care what you call them?

We do not meet with terrorists. We do not sign documents with terrorists. We hunt them down one by one and bring them to justice.

And waive due process if we suspect they're terrorists and render them to other countries where we make them shit on themselves.

It seems to me you hate the one thing that to us is most precious. You hate our freedom.

Bullshit.

If you believe that party line you have a serious inability to see beyond the black and white in life. It'd be convenient to see these folks as subhuman, hating our way of life.

They don't give a fuck what we do here. They want us out of the fucking Middle East, end of story.

Whether this guy is just a nutjob or whether he buys into it I don't know, but suppose he is a nutjob. Are we doing ourselves any favors by assigning his neuroses to everyone who threatens us with violence? Give me a break. If someone invaded our country you bet your bottom we'd fight back. This sort of ignorant stereotyping really pisses me off.

It is for freedom's sake that your lawyers are striving so vigorously on your behalf and have filed appeals, will go on in their representation of you before other judges.

And it is also for freedom's sake that you are not in Guantanamo with the rest of them still waiting for a trial that will probably never happen.

...No, never mind, my mistake. That's because you don't have an Arab last name.

We Americans are all about freedom. Because we all know that the way we
treat you, Mr. Reid, is the measure of our own liberties.

No. The way we treat folks like Mr. Moazzam Begg, Feroz Abbasi, Richard Belmar and Martin Mubanga, British citizens who are currently in Guantanamo without being charged-- THAT'S the measure of our own liberties.

And if you don't see that what's happening there directly parallels what's happening here-- that increasingly, if you look funny, have a funny accent, do things in your bedroom that seem funny to others, you are not going to get the things that your pretty white heterosexual neighbors get -- you are blinding yourself.

The very President of the United States through his officers will have to come into courtrooms and lay out evidence on which specific matters can be judged.

HAH. I'm waiting in vain for THAT day.

Mind you, the letter ended with the following:

So, how much of this Judge's comments did we hear on our TV sets? We need more judges like Judge Young, but that's another subject. Pass this around.

Everyone should and needs to hear what this fine judge had to say. Powerful words that strike home.

God bless America

Please forward this---------so that every American has a chance to read it.

And may every American learn the following as well: To question authority is the true test of whether you are worthy of the freedom given you.

A little Photoshop

2005-07-17T19:11:00.000-04:00

For Bobby Joe. Wherever you are, man, thanks for the wonderful idea!

Santorum's right that liberal culture has influence.

2005-07-13T14:47:00.000-04:00

I'm on a posting kick, yes.

Kennedy rips Santorum for 2002 column

"The people of Boston are to blame for the clergy sexual abuse? That is an irresponsible, insensitive and inexcusable thing to say," said Kennedy.

Robert Traynham, a spokesman for Santorum, said his boss recognizes that the church abuse scandal was not just in Boston, but all over the country.

Then why was Boston the so-called center of the controversy?

Because Boston is where it went public. That liberal center is where people were finally held accountable for doing something wrong. Where the old boys' club broke down and things began to move. In other words, that "liberal culture" influenced not the priests' actions, but the public response and the effort to right wrongs. That's a good thing.

[Mass Attorney General] Reilly, a Democrat, also criticized Santorum. "For him to equate liberalism with child abuse is disgraceful. It's embarrassing for him and embarrassing to his party and his party should disown him," he said.

No. Let's embrace his idea that liberalism influenced what happened in Boston. That liberalism encourages accountability. That liberalism encourages justice.

Pre-judging

2005-07-13T14:27:00.000-04:00

Two talking points we've heard on the right side with regards to the open Supreme Court seat.

#1: "We shouldn't question the nominees on hot-button issues because that would be essentially asking them to pre-judge cases they haven't heard yet."

#2: "The Democrats should agree to a nominee who doesn't match them politically just as we did for Ginsberg and vote the nominee in regardless of political views."

Aren't they asking the Democrats to pre-judge the nominees before-- or without-- holding the hearings on which they're supposed to make the decision? Why are Senators asked in advance which way they'll vote without even asking their questions, but the nominees have total immunity from that sort of questioning? Who's the subject of the hearing here-- the Senators or the nominees?

Your anti-tinfoiling for the day

2005-07-07T16:10:00.000-04:00

There was a short-lived post on DU about the London bombs today. It was a poll asking "Why Did the London Event Happen?
-LIHOP
-MIHOP
-Incompetence
-Other"

Utterly sickened, I clicked "other" and posted a response under the title "Crap Happens":

Because the bastards slipped through the fingers of security doesn't necessarily mean security is incompetent. It means they're not perfect. I'm kind of sick to death of us having to be either perfect, malicious, or incompetent. People die because crap happens all the time. It sucks, but choosing a scapegoat to blame for their deaths doesn't do anything productive. You do what you can to keep folks alive and you hopefully succeed most of the time, but if anything short of perfection is malice or incompetence, you better start praying the Justice League shows up.

The gain in Spain shows plainly they are sane

2005-06-30T10:03:00.000-04:00

Spain joins the ever-longer list of countries who are not afraid of love.

Huzzah.

And the grammar shall set you free.

2005-06-21T15:19:00.000-04:00

I did promise you that I'd have a non-Giant post, didn't I? Here's a short one to tide you over before I leave.

The current favorite talking point of the right wing is that "fixed" doesn't mean the same in British English as it does in American English, thus the Downing Street Minutes saying that the "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" is not an incriminating statement.

Besides the fact that this is obvious tripe, let's take the wingnuts at their word and dissect this sentence.

When we say "The stars are fixed in the heavens," it means that the stars are set and unmoving. "Fixed" is an adjective here. It's like saying "The stars are bright." This is the meaning that they are trying to ascribe to the word "fixed" in the minutes.

There's one problem.
The sentence doesn't say the facts were fixed. It says the facts were being fixed.

You can't say stars are "being bright."

It's a passive, past progressive verb.

A verb needs a subject.

In other words, stars can be bright without someone doing the brightening, but facts can't be "being fixed" without someone doing the fixing.

And the grammar shall set you free.

The woods are empty this week

2005-06-20T19:58:00.000-04:00

The Giant is gone this week and I will be gone as of tomorrow until next Tuesday. More when we return. There's a lot I've thought to blog about, but the biggest news (attending the rally in Lafayette Square) I discussed on Democratic Underground. I have a lot more postwise that I'm mulling, so don't worry, I will make sure to have lots of essays ready for my return.

As for the anonymous poster who suggested that the Giant isn't participating in the debate, well... it's hard for him to do when he isn't here!

The Witch and the Giant Face Off #1

2005-06-15T16:00:00.000-04:00

The Giant and I have been corresponding for a while now, and I at least feel that I have made some headway in understanding “how the other half thinks.” I've learned a lot just from compiling this first summary of our conversations. I hope it's helpful for you all too.

We started off with a simple comparison of our positions on various things.

Issue	The Witch	The Giant
Gay marriage	In favor	Opposed
War in Iraq	Opposed	In favor
Nuclear option	Opposed	Opposed
“Controversial” judicial nominees	Opposed	In favor
Strong language by Democrats	In favor	In favor
Neocon mindset	Opposed	Opposed
“Christian Taliban”	Opposed to existence	Opposed to use of the term
Stem cell research	In favor of	In favor of (in the private sector)
Abortion	Opposed to it being criminal behavior	Opposed to it being legal

So quite a bit of common ground to work from, which was surprising to me at least.

We began by discussing the very basics of religion in politics, which is the topic of this conversation.

The Witch: “The point-- the exclusivity of "one right" faith is where conflict begins and things turn sour.”

The Giant: “I think of all the aspects of my faith that I struggle with, I have the hardest time with the doctrine that my faith represents the one true way to Heaven. Seems just a little arrogant, huh? :)

“However, the basis of my entire belief system is a conviction that the Bible is the word of God. Therefore, since I believe the Bible is correct and absolute, I then must accept that those who do not follow the Bible will not find God. Follow my logic?

The Witch: “Why do you believe that?”

The Giant: “I believe the Bible is the infallible word of God because of the change it had in my own life and the lives of others that I know.

“Ok, my turn to ask a question! Do you believe in moral absolutes, and if so what is the authority for what is right and what is wrong? “

The Witch: “That's a difficult question. I guess the answer would be yes, I believe in moral absolutes, but perhaps not as many of them as other people do.

“I think that for every one moral absolute there are a million moral gray areas, and it's the attempt to work those out that make it so difficult to maintain a free society.

“So I would say that the authority is the common human experience, and that does not preclude the existence of a Big Good Thing. I feel it encourages it. If there is a shared, common human morality, it's indicative that we were made that way. Intelligent design, if you will.”

The Giant: “I guess the biggest question I have is doesn't there have to be some authority for what is a moral absolute, beyond a shared human experience?

“That is an extremely condensed version of why I am against gay marriage. I believe it represents a movement toward denying the existence of the moral absolutes or moral code which is the basis of our democracy.”

The Witch: “I take exception to the idea that the basis of our democracy is a moral absolute or moral code. In my opinion, the idea of democracy is to deny absolutism. ‘Absolute power corrupts absolutely,’ or something like that. The idea is that no person or group can completely decide how a land should be governed, so democracy gives everybody a chance to be heard. In my opinion, our differences and our liberty are the basis of democracy.”

The Giant: “Well, we are going to have to agree to disagree on these issues (surprise).

“First, I emphatically believe that our country was founded on a belief that there is a Supreme Being and that there are moral absolutes which should govern our conduct.

“Again, this all ties into gay marriage, and was the point Senator Santorum was trying to make last year, when he said that if you deny the existence of moral absolutes and embrace gay marriage, then what authority does society have to regulate bestiality or polygamy. Unfortunately, this argument was too complex for a lot of people on the left, and they claim that Santorum was comparing homosexuality to bestiality. Not so. His point was if there are no moral absolutes then who is to say that polygamy or bestiality is wrong?”

The Witch: “The people. End of story. Anything else is going beyond the power of a government of the people. As you can see, I'm being very pragmatic here, because to go beyond the scope of the government is to move away from the topic as I see it.”

The Giant: “We agree!!!! :) My issue is not whether the government has the authority to legalize these things, my issue is whether it is a good idea for the government to do so, based on the slippery slope theory, regarding where do we go from here, and where do we draw the line.”

The Witch: “HUGE sigh of relief ;-D I think I see what's happened here. There's a sort of meta-argument going on. We are on opposite sides of this issue, but each side thinks the other is abusing the political process for the sake of furthering his or her cause. This is really indicative of what's been going on recently, I think. We're very torn up in the political/legal aspects of how the argument is progressing, to the extent that it is distracting from the real argument.”

The next conversation I post will discuss the judiciary’s role in the same-sex marriage battle.

It's been an interesting week or two.

2005-06-15T09:52:00.000-04:00

The Giant and I have been discussing some quite controversial topics. I am hoping to post some of our conversation verbatim, some summaries, some lessons learned later this week. Stay tuned.

In related news, how many times do I have to tell you folks? BEHAVE. Please don't let your remarks disintegrate into the same tripe we get from the other side. That would indicate that the experiment has failed and that our side was responsible for it. Come on, now.

An Honest Living

2005-06-10T15:31:00.000-04:00

It is not uncommon for Howard Dean to say something that annoys me, and his recent comments were no exception. To recap, earlier this week Dean said, “a lot of them [Republicans] have never made an honest living in their lives."

First, as a Republican attempting to make an “honest living,” I know from personal experience that is not true. Also, I could not help but think of my father, a staunch Republican and a construction worker, who spent this past week working on top of a sky rise in downtown Philadelphia. Oh, and by the way, temperatures have been in the 80’s-90’s all week, with extremely high humidity. I wonder if Mr. Dean would like to tell my father that he is not making an “honest living.”

Another thing I found interesting regarding Mr. Dean’s remarks, is the fact that Mr. Dean never mentioned that he was the beneficiary of a nice 25K trust when graduated college. I wonder whether he considers that part of making an “honest living.” (For those of us who graduated college and were the beneficiaries of a school loans instead of trust accounts, I think we can all agree that a 25K trust is a better alternative).

However, personal stories aside, perhaps the thing that irritated me the most about Mr. Dean’s statement is the blatant use of class warfare. Does anyone really believe that what we need in this country is more “us v. them” rhetoric? Yet Mr. Dean continually repeats his tired mantra of - Republicans are evil people who are only successful because they lie, steal and cheat their way to the top. This is not only offensive to Republicans, but also to the moderate Democrats who occasionally vote Republican and have friends and family members who happen to be Republican.

If this is Mr. Dean’s plan for overcoming Republican majorities in the Senate and the House of Representatives, I cannot wait to see the results.

If this is Mr. Dean’s plan for helping the Democratic Party find its soul and piece together a coalition with one coherent voice, I cannot wait to see the results.

Apparently, Mr. Dean has forgotten that in the past election the majority of voters identified with the Republican platform on the issues of security and taxes- the two things which matter the most to those of us who are struggling to make an “honest living.”

Here comes the Giant

2005-06-10T09:10:00.000-04:00

Visitors to my humble candy house, you may want to watch your heads. The Giant is upon us and he is joining the fray.

The Giant is a conservative Republican who is interested in having a civil discourse on a number of issues. I know that the great majority of you who come here do so from the liberal blogs I tend to post on. Please, please keep in mind that I'm doing this as an exercise in civil debate. If he feels too harrassed or if I feel you all are (or he is!) being unfair, I will take whatever action I feel necessary to keep this corner of the blogosphere a happy place.

Here's hoping this experiment works. Join me in bidding him welcome to the woods.

Witches can be right...
Giants can be good.

Woo! Just got onto C-SPAN!

2005-06-08T07:20:00.000-04:00

(approximate transcript)

Q: Does Howard Dean Speak for you?

A: Yes. And before I go on let me speak to the fellow who called [who said he feels out of place in the party because he is a White Christian]. I'm sorry you feel that way. Come join us. Come join us online at DailyKos. At Democratic Underground.com. Let's talk, find a way to get your voice included.

Now as for Howard Dean. He does speak for me. And you know what? When he said "Many Republicans never worked an honest day in their lives," he wasn't talking to Democrats-- we already buy in to that. He was talking to the average Republican voter. The ones who work hard every day. Do your leaders really speak for YOU? Do they know what your life is like? What have they done for you?

Have they made it easier for you to file for bankruptcy if you get sick?

Have they made it easier for you to keep your job instead of getting it outsourced to China?

Maybe you voted for Bush on a platform of moral values. Maybe you feel better because gay people make you feel "icky." But is your life better day-to-day? Wake up and see who really speaks for you.

thanks.

It's OK If You're A Republican (Democrat style)

2005-06-07T18:48:00.000-04:00

This is a rant about certain members of the online Democratic community. A longer rant will follow later this evening or tomorrow.

You know how annoyed we get about people who practice the ol' "IOKIYAR" (It's OK If You're A Republican) routine? You know, the anti-gay folks who are in the backroom with boys off hours, the pro-life politicians who pay for abortions for their daughters, the valiant protectors of moral values who screw around with the receptionist?

What bugs us about those people: the hypocrisy. The thought that "it's okay for me, but not for you."

We've got our own problem with hypocrisy. We've got something that is evil and loathsome and obviously a Hidden Agenda of the Powers That Be... except when it's us.

What is that thing?

The treatment of mental illness.

On this thread, I was pissed off by someone who suggested that drugs for mental illnesses were a plot of the government to Keep Us Down. I responded, albeit a little too angrily, and got yelled at.

OK. Let me get this straight. MY mental illness is real, and MY drugs legitimately help me, but as for the rest of the world, they're being drugged by the Feddies.

How is that different from the Repug who pays for his daughter's abortion but thinks everyone else is a harlot?

We have no business delegitimizing people's mental illnesses when we don't know a thing about any of the individual people.

Are there people who are being drugged by overzealous doctors? Of course.
Are there people who use abortion as birth control? Of course.

But we CAN'T fall into the trap of hateful rhetoric that assumes the worst.

I point this out not to be bitter and angry (and trust me, this topic makes me very bitter and very angry! I've dealt with the stigma of mental illness all too much in my life!) but because if we want to point out 'Pug hypocrisy, we first need to snipe out our own.

Just think. THINK.

More coming later tonight.

The trolling continues

2005-06-07T11:54:00.000-04:00

Do I look like a billy goat gruff? Oh well, that's what I get for feeding the trolls.

(The beginning of this exchange is here.

*** ******* to me
Jun 3 (4 days ago)

EVER SEEN A DEM PUKE HOLE UP CLOSE?

--

The Witch to *** Jun 3 (4 days ago)

A puke hole? You mean a mouth?

I suppose you've had plenty of experience, seeing as whenever a dem
gets close to you, they'd end up puking.

It's only due to my evil liberal black magic that I'm still coherent.

--

*** ****** to me Jun 3 (4 days ago)

Dems puke out spittle lies from there brute froth
holes.

--

The Witch to *** Jun 3 (4 days ago)

"From there," you say. From where?

As for brute froth holes, for someone who's supposed to be sharin' the
love I'm not getting much more than froth outta your hole. How's about
telling me who you are, what you believe, and why you feel you're
right?

--

*** ****** to me Jun 3 (4 days ago)

I'm a flag-flying American patriot.

And I don't like Dems who choke out puke lies from
round spittle holes.

--

*** ****** to me Jun 3 (4 days ago)

Bush and Arnold are the man-men prophecized by our
founders and believed by all true Americans.

--

*** ****** to me Jun 4 (3 days ago)

MOVE TO FRANCE HIPPIE!

--

The Witch to *** Jun 4 (3 days ago)

> I'm a flag-flying American patriot.

I don't have a flag to fly, but I'm an American and love my country as well.

> And I don't like Dems who choke out puke lies from round spittle holes.

1) What lies?
2) Is your mouth a different shape?

> Bush and Arnold are the man-men prophecized by our founders

I didn't realize our founders were prophets. Can you point me to where
they predicted this? I really would be interested to see it.

> and believed by all true Americans.

What decides who a true American is?
Was JFK a true American?
Was FDR?

> MOVE TO FRANCE HIPPIE!

I thought I had already established that this wasn't going to happen.
Why don't you move there? I don't mind living in the same country with
you, hon. Why is it that *I* have to move if you don't want to live in
the same country with me?

Did I lose you? Sorry. You might have to read that sentence a few
times. You know how it is with us academic types. We actually put
together complex sentences occasionally. It's not intentional.

That said, I'm thrilled that you actually answered my questions for
once. Can I entice you to answer the above? If not, here's a simple
one:

"What do Democrats lie about?"

("Everything" is not an answer. I would like examples.)

Looking forward to hearing from you!

--

*** ****** to me Jun 5 (2 days ago)

What you need is God sister. No more 'weed', no more
'strap ons', no more 'waking up covered in filth', no
more 'shaved pussy', no more 'voting Democrat', you
need God sister.

--

The Witch to *** Jun 5 (2 days ago)

You're the one who is swearing and screaming and condemning people who
don't agree with you without ever having a decent conversation. If I
were to end up like you by joining your religion (whatever it may be),
I will stay as far away from it as possible. At least I'm willing to
have a decent conversation.

Incidentally, I've never touched an illegal drug and never drank more
than one sip of alcohol. I've never used a strap-on or had one used on
me. And my genital area is not shaved. I'm heterosexual in a
committed, monogamous relationship and I have had exactly one sexual
partner my entire life -- the man I'm going to marry. The only reason
we are not already married is that we do not have the financial
wherewithal to hold a wedding.

But you'll never hear me apologize for voting Democrat.

Why don't you try asking a question? Say, "Why do you vote Democrat?"
Or "What is your religion?" Any question will do. Give it a shot.

I'll be waiting.

--

*** ****** to me Jun 5 (2 days ago)

You knew what a 'strap on' was. Only hippies know
what they are, and use them. I know em cuz I convert
u hipps, I hear about ur 'orgies'.

No more 'doggystyle' either.

It's time for God, sister.

--

The Witch to *** Jun 5 (2 days ago)

Where's my question?

And sweetheart, it's always time for God.

--

*** ****** to me Jun 5 (2 days ago)

I don't believe you've never used strap ons.

Why can't you just tell the truth?

Why have you only been with one man in your whole
life? Why is that so hard for me to believe?

--
The Witch to ***
More options Jun 6 (1 day ago)

Why is that so hard for you to believe, indeed? You don't even know me.

I don't know anything about you, either. Where do you live? What do
you do for a living?

--

No word since...

C-SPAN comment of the day

2005-06-03T07:37:00.000-04:00

"Minorities within the Senate were protected. Minorities OUTSIDE the Senate were not."

--Jesse Jackson on the filibuster compromise

It's things like this that make me doubt my initial reaction to the compromise. I truly cherish the Democratic party. They make me challenge my ideas and opinions without alienating me. Since getting into politics I've already changed my position on some things that I didn't know enough about before. Politics should be a learning experience and we need to challenge each other's ideas.

I still tend to think the compromise was a good thing... but it makes me think. May I always follow the party that makes me think, reason, and explore and reject the party that discourages independent thinking.

The dissent within the Democratic Party is a good thing. We just need to figure out how to communicate that to people. We are the party of the thinking man and the party of the working man and the party of the everyday man. People disagree. That's okay with us. Is it okay with the Republicans?

I've gone off on a tangent. The point: Thanks for making me think.

My very first hate mail!

2005-06-02T21:22:00.000-04:00

*** ****** to me
6:22 pm (3 hours ago)

MOVE TO FRANCE, HIPPIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The Witch to ***
7:32 pm (1½ hours ago)

Hey, you're not dwayne!

:Kisses you on both cheeks, french-style, just to make you nervous:

Would you like to talk about how I'm a hippie and you're a wingnut and
we will never ever understand each other and we're right and the other
person is wrong?

Looking forward to it!

Oh, and do let me know what I can post to my blog. In a purely
informational sense. I promise not to badmouth you, just to post our
conversation/your e-mail as is. I won't reveal your e-mail address or
name either.

Thanks and welcome to my candy house!

The Witch

*** ****** to me
More options 7:36 pm (1½ hours ago)

Dems are spittle men. Spittle men have no soul, ONLY
PUKE.

Move to France, hippie!

The Witch to ***
9:10 pm (14 minutes ago)

Oh, I love you! You're so not even interested in dialogue. You
represent the worst of your faction. If you are not interested in
talking, then I can only conclude that you don't care whether I
publish this mail on my blog or not. Were you to, say, argue a point
with me or tell me why you think I'm a "spittle man" or a "hippie," I
might be persuaded to be quiet about it... but as it is, you're a
little like the crazy man at the circus. Everybody gathers around to
hear him babble and laughs at him, and in the end he never gets
anything done.

Your choice, luv. Embarrasment or dialogue?

Oh, and... I don't speak much French.

*** ****** to me
9:14 pm (8 minutes ago)

I'm just spreadin' the word sis....

The Witch to ***
9:25 pm (0 minutes ago)

Allow me to spread it further, kiddo.

http://lastmidnight.blogspot.com/2005/06/my-very-first-hate-mail.html

Have a nice day!

I feel like a REAL BLOGGER!!!

MST: Making it less boring

2005-05-31T06:19:00.000-04:00

The following e-mail appeared on DU's "hate mail" section as "the most boring e-mail ever." Here is my attempt to make it a little less boring. All emphasis, of course, is mine.

From: -.-.---@prodigy.net

No wonder he's boring. Who the hell uses Prodigy anymore?

To: mail@democraticunderground.com
Date: 5/15/2005 10:13 PM
Subject: Tough Times

Tough times for democrates.

Real crates are getting all the good shipping jobs and the democrates are only used for proposal work.

Bolton will get the nomination

A few months behind in that assertion, aren't you? Now, whether he's CONFIRMED...

as the country views the democrats as nuclear obstructionists.

I thought the Repubs were into the nuclear stuff. Nuclear weapons, nuclear power, nuclear options... if anything, do please call us peace-loving wimps. Or is the fact that we have some backbone (finally) too much for you to handle?

Be careful for you know not what you do.

I believe the saying goes "Forgive them..." But the concept might be a little beyond you.

The pulse of the citizens is that immigration will rule the day along with the war.

... Now this I can't make heads or tails of.

This will hurt the dems hugely and reflects another major tactical blunder. Also reflects very poorly on the clinton legacy.

It hurts the clinton legacy that Bush took us to war? Now I *know* your head is a few years behind the rest of us.

Another horrible problem for the dems is that "we the people" know that the UN is under corrupt control.

HMMM. I think he knows something. He must be tight with Kofi. What do you know, sir, and when did you know it? :suspicious:

Not realizing that we don't trust the UN and then telling everyone that we need to trust the UN is unbelievably moronic.

... No ... I think REALIZING that we don't trust the UN and then telling everyone that we need to trust the UN is moronic. If we don't realize it, of course we're not going to tell everyone.

LOGIC! It's your FRIEND!

The republicans can easily sieze on that issue and cause great damage.

Nobody is questioning the Republicans' ability to cause great damage. I'm with you on that.

More problems for dems in the next election will be homosexual obsessions,

Oh, you mean like the ones where people want to monitor foster parents to make sure they're not gay? Or the ones where people are all up in arms about people saying "Can't we be nice to each other" in posters or SpongeBob cartoons?

You folks make it the obsession. Being gay shouldn't be a news story, folks. You're the ones that make it so.

abortion (celebrating the success of 44 million plus abortions is sick, twisted and so profoundly out of control, I can't imagine that anyone in their right mind would ever be proud of that statistic),

Show me a Dem who's proud of that statistic and I'll show you a sociopath who shouldn't be called a Dem.

hillary (you think you have lock on hate, wait until another corrupt clinton is supported for a leadership position in 2008),

Another? Was there a first corrupt Clinton?

Oh, right. You're worrying about sex again. The sex that you say WE'RE too obsessed with.

pelosi (her vanity is getting the best of her, she looks like she's wearing one of those plastic halloween faces, she resinates absolutely nothing but hateful tripe),

Yes, but all that resin has an effect on her after a while. But i suppose it's difficult to grapple with a vanity without something to help you keep your grip.

:Insert image of Nancy Pelosi fighting with a dresser:

ted kennedy (I don't even know anyone who thinks this man is a great thinker),

And I don't think anyone thinks you're a great knower.

byrd (fool of fools) and of course kerry (probably the worst candidate ever to lose the last election to bush).

Because all of the OTHER candidates who lost the last election to bush were so much better. I guess you must love Nader.

Todays dems will be precieved as obstructionists not willing to fight

Someone in a movie I saw once said:
"You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means."

If they aren't willing to fight they wouldn't be obstructionists, dumbass!

for the country they live in yet are totally willing to thwart the constitution (not good).

Thanks for throwing in that "not good." You know how difficult it is for us moral relativists to remember what's good and what isn't.

A new phenom is gaining momentum, the back lash towards Universities and their outspoken liberal ideologies.

You heard him, folks! The guy likes back lashes!
:getting out the leather:

I gaurantee that every liberal educational institution will take a huge hit in their fund raising programs because parents demand education over liberal indoctrination.

And then everyone will know the TRUE spelling of "gaurantee!"

Watch how fast the mouthy university liberals are quited as the money stops coming in.

And when they get another job and leave it, they'll be requited!
And when they get their original job back, they'll be unrequited!

Ah... fun with words...

I am very well connected with the UC system in CA

Let me guess. Didn't graduate from the English (or political science) department, didja?

and they are extremely worried because the gifts have already slowed considerably. This ex-democrat, loyal for 17 years, still believes in common sense and sees a sad future for the party. Dems have not learned anything from the last 5 years.

We haven't exactly had a terrific teacher.

Hate, pesonal destruction, homosexual obsession, constant bad news war stories, and an inept crew leading the party (pelosi, kennedy, biden, ried, clinton)

OH! You totally faked me out! I thought you were gonna say (dobson, rummy, rove,the moonie times, bush)! After all, Dobby is all about hating, Rummy loves to personally destroy people in other countries, everybody knows Rove's a big closet queen, The Moonie Times is constantly publishing crap stories, and Bush's picture is in the dictionary under "inept!"

are already destroying decades of hard work from ethical, moral hard working democrats.

Oh! The politics of destruction! So riveting!
That must be why you enjoy the bombing part so much.

Sadly the democrat party is quite comfortable mired in hypocricy, how embarrassing is that?

Not as embarrassing as being mired in comma splices.
And accusing people of something you can't spell.

As a friend, I warn you all that the path the dems are on will bury them.

Dear, real friends don't leave their friends to die. If you want to see the party change, stay with it and work to change it.

One more thing, no matter how hard dems try to portray clinton as someone great,the truth won't go away.

You are so right. That damn budget surplus is such a nuisance. But hey, at least you were able to get rid of that right quick.

Monica, North Korea, Aspin Factory, Gonzales, Reno, Albright, Gore,

MNKAFGRAG for short. Say it with me. MNKAFGRAG! MNKAFGRAG!

and this is barely touching the realities of a not so great president.

The reality being that the not so great president is Bush.

Actually, I'm cool with Clinton being not so great. It's better than being a complete disaster.

Wake up, there is certainly more to gain by searching for honost moral decent politicians unlike the current ilk.

You're right! Let's get Tom Delay to change parties! We need an upstanding, decent man like him on our side!

As you can tell, this is one democrat that clearly views clinton as the worst thing that ever happened to the once great party.

Thought you'd left the party!
Damn you crazy kids and your on-again off-again parties... I can't get any sleep. :grumbling, shutting the shades:

To bad the liberal media has such a lust for the clintons,

Mm-hm. I see... interesting choice of words...

No, go on. Please. Don't let little ol' me stop you.

they very well may be the ruination of the party forever and just how the hell do you think bush got elected in the first place.

Fraud.
(Not to pin too fine a point on it.)
And your punctuation is atrocious.

Let me spell it out, the country responded to the awful, corrupt, and arragont clinton administration.

Hey! I loved Arragont! He was my favorite character in Lord of the Rings!
(Let's see, awful was the dwarf and corrupt was the elf, right?)

Not understanding that will only fuel the dems destruction.

DEMS DESTRUCTION! TONIGHT ONLY!! ARE YOU READY TO RUMBLE?!?!?!?!

:picturing Harry Reid with his boxing gloves, Babs Boxer alongside him, and Ted Kennedy in a sumo wrestl... ... ... oh, no. That's just wrong.:

Dems, good luck, Respectfully S Smith.

Please don't let that S stand for Susan.
(Or Agent, though I'm less sure that'd work...)

C-SPAN comment of the day

2005-05-26T14:09:00.000-04:00

made, this time, by the host!

Open phones is usually a freakfest and this morning was no exception. A feller called up to complain that C-SPAN is too liberal. "Why don't you have more conservative journalists?"

Brian Lamb: "Because we'd rather hear from you."

Caller: "...Well. Thanks." :click:

C-SPAN comment of the day

2005-05-25T10:57:00.000-04:00

"Fuck Bush."

He called twice. The host was VERY embarrassed.

Bush should apologize to this young man

2005-05-24T15:22:00.000-04:00

"Threatening" T-shirt bars student from presidential forum in Tucson

The UA Young Democrats T-shirt that Gerner wore is white and has the party's logo on the back. Gerner said he did not plan to cause trouble.

"It's really important that I'm an informed citizen. I can't do that unless I open up and listen to the other position on the issue," Gerner said. "Regardless of what side of the aisle President Bush is on, he's still the president of the United States, and it's an honor to be in the presence of any elected official."

That is an incredibly astute thing to say. And FWIW, I see it the other way around. Bush would have been honored to be listened to by a man of such character. He should invite him to the White House.

C-Span is a lovefest this morning.

2005-05-24T07:28:00.000-04:00

Somehow I am feeling very optimistic today.

I think this compromise is a huge victory.

You heard me. Not a small victory. Not a defeat. A HUGE victory.

Remember, partisanship is a means to an end. The end is the life and liberty of millions of people who live in this country. This is bigger than three or seven judges and it's even bigger than the rules of the Senate. The spirit last night in the press conference and the spirit this morning on the floor of the Senate is... gasp!... cameraderie. Senators are saying that this compromise lays the groundwork for future compromises and civil debate on legislation. That means getting bills through that feed hungry families and give people jobs who need them and pay for the health care of those who can't do it themselves.

It sucks to quantify political priorities. But you have to think: for every bad decision one of these judges makes, how many people will be aided by legislation that wouldn't have made it through if the Senate were shut down?

And let's think about the public. How much confidence has been restored in the Senate now? For every political wonk on the blogs,how many people out there simply see the word "compromise" and think "thank God a bunch of ADULTS are in there." The people who came off worst in this? Bill Frist and George W. Bush. COMPROMISE is the word of the day and if you weren't a part of it, you're a divider, not a uniter.

So call me an apologist or a centrist. Truth is, I'm just interested in seeing people live good lives. And it's much easier to do that when you have grown-ups in charge.

Life Imitates Art

2005-05-23T11:23:00.000-04:00

By now you all are sick of the Star Wars references. To me, the one big moment in that movie was when Palpatine says, "I am the Senate." Does this remind you of anyone who may have been quoted as saying "I am the Federal Government?"

But I am not posting about Star Wars. I'm going to post about something else.

Namely, Spider Jerusalem.

When I first read this series, I had yet to enter the blogosphere. But it is basically prophetic of what blogs are. Granted, we don't have bowel disruptors or source gas, but blogs are feedsites, right? Places where people can get the information and truth they can't get elsewhere.

I was re-reading the last TPB in the series the other day and something struck me. A piece of dialogue. I don't have the TPB in front of me, but as I recall, there's something about the sitting president, known as the "Smiler," that talks about him killing a cat.

Remind you of anyone?

What's more, the next night he had a huge tribute dinner.

Remind you of anyone?

A more detailed analysis of Transmetropolitan and the modern world is here.

Why the filibuster?

2005-05-22T14:26:00.000-04:00

Here's a question.

Why the filibuster?

How come "not being able to shut someone up" has been such a historic tactic over the years?

Why not stipulate that nothing can pass without 60 votes?

Or, if it's 60 Rs to 40 Dems, stipulate that nothing can pass without at least 10 or 25 percent of the minority vote?

Why is the filibuster the chosen tactic?

Just asking. And I'm not a constitutional scholar by any stretch of the imagination, so I'm honestly asking to get the information.

So inform me.

"Destroying life in order to save life"

2005-05-21T15:00:00.000-04:00

Bush says it's wrong. (in his promised veto of stem-cell research).

I will be a little callous.

There's no better reason to destroy life.

Life gets destroyed all the time, and sometimes it's for no reason at all. Sometimes it's to express anger. Sometimes it's to avenge a perceived wrong. But if a life is destroyed to save a life, well, isn't that the best possible reason?

Isn't that why we send our soldiers and our police officers into dangerous places?

C-SPAN caller of the day

2005-05-19T08:29:00.000-04:00

"You keep saying they pushed through through 90 percent of the nominees and that makes them the good guys. Well, what about the 90 percent of priests who don't molest children?"

...
...

...????

And this guy went on to talk about how the guest wasn't making a sufficiently intellectual argument.

Um... you're sort of making our point for us. Are you saying you'd let the other 10 percent of priests get ordained?

:rolling eyes:

Open thread/Discussion

2005-05-17T11:47:00.000-04:00

Civilized discussion following this thread or general topics please. Behave-- you're in my house.

ETA: Interesting comment by the reigning ~~troll~~ challenger on the above thread:

Examples of why the US is becoming a dictatorship would be appreciated.

Can we objectively describe examples?

1) Erosion of the rights of minorities. For example:
-A new law in Texas limiting the rights of people to become foster parents based on their sexual orientation.
-Limitation of filibuster rights based on the matter being discussed, not on the legitimacy of the tactic. (For example, the Democrats still seem to be free to filibuster Mr. Bolton's confirmation vote. How does that differ from the votes to confirm judges?)

2) Censorship and stifling of the media/lack of transparency in government. For example:
-The President facing press conferences infrequently and having a bad relationship with the media.
-The use of VNRs and paid commentators disguised as objective media reports. (And mind you, I work in the PR industry and am aware of the usefulness of VNRs.)
-A number of initiatives in states to ban books from libraries based on "inappropriate conduct" taking place in those books. (Why, one wonders, is Hamlet not banned? He killed folks right and left.)

3) Invasion into individual rights to privacy. For example:
-Legalizing the investigation into the sexual orientation of current foster parents under the same Texas law.
-Allowing the delay of notice for searches of private property.

Please continue.

A little about my username

2005-05-15T00:12:00.000-04:00

Some of you may recognize my name and the title of this blog as a reference to Stephen Sondheim's Into the Woods. I didn't choose this title simply because I like musicals or Sondheim. To understand, you have to know a little about the musical.

Into the Woods weaves together a number of fairy tales: Cinderella, Jack and the Beanstalk, Rapunzel, Little Red Riding Hood, and an original story about a baker and his wife that pulls them all together. Everybody goes into the woods to complete their quest and get their wish, and everybody lives happily ever after.

Until Act Two.

That's when everyone's actions come back to haunt them. A new horror has come to the woods: Jack has killed the giant, but his wife is now rampaging through the woods, demanding that Jack be handed over so she can avenge her husband's death. When the main characters meet, frightened for their lives, their conference quickly becomes a blame game. The baker blames Jack, who blames the baker for selling him the magic beans, who blames his father for giving him the beans, etc. etc. In the end, everyone pushes the blame onto someone else, and eventually they decide to blame the witch.

If you hadn't raised the beans in the first place...
You're responsible! You're the one to blame it on! It's your fault!

At which point, she silences them and sings the following song.

It's the last midnight
It's the last wish.
It's the last midnight
Soon it will be BOOM--squish!
Told a little lie, stole a little gold, broke a little vow,
Did you?
Had to get your Prince, had to get your cow,
Have to get your wish, doesn't matter how..
Anyway, it doesn't matter now.

How does this become a political blog? Simple. I think we're in the last midnight now as a nation. We've gone so far in our own interests that we're now seeing the consequences.

Told a little lie, did you? That there were WMDs in Iraq?
Stole a little gold, Mr. DeLay, did you?
Broke a little vow? That you'd get us out of the deficit?

Had to get your wish? Couldn't stand the thought of anal sex so you decided to outlaw it? Make the law fit what you, personally are comfortable with?

Anyway, it doesn't matter now.

It's the last midnight,
It's the boom--
Splat!
Nothing but a vast midnight,
Everybody smashed flat!

I really do think a crisis is going to come soon. 9-11 was our chance to wake up. To take this adolescent nation, which was so obsessed with a man's indiscretions that we never knew what was going on in other parts of the world, and force it to grow up. Unfortunately, when the bridge is falling out from under you, you tend to bolt for the side you're most familiar with. And we fell into patriotic simplemindedness. Let's Go Get The Bad Guys.

Nothing we can do...
Not exactly true:
We can always give her the boy...
No?
No, of course, what really matters is the blame.
Somebody to blame.
Fine, if that's the thing you enjoy, placing the blame,
If that's the aim, give me the blame.
Just give me the boy.

Liberals want to blame conservatives. Conservatives want to blame liberals. They each think the media is against them. They each think the other is the tool of the devil. Nobody will admit that yes, we had a hand in this too. The Ward Churchills of the world are castigated for trying to take responsibility. So fine. Give me the blame. Let the Witch be what's wrong with you. Just FIX IT.

No?

You're so nice.
You're not good, you're not bad,
You're just nice.

The US is fixated on being nice. We are The Moral High Ground. We talk big. We must be the Leaders of the Free World. WHY? Why do we have to be the most important country in the world? Why can't we understand that listening to our neighbors does not mean bowing our heads, and that sometimes our intentions can appear evil to others, and even more so for that moral posturing that we do? Why can't we own up to who we are?

I'm not good, I'm not nice,
I'm just right.
I'm the witch.
You're the world.

A little aside to any freepers visiting:

Let me guess. I hate America, right? I'm unpatriotic and un-American for saying so?

FINE. You go on and think that, but I'm still right.

I'm the hitch, I'm what no one believes.
I'm the witch.
You're all liars and thieves,
Like his father!
Like his son will be too!
Oh, why bother?
You'll just do what you do!

The shouting is drowning out any discussion we could possibly have. Why can't we listen to each other? Why can't we say "Look, I see how you feel about that. Can we try to find a way that we both are satisfied with the outcome?" When did it become a game of chicken, like it is now with this nuclear option?

I'm sorry, for all of you who are saying it's time for the left to fight dirty. That's not the kind of country I want to have. If that's what I'm fighting for, I don't want to fight.

It's the last midnight,
So goodbye, all.
Coming at you fast, midnight--
Soon you'll see the sky fall!
Here, you want a bean?
Have another bean.
Beans were made for making you rich!
Plant them and they soar--
Here, you want some more?
Listen to the roar:
Giants by the score--!
Oh well, you can blame another witch.

Terror alert go up? Ah, it's those conservatives trying to distract attention from a bill in Congress designed to screw the little people. Media scrutiny around a Congressional leader? He doesn't have to answer their questions: he'll just tell them it's a media conspiracy. Everything is everything except what it is. BULLSHIT, people. This is what they call a culture of paranoia. Why can't we just answer questions directly? Why can't things be what they are? Why do we have to keep reading more into things?

But the one thing I can't do that the witch in Into the Woods does: leave. If I was truly an evil witch, I'd be gone. Off to Canada, back to Japan, just not here where I see the sky falling soon. Perhaps, if it ever becomes truly imminent, I will:

It's the last midnight,
It's the last verse.
Now, before it's past midnight,
I'm leaving you my last curse:
I'm leaving you alone.
You can tend the garden, it's yours.
Separate and alone,
Everybody down on all fours.
All right, Mother, when?
Lost the beans again!
Punish me the way you did then!
Give me claws and a hunch,
Just away from this bunch
And the gloom
And the doom
And the boom
Cruuuunch!

C-SPAN random thoughts (liveblog)

2005-05-12T08:11:00.000-04:00

8:11 "If we want to not be billions in debt, we need to get rid of these illegal immigrants."

Are we scapegoating immigrants? How much do illegal immigrants cost us? One wonders.

8:15 Woman is pissing all over herself with excitement at talking to this guy (Obi? Obie?). "Why don't you run for president?" His response: "Because I'm not crazy." LOL

8:21 Pissy republican gets told off. "You guys have the majority. If you don't like the way the country is going, why don't you look at THEM? They're the ones setting the agenda." Kick-ass.

The blogosphere needs

2005-05-11T10:31:00.000-04:00

a chat room. And a place where folks watching C-SPAN can chime in in real time. I have so many visceral reactions that don't merit a whole blog post. Anyone know of a chat room or a series of C-SPAN watchers' threads?

Civil Rights and blame

2005-05-09T16:46:00.000-04:00

I've come under fire slightly over at Americablog for suggesting that we not throw Kerry in the crapper entirely for making a shitty statement about his party's platform. To all those who now think haters like me (yes, apparently I am a hater now) are traitors to the cause, I submit:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/4/22/145750/151

And I am not going to give up on you all just because you gave up on me. This isn't about me, anyway. It's about getting our lawmakers to realize that fundamental civil rights should not be compromised on or delayed. To do that, we need to address their misconceptions and convince them otherwise. If we kick out every lawmaker who says something we don't like, no matter how shitty or bigoted it is, we're not going to end up with anyone to represent us.

Let the flames fly.

Patty Pat Pat, welcome to MSTland!

2005-05-06T16:22:00.000-04:00

It seems somehow appropriate that the minister shares a name with SNL's famous girlboy. I can't even tell what species he is. He's an insult to whatever brand of lizard I could possibly turn him into.

It's time for a little MST, I think.

Background: Pat Robertson had some nasty things to say about judges being worse than terrorists. A certain Senator Lautenberg had the stones to demand an apology. Well, Patty Pat Pat replied, and, while I don't want to spoil it for y'all, it was not an apology. For his reply we whisk you away to the Satellite O'Love!

My Dear Frank:

Thank you for your letter this date.

Earlier versions:
~~My Dear Frank: Thank you for your date.~~
~~My Dear Date: Thank you for your frank.~~

Surely you have been in public life long enough to understand that statements get taken out of context

Such as this statement:

George Stephanopolous: You’ve said that Liberals are engaged in an all-out assault on Christianity, that Democrats will appoint judges who don’t share our Christian values and will dismantle Christian culture, and that the out-of-control judiciary, and this was in your last book “Courting Disaster” is the most serious threat America has faced in nearly 400 years of history, more serious than al Qaeda, more serious than Nazi Germany and Japan, more serious than the Civil War?

Pat Robertson: George, I really believe that.

Yeah. There are LOTS of ways to interpret that!

and then blown out of proportion.

Yeah. Completely out of proportion. Because everyone knows al Qaeda, Nazi Germany, and the Civil War just weren't that important to begin with.

For that reason, I am sending you the transcript of my interview with George Stephanopolous on ABC this past Sunday.

"Please ignore the slight copy edits I've made. For example, we think it was a mistake of the transcriptionist that George did not refer to me as the spiritual leader of the nation and the man who should be our next president. I was there. I know what he said."

You will notice that I was speaking of a scope of 100 years of American History.

Because let's face it, the judges haven't made a decent decision since 1905! But something piddling like the Holocaust... eh. Nobody's gonna miss 6 million people. Barely a dent in our history. And the A-bomb? What? Can't 350,000 people take a little heat once in a while?

Of course, the tragedy of September 11th is still vivid in all of our minds.

Especially mine. I have the burning towers framed on my nightstand. I thank them every day for my newfound authority.

Not only did I watch in shock and disbelief as those planes hit the Towers,

...which are Capitalized...

but I was probably the first newscaster on TV to proclaim that this was an act of terrorism and not an accident.

Since when are you a newscaster?

These people are evil and vicious and the suffering they caused was extraordinary.

"...I can only hope to cause half as much in MY lifetime."

However, it is my feeling that no crazed terrorists hiding out in mountain caves on the border of Afghanistan can threaten America.

Crazed terrorists flying planes into buildings, though... that tends to be another story.

America will remain strong as long as we hold to those enduring values which have made this country great.

"Except for a few of them. Like, oh, say, equality. Or separation of church and state. Or... hey, here's a real chestnut... checks and balances! Honestly, what were those founding fathers THINKING?"

It is my firm conviction that Supreme Court decisions which have led to the wanton slaughter of 40 million unborn babies;

Because nobody struggled with those decisions. They were all sluts who used it as birth control. Right? Oh, and by the way, the Supreme Court decision actually mandated that every woman who gets pregnant must go out and have an abortion. It had nothing to do with protecting the health and safety of those who otherwise would have ended up with a coat hanger in a back alley or abandoning a child in a dumpster.

the removal of cherished religious truth from the schoolroom and the public square;

Cherished religious.... truth?

:blinkblink:

Oh, you mean how everything is impermanent and we must become of no-mind in order to attain enlightenment?

Oh, oh, how about how God is One and you cannot split Him up into a trinity?

Ooh, or how about the one where we all get reincarnated? Or the one that says trees and rocks have spirits?

Sorry, which one was the truth again?

the usurpation of the constitutional powers of our elected representatives, such as yourself;

"Damn it, it's the Congress's job to usurp the judges' power! Not the other way around!!!!"

the sanctioning of pornography and the potential destruction of marriage

Um, we sanction cars even though they could potentially destroy little kids who run into traffic. Guess what, Patty? It's not a police state. That means we give people rights and some folks might abuse those rights. Sucks, but it's either that or don't give out the rights at all. If we're going to sanction things, I'd rather it be a videotape of people having sex than a bunker-busting nuclear weapon or an attack rifle. But then again, my priorities might be misplaced.

As for the potential destruction, well, kiddo, a lot of things have the potential to destroy. I don't even wanna go there.

are all of themselves graver dangers in the decades to come than the terrorists

Because who cares if you're ALIVE, as long as you're HETEROSEXUAL.

which our great nation has defeated in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Which is why we were able to pull out so quickly with so little loss of life. Because we defeated them. Peachy keen.

I owe no one any apology for my point of view

No, sir, you don't. You owe us an apology for making us sit through hearing it.

because in these matters I believe that history will bear me out.

You spend entirely too much time fixated on history. Maybe you should look at what life is like today.

With warm personal regards and sincere best wishes, I remain...

...a bastard.

Cordially yours,
Pat Robertson

I need a shower.

Climb up that beanstalk, Jack.

2005-05-03T15:36:00.000-04:00

Posted by Congressman John Conyers on ConyersBlog:

I very much want to be the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee in 2007 so that we can bring back checks and balances to our government, and restore accountability. There may be a wave developing that will make that happen.

YES.

Can you imagine how much ass he would kick in that role? Let's get behind this!

Something fun

2005-05-02T11:11:00.000-04:00

I'm thinking of starting up an ice cream parlor outside the Capitol. What flavors should I feature? So far I'm thinking of a nice scoop of Impeaches & Cream... perhaps in a Waffle cone...

or maybe some Crock'o'shit Chock'o'lit?

:trying to fit the word Filibuster into an ice cream flavor:

Semantic difference in the amendment summaries

2005-04-28T09:59:00.000-04:00

It occurred to me last night that not only do the rewritten GOP summaries I railed about in the previous post misstate the intent of the amendments, they misstate the actual meaning of them. This is factual distortion and is grounds to have them revisited, IMHO. An explanation follows:

Say write an activity book, and one of the exercises has a bunch of shapes of different colors, as below.

You write an instruction: "Check off things that are red."
The answer page has an image that looks like this:

When the book is published, you're stunned to hear that none of the kindergarten kids can get this simple exercise right. Instead, they keep submitting this answer:

Why? Because some overzealous editor has changed the question to:
"Check off circles if they are red."

In other words, the amendments proposed wanted to exempt all red things. Are some of them circles? Maybe. But to rewrite the summary saying that the amendment proposed exempting red circles changes their meaning in a substantive way.

Certainly there must be some provision for revising the summaries. Isn't this enough grounds to do so?

(Cross-posting to my dailykos diary.)

The rat bastards must go down.

2005-04-27T18:58:00.000-04:00

Here is what the GOP did to Congresswoman Slaughter and the Democrats today.

Congressman Nadler proposed an amendment to the abortion parental consent act to protect family members who decided to assist minors in getting out-of-state abortions because their parents are icky.

His summary of the amendment:

"DEMS: a Nadler amendment allows an adult who could be prosecuted under the bill to go to a Federal district court and seek a waiver to the state's parental notice laws if this remedy is not available in the state court. (no 11-16)"

The GOP rewrote the amendment summary and submitted it into the RECORD for ALL POSTERITY:

"Mr. Nadler offered an amendment that would have created an additional layer of Federal court review that could be used by sexual predators to escape conviction under the bill. By a roll call vote of 11 yeas to 16 nays, the amendment was defeated."

BASTARDS MUST GO DOWN.

Joe Biden, played by Jimmy Stewart...

2005-04-27T11:42:00.000-04:00

Today on the Senate floor, Joe Biden RAILS:

"WHAT HAVE WE BECOME?

"Can we not see that this nation is divided into blue states and red states? And that we need a PURPLE HEART! Not a red heart or blue heart!"

Something fun for once

2005-04-23T22:42:00.000-04:00

I'm currently loving Googletalk. You start with three or four words and it automatically finishes the sentence for you with Google searches. Let's try:

The topical:

Input: JEFF GANNON DID
Googletalk says: Jeff Gannon did not have a right to die.

Input: MICROSOFT SCREWED UP
Googletalk says: Microsoft screwed up the system State data and user data structures.

Input: AMERICA NEEDS SOME
Googletalk says: America needs some fresh ideas for Fantastic Container Gardens.

Input: WILL THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT
Googletalk says: Will the Christian Right be the only one to blame?

Input: ENDING HOMOPHOBIA IS
Googletalk says: Ending homophobia is education, the Answer?

And the goofy:

Input: WOULD BILL FRIST
Googletalk says: Would Bill Frist choose the floor plan

Input: HOW CAN DELAY
Googletalk says: How can DeLay be more than this: there is a light year?

Input: MONKEYS IN THE SENATE
Googletalk says: Monkeys in the Senate like the House of Jeroboam.

A new tactic to watch out for

2005-04-22T14:30:00.000-04:00

A fellow named Tony makes a staggering claim -- that abortions have killed 20 million women since 1972.

Someone replies that "Dude, there have been 44 million abortions since that year. Half of them can't have died."

The other shoe drops: Tony says, "Exactly. 40 million abortions x half of them are girls = 20 million."

DUH.

For the record, 362 women have died from legal abortions. Since 1972.

:fuming:

The Day of Truth?

2005-04-15T15:35:00.000-04:00

No, honies. it's the day of Your Opinion.

(Still mucking about in my head ideas for a larger post about the MSM...)

MST3K, anyone?

2005-04-14T16:20:00.000-04:00

Time for another MSTing session. Get your popcorn.

From: michael souza
To: AMERICAblog
Subject: Nobody

Actually, I think that's supposed to be in the From: line...

Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005

Do you realize that really no one cares about homos.

No, I don't? Do you realize that punctuation is a good thing! Honestly;

You fools are not equal to someone like me.

Thank God for that.

After all

After all the self-loathing?
After all the gay sex?
After all the brainwashing sessions?

I married a woman & had children the old fashioned way

Wow. With a club in a cave? Kinky.

w/out some dr. Frankenstein playing god or mother nature.

So your wife never had an epidural and never took a vitamin in her life. And I'll bet you never eat processed foods - completely organic and home-grown for you. Dr. Frankensteins have kept you alive, bub. Not that I'm really sure what you're referring to. Artificial insemination? Adoption?

After all I can't see what good the homo community does for society.

Let's see. Sometimes they're scientists and visionaries, sometimes they're great leaders, sometimes they're composers, sometimes they're even popes. Or was that a rhetorical question?

1st of all you clowns are a divisive force in society.

They wouldn't be if people wouldn't divide themselves from 'em.

If you would just stay in the closet people wouldn't bother you.

And if you hadn't sent this e-mail, you wouldn't be getting this backlash. Didn't stop you either. Funny about that.

After all I don't have to organize a straight pride parade.

That would be because nobody's ever told you it's not something to be proud of. If they had, then you might feel the need to let them know they're off base. And if the world tells you, you might want to tell the world.

I served in the military & know how disruptive homos can be to the cohesiveness of a unit. After all if you are gay won't you be checking out men in the shower & making the hedrosexual feel "uncomfortable".

Honey, I have been in theater productions where men and women are changing together in the same room. Parts flying everywhere. Guess what? I didn't care and neither did anyone else. When you have a job, you do the job. And if someone did something that made you feel uncomfortable, you had the right to tell them to stop. But you have no right to say that because this person did something wrong, all people will do something wrong. What if instead of his sexuality, you had decided the problem was with his eyes? After all, they were lookin'. That's it. Let's tell people with blue eyes to keep 'em shut. They obviously have perverted eyes.

The fact that you clowns claim bringing a civil rights movement that equals what black people went through in the 60's is a riot.

If there were a riot, the "clowns" wouldn't be starting it. In case you didn't notice, there's never been a case of rioting by gays that I can remember.

Most Americans can't understand what makes you want to wake up w/ the same sex.

Well, if I woke up with a different sex, I'd call 911!

Oh, you mean wake up with a PERSON of the same sex. Honey, there is a difference between the person and the genitalia, you know. But you know what? You don't have to understand. Most Americans don't even have to understand. And nobody has to wake up with the same sex who doesn't want to. Isn't that a nice thing about having rights?

the polls that say otherwise were probably the same polls that had Arnold losing in the CA. gov. race, or Bush losing to Kerrey.

Are there polls that said most Americans understood? Because I have high hopes for the gay rights movement, but they ain't THAT high.

just leave staright Americans alone & quit being so militant.

Militant, eh? I knew it! Something DID happen to you in the military! Do you need to talk?

Anyway, you sent this to AmericaBlog. Let's look at the past few topics that AmericaBlog has covered.

AMERICAblog approaches its 5 millionth visitor
by John in DC - 4/14/2005 02:52:00 PM

WWW.JACKINTHEHOUSE.ORG
by John in DC - 4/14/2005 01:43:00 PM

From CREW, our favorite ethics watch dog:
CREW LAUNCHES NEW WEBSITE AT NOON TODAY

WWW.JACKINTHEHOUSE.ORG
DETAILS SUPERLOBBYIST JACK ABRAMOFF’S
WEB OF CONGRESSIONAL CORRUPTION

Total suckage
by John in DC - 4/14/2005 01:08:00 PM

Oregon Court Tosses Gay Marriage Licenses

OK, there's one...

Bob Dole warns about tinkering with the "nuclear option" over fillibusters
by John in DC - 4/14/2005 12:48:00 PM
Oops, finally an open thread
by John in DC - 4/14/2005 11:31:00 AM
GM/UAW to discuss health care costs
by Chris in Paris - 4/14/2005 06:01:00 AM
Saudi Arabia Tries To Treat Women A Little Less Like Chattel
by Michael in New York - 4/14/2005 03:05:00 AM
Bush Distances Himself From DeLay
by Michael in New York - 4/14/2005 02:57:00 AM
Scalia asked at NYU if he sodomizes his wife - Can anyone get the video?
by John in DC - 4/13/2005 11:21:00 PM

And we have to go back two days to get another. Yeah, real militant. They won't shut up about it.

You are starting to put "normal" Americans on the defensive.

What would happen, I wonder, if you went off the defensive? Would gays storm the barricades? Loot and pillage your towns? Rape and murder your women? (Hm. Definitely not that last one). I dare you to take down the walls for two hours. You'll be surprised how often you are NOT attacked.

Marriage is between 1 man 1 woman.

No... "and" should be between "1 man" and "1 woman" in that sentence.

Always has been

Yeah, like in the bible with Jacob...!
Oh. Wait.

& always should be.

Or...?

If homosexuality was normal as me & my wife then you could pro create on your own.

Wow! You've created pros? What sports do they play?

The fact that a defense of marriage act was passed in every single state it was brought to should tell you that most American reject normalizing your deviant behavior.

"Most American" also eat at McDonalds and don't get enough vitamins. Doesn't make it the right thing to do. But you don't hear us outlawing junk food.

Take care by by now

I'm sorry, by when should we take care?

And to think you actually want John to take care... I'd check your dictionary, because as far as I know, "care" doesn't mean "a hike."

The Witch tries to have faith, once more

2005-04-13T22:10:00.000-04:00

So I watched "Revelations" tonight. I love disaster movies, and this promised to have plenty of unexplainable death 'n' despair. Sort of like Independence Day, but with demons, right?

First off, you have the chick in a coma who starts spouting Latin. Only to the ears of the Token Black Priest, mind you. In rushes the flying nun, who goes to the WASPy Skeptic Who's Only Skeptic Because A Psycho Killed His Daughter. I'm down with all of this so far. I'm even down with his goofy explanation about how a volcanic eruption was the cause of the Ten Plagues. Sure. Why not. We all know Faith Will Win The Day. It does in all such things.

Cut to Convention of Equally WASPy, Equally Skeptical Doctors. First line of the scene:
"It's called a persistent vegetative state."

They then go on and rather callously explain how the talking is involuntary, etc. etc. But hey, we have already seen that it's perfectly understandable Latin. Quoting (gasp!) Revelations. So the decision has already been made for us. Durn dockters n their psciense.

A little later on, the girl is flatlining. Everyone's arguing. They're going to harvest her organs. The Flying Nun's fur is standing on end. Skeptic Scientist is reminded of his daughter, and in the midst of the fray, he goes over to the girl and holds her hand. The only one thinking about her in the midst of the debacle.

She squeezes his hand and her heartbeat returns.

Hrm. Message much?

So this is where the Witch tries to have faith. Not in babbling veggies or in flying nuns, mind you, but in something that SHOULD be easily verifiable. Was this series in production before the Schiavo case became big news, and/or before it had the potential to be big news? That is, before Komodo Dragon Rove or Salamander DeLay could have first looked at it and thought "Hey, we could exploit this?" If it was, then I will do my level best not to believe this is propaganda.

But it's hard to believe that something like this isn't thrown out to those people who look at TV and make their moral decisions based on what they see. People who don't know what to think until a compelling drama tells them. And let's face it-- there are a lot of such people. I will admit to being influenced by good television and good drama. It humanizes stories, brings it right to the home and heart of people. That isn't always propaganda, and when it is, it isn't always deliberate propaganda. But this feels a little too relevant to me. It feels just a tad deliberate. I welcome comments and information to confirm and/or to deny my suspicious, as well as your opinions.