It's a Faux Analogy! Peanut Butter V. Science

Proof that having a really good suit and a tv-trained voice does not make you smart. Or Correct. Or in these Post Faux Days - Credible.

A spokesmuffin and a supposed engineer try to discredit Evolution - with peanut butter.



HT to "Hell's Handmaiden" who has some even MORE hilarity in store for y'all. Better yet, one of them is Creationist Generated.

The response is from "The Bacon Eating Athiest Jew" - so I betcha know where that's going.

I just had to chime in here to assert that you don't have to be an athiest to find these people too goddam* embarrassing to stand near.

*Not Demanding, Sir and or Madame. PLEADING!

Video Exclusive of John Best's victory!

Neurodiversity says "No Mas"

Joseph, one of the leaders of Neurodiversity, conceeded defeat tonight. He was discussing Kathleen Seidel's deranged attacks on decent people when I confronted him with the truth. A couple of the usual nitwits chimed in with the typical insults and it seemed to be a normal foray into Neuronitwit territory. Then Joseph took major offense to what I had to say about Kathleen's inane attacks on decent people and started quoting some terms of service crap at me. I guess he thought that would scare me away.

Exciting stuff! And thanks to the magic of the internet, we found coverage on You-Tube. (How could it be exclusive, you ask? Because only we are that rude. Well, except for John, and he's not that funny.)

Anyway, without further adeu; a prophetic dramatization of the conflict between Joseph, that nattering nabob of neurodiversity, and The Black Knight. I mean, John Best.



...But... But... The Black Knight is Invincible!

In the matter of Shoemaker v. Seidel; Court of public opinion; The Hon. Bugs Bunny Presiding.

Thanks in part to it being April, Autism Awareness Month, the Neurodiversity Weblog has managed to set of a minor firestorm, both within and increasingly outside of the core Autism blogging community. But not all by themselves.

They had help from an unlikely source in bringing wider attention to the post which in the normal course of events, would have remained unnoticed by the great majority and certainly widely ignored within the blogging community of the Law, though the author, Kathleen Seidel is well-known within the Autism community.

The story itself is about a particular settlement in vaccine court, which is being cited by "mercury moms" as being "proof" that mercury really does cause autism, though it was judged as being possible in this quite particular case and Vaccine Court standards do not rise to even the "balance of probability" standards of ordinary civil court.

neurodiversity weblog: The Commerce in Causation:

"News outlets have been brimming with the story of Poling v. HHS — the first Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) claim included in the Omnibus Autism Proceeding (OAP) that has resulted in an award to petitioners. The case first attracted widespread attention on February 25, when Evidence of Harm author David Kirby issued a triumphant proclamation of the award on the Huffington Post. This was followed the next day by Mr. Kirby’s publication of the partially-redacted text of a theretofore confidential U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) report, which recommended compensation to Miss Hannah Poling due to the likelihood that a vaccine reaction aggravated a maternally-inherited metabolic disorder and led to development of a seizure disorder."

The article goes on to examine the economic motives of one particular player in this somewhat sad and misleading tale in the usual dispassionate impersonally merciless way Neurodiversity is known for. The article reveals that there is another peculiartity of Vaccine Court - council is paid regardless of outcome.

And the council in this case is the same as in many, many, MANY other cases.

This storm of publicity surrounding Poling v. HHS has prominently featured career vaccine-injury attorney Mr. Clifford Shoemaker — a founding member of the Omnibus Autism Proceeding Petitioners’ Steering Committee, counsel to the Poling family, and long-time business associate of Dr. Mark Geier.

Now, this would not embarrass any ordinary attorney; a specialty is something that you get rewarded for doing because you are very, very good at it. It's what lets you eat steak instead of rice and beans, and that's something worth having known, even if you are very very good at something that many folks would consider kind of - well, grasping, opportunistic and mercenary, like say, "Ambulance Chasing."

But Seidel 's article reveals that if Mr. Clifford Shoemaker had to rely on making successful personal injury tort claims in a court of law with the usual standards of evidence, and on a contingency fee - he'd probably need a second job.

Over the last 18 months, he's 7 for 15, but either way, he gets paid. Now, you might wonder if that is because he doesn't feel the need to be selective - considering he gets paid either way. That was my initial thought. Cynical, perhaps; opportunistic, of course - but not presumptive of incompetence.

But to "deal with" Seidel he decided a quick and dirty variant of a SLAPP suit was in order.

He had Seidel served with a subpoena that - well aside from it's obvious tactical and punitive character, also serves to inadvertently, but clearly demonstrate the reason he's working in this "sheltered workshop" of the Law. If you don't wish to read the whole, Paragraph 9 is a howler; while paragraph five clearly indicates that he has at least mastered the copy function in a browser - it's contents being neurodiversity's blogroll!

In the inimitable words and tones of Tweety Bird: "He don't KNOW me vewwy well, DO he?"

Siedel's response is a masterpiece of classic aspergean reasoning - and demonstrates a far better grasp of both the relevant law and the relevant political climate than that of the supposed professional

Compare the subpoena to Sidel's pro se "motion to quash." It's the difference between an elegant and spare recorder solo - and a TAPE recorder solo.

Quite aside from your position regarding the causation of autism and who may be responsible for it, which person would you want drafting a brief in support of your cause?

Indeed, which person would you want working at your law firm? I raise a toast to the imaginary firm of "Dawson And Seidel"

It's not an entirely silly idea, is it?

Related Reading Update:
New York Personal Injury Law Blog: Abuse of Process: Blogger, Unrelated to Action, Hit With Subpoena

Great article and links to other blog reactions.

When you lie down with dogs...

...sometimes the pooch screws you!

NRCC Says Ex-Treasurer Diverted Up to $1 Million - washingtonpost.com

For at least four years, Christopher J. Ward, who is under investigation by the FBI, allegedly used wire transfers to funnel money out of NRCC coffers and into other political committee accounts he controlled as treasurer, NRCC leaders and lawyers said in their first public statement since they turned the matter over to the FBI six weeks ago.

"The evidence we have today indicated we have been deceived and betrayed for a number of years by a highly respected and trusted individual," said Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), the NRCC chairman.

Well of course. The ethics of a war on false pretenses didn't bother anyone much at the NRCC. They have never had an issue with "signing statements," or validating torture, or gerrymandering Texas, or blowing out a whole CIA intelligence network for partisan reasons, rigging national and local elections, well, I could go on. But this, THIS is dishonest!

Gee whiz, when you solicit people whom you know to be unethical enough to participate knowingly and willingly in acts that are variously illegal, immoral, indecent and unethical, doesn't it seem just possible that they might be less than totally trustworthy?

Has NO-one in the Republican Party learned from that simple morality tale called "The Sting?" EG, you can't cheat an honest man?

That, of course, makes the Republican Party (and any registered Republican) target one for every grifter, confidence artist and multi-level marketing scammer out there. Aside from the outright thieves such as this, of course.

And Stupidity. Don't forget the stupidity.

Apparently the New Mexico Secretary of State is baffled. Well, so are we all.

The BRAD BLOG : Exclusive: NM Sec. of State Says Rep. Heather Wilson's Payment for Voters 'Very Odd':

"Cargo said the checks vindicate his allegations and prove that state Republican Party operatives 'are a closed little group who operate on the basis of hate.'"

It's clear from many, many examples of this sort of implosion over the last several years that the mentality and priorities required to be accepted as a bona fide "New(t) Republican" are incompatible with competent administration and leadership, aside from trivial matters such as intelligence, conscience, ethics and a regard for the interests and common sense of one's constituents.

You know how Heather Wilson was forced to admit that she had actually paid the entry fees for delegates to the NM State Party convention?

She cut checks from her campaign fund - instead of reaching in her purse and peeling off tens and twenties.

You know how the state party organization tried to cover up the scandal when former Governor Dave Cargo blew the whistle on the scam? They claimed they had paid his fees in 2004 and forged an invoice to "prove" it.

Oh, but that gets even better.

The forged invoice (or at least an intentionally deceptive one) was produced by a lawyer.

The accusation from Republican lawyer Pat Rogers—who in the past has been the party’s legal counsel—came in the form of an invoice. During the taping of the Eye on New Mexico program at the KOB-TV, Channel 4 studio, Rogers pulled an invoice from a stack of papers and said that four years ago, party operative Lou Melvin paid the $20 registration fee for Cargo to attend and participate in a delegate nominating convention.

It makes me think that there must be special programs that allow persons disadvantaged by congenital partisanship to pass the bar. Because I think that piece of paper with Pat Roger's fingerprints and party operative Lou Melvin's name would probably be enough to justify a serious investigation...

Oh, wait. It was. As any half-decent lawyer could have told you. Unfortunately, they had a REPUBLICAN lawyer.

People just like this; Paul Bremer, Dick Chertoff and "Heckofajob" Brownie are more prominent examples of this sort mystifying combination of hubris and stupidity, and apparently it's an attitude that's much emulated in the rank and file.

If there is a Republican party left after this election, perhaps it will be of so little interest to "the people who matter" that it can be retaken and rebuilt by actual Republicans.

Short of that, it's the way of the Whigs for them.

Can I get fries with that idea?

My idea for a collaborative T-shirt network.

Can I get fries with that idea? T-Shirt by webcarve
Get this custom shirt at Zazzle

I plan on using this as a template to blog mind-bogglingly stupid ideas that are repeated straight-faced by the MSM. You are encouraged to play along, either by promoting my version or creating your own "Can I get fries with that idea" templates. However you do it, with whatever service, I'd love you to link it here.

By the way, I'm going to try and be as non-partisan as I can here, but there is a distinct difference between an idea that IS stupid, and an idea you happen to THINK is stupid. And the final cut is up to me. Don't like it? Start your own stupid blog - everyone else has!

In the matter of O'Reilly v. Godwin

Media Matters - O'Reilly: No escaping "the similarities between what Hitler ... did back then and the hate-filled blogs, what they're doing": "O'Reilly: No escaping 'the similarities between what Hitler ... did back then and the hate-filled blogs, what they're doing'

Summary: On The O'Reilly Factor, Bill O'Reilly responded to a viewer's letter -- criticizing O'Reilly for a 'lapse of judgment' regarding his statement that he did not 'see any difference between [Huffington Post founder Arianna] Huffington and the Nazis' -- by defending the statement. O'Reilly said: 'If you look back at what happened in Germany, you cannot escape the similarities between what Hitler and his cutthroats did back then and the hate-filled blogs, what they're doing now.'"

Yep. they both explore concepts and advocate positions that Bill cannot comprehend, due to his complete, willful ignorance.

In ordinary discourse, of course, it is considered to be a norm that a gratuitous comparison of a critic to Nazis amounts to a concession of the total argument.

Goddess, it becomes so damn embarrassing to even admit the slightest tendancy toward Conservatism in any way, on any matter, for fear of being confused with the mouth-breathing lickspittles that watch his show. But then I remember what the rest of the world calls much of what we think of as NeoConservatism.
NeoLiberalism.

Then I feel better.

'Politically Correct' is not the opposite of 'Stupid Racist...'

But some days it's hard to explain why that's not exactly true.

I found this link polluting my sidebar. "Political Correctness" caught my eye, and I have lots to say on that particular set of ideas. Unfortunately, this was the Usual Usage of Right-Thinking Sorts. That is to say, a whine that it's no longer "politically correct" to yell "nigger" in a crowded theater.

Friday, 21 December 2007 Why would someone look to someone else and ask if its OK to say what you want to say ? We are a free people. Nobody decides what is proper to say. The European socialist may control language ( can even over rule what you name your child ( Italy) ) but here we have a Constitution with the Bill of Rights that protects our freedom of speech, but we have no right not to be offended. One should not be afraid to offend someone with their speech because of what others will say, but only out of personal respect and consideration for that person. Not a group.

In America we are all individuals. All people are free and different. When someone allows someone else to speak for them they give-up their freedom and any chance of success as a person. No person can speak for others. What may offend one may compliment another. When someone says they speak for a race, a sex, or any other group , they are, in effect disrespecting those in that group as individuals and stripping them of their own personal power of opinion. When, those in that group start believing what is being represented about them their own initiative is devolved and they become slaves to the group leaders opinion. Their lack of personal power and self respect hinders them from obtaining, self respect , jobs , relationships and yes even respecting the law. Its only in the state of no self respect can one be offended.

When we find these “ Personal Power Thieves “ who claim to speak for others we should prosecute them for theft but, instead we glorify them as great leaders ( i.e. jessie jackson, ) and when we recognize them as such we commit a crime against those they claim to speak for.

I have some friends who describe themselves as Black, one who is Negro and yes some who are Colored, Dutchman, Hillbilly, Crout, White and African American but all are proud Americans only. When one considers if what he may say is politically correct, he to has fallen into someones controlled group and loses his individual respect.

Remember that only in socialism are there divisions and to " Divide and Conquer or Control ” is whats being attempted here as evident when questioning ones own speech.

And That's The National Word

Technorati Profile

I posted a comment - and then realized that expecting the comment to stay - or even appear - was silly. Not when such a disagreeable post had nothing but dittos following it. So I decided instead to respond here.

My response to this post and to the majority of the commentators is "horseshit."

The term "political correctness" is being used here in the usual sense - by stupid people who think they are "rugged individuals" just like all other "right-thinking Americans." They are trying to use arguments crafted by their betters for the protection of significant speech intended to provoke debate between citizens to justify the right to offend others.

There is, indeed, no right to not be offended. But there are words for choosing words specifically intended to offend large numbers of people with the potential of provoking violence and making debate pointless.

Stupidity. Verbal Assault. Hate Speech. And quite possibly - "Death by Misadventure."

These "rugged individualists" all seem to band together, with the same set of the same "Evil thems", like "socialists" and "liberals" and Mexicans. Such obvious and obviously unintentional irony seems to be the hallmark of the New Right - and would embarrass the HELL out of Saint Barry G.

They are crying out that people are attempting to suppress their literal right to yell "nigger" in a crowded theater. Well, yes, they are.

When you wish to disturb the peace and have the clearly insane belief that you should get away get away with it, a little suppression is in order. It may be technically illegal - perhaps even "wrong" in some sense to leave you bleeding and whimpering in a corner. It's perhaps even against the darwinian ideal to prevent that from happening, as stupidity really ought to be it's own reward. Nonetheless, there are may reasons why we prefer the rule of law to Lex Talonis - and disapprove of those who would try the patience of others with stupidities intended to provoke what they fondly believe will be futile, choked, impotent outrage.

Me, I actually DO support their putative "right" to yell "nigger" in a crowded theater in the depth of darkest Harlem, but I also support the long-neglected "fighting words doctrine."

That is to say, should you be fool enough to do that, the law should hold those so deliberately provoked harmless, and the consequence of such damnfoolishness should be listed as "death by natural causes," or possibly "aggravated pesticide."

Real Rugged Individualists assume that other people are also individuals - Equally honorable, just as touchy and probably armed.

Therefore, they are courteous!

Courtesy does not even imply agreement. It means that one refrains from stupidly and needlessly insulting ones whom one does disagree with. It means treating others with respect - and especially those with whom you disagree.

I deplore the concept of Political Correctness myself - but the author is deliberately confusing it with attempts to distinguish between disagreeable protected speech and Hate Speech. So I need not confuse matters by speaking about Political Correctness as it is generally understood by people on opposite sides who agree on the terms to be debated. This ain't that.

This is about the putative "right" to hold stupid, uninformed, racist opinions without consequence. This is an insistance on the right to form and maintain a lynch mob to attack and suppress all the ideas they don't want to hear, or which cause them to doubt the validity of their own pinheaded self-righteousness.

It's a position that should (and quite possibly does) embarrass people who sincerely believe in the superiority of the white race, and who really do try to support that view with evidence and argument they think persuasive.

I may not agree with the conclusion, or much respect the quality of the reasoning, but I do respect the willingness to play the game at long odds.

But these people - they don't have that degree of self-respect. And because of that, they do not understand that courtesy is not a concession to the "tender feelings" of others but rather evidence of one secure enough in their own selves and the validity of their own position that they need not be rude, discourteous or dismissive, even toward those those they despise. Especially so, unless they are willing to allow the situation to escalate toward virtual or even literal violence.

Oh, people who confuse "your" and "you're" should really invest in a spelling and grammar check - especially when deriding institutions of higher learning.

It's little ironies like that that suggest to intelligent folks of all political hues that everyone holding these opinions are as dangerously stupid as their communications make them seem. Should it become common enough to seem stereotypical, - well, one of my favorite ironies of the ages is a grumpy quotation from WWII:

"This Hitler fellow has made it impossible for a gentleman to be an Anti-Semite."

Let me hit that nail again: If the general perception becomes that everyone holding a particular set of views holds them for reasons as evidently disreputable, superficial and for reasons that reasonable people will assume to be at least partially racist, whatever validity the positions may have becomes quite irrelevant.

At some point it just becomes too damn embarrassing to be seen holding the views you do in public, at least. So in one generation, or two at the most - the intellectual justifications for the core idea are gone. There are only those who think it's stupid - and those stupid enough to not understand how stupid they appear.

And - here's the kicker - opportunities to breed are allocated on just such perceptions.

When the contents of a post are highly congruent with an evident absence of factual understanding of the history and economic factors involved in various important cultural and economic issues, while being nearly word-for-word the views of known and famous liars, such as Limbaugh, Malkin and O'Rielly, it's likely a waste of effort to take you seriously enough to respectfully consider your opinions.

Courtesy is a consideration that is a given between those within a certain range who are willing to live up to a certain level of civilized expectations. I certainly have no reason to respect someone likely to mislabel me as a "kraut" AND misspell the slur. I certainly do not consider them to have the same right to an opinion as do I - and if it turns out that they are agreeing with me, using the same arguments as I might, I will do well to reassess my position.

By the way, I'm an Antiathoritarian Libertarian, and for damn sure an individualist; certified by the NRA as a marksman before I was able to drink legally.

To do that, you have to put a .22 round in a target the rough size of a human eyeball five times out of five at 25 feet, using a fifteen pound rifle and NO optics, prone, braced, kneeling and offhand.

Not only can I shoot a deer, I can skin it, butcher it and probably cook it better than most. And given a forge, tools and a stack of old rebar, I can make and edge tools good enough for those tasks.

I grew up near a small resource based town, on the land, and I bet I've shoveled more literal shit than most people have ever seen. I've driven a tractor, groomed horses and knocked domestic rabbits in the head so I could eat them. That last, by the age of five. I could field-strip most any rifle without looking at the directions - but I'm not that dumb.

In other words, this arrogant bastard is exactly the sort of redneck most suburban rednecks pretend to be.

I've never gone to Harvard - OR Yale. Or any university. I have two years of community college, and I learned how to learn and think for myself pretty much in spite of my education. I'm naturally very conservative of things worth respecting and conserving, such as the Constitution, momentum, credit and capital, cause and effect, the good opinion of others and every word of The Art of War.

I've read the Good Book from front to back - and formed my own opinions. Which are, by the by, nobody's business, other than the fact that I've followed Jesus's example in that I know it well enough that I don't need someone else to tell me what it "Really" means.

But from the dull, turgid and depressingly conformist prose dropped here, like so many individually indistinguishable rabbit droppings, these fake "real Americans" still think you need some form of "permission" to be an individualist - and that requires that you all nod in the same places when the same damn-fool things are said.

Right may be Right, but only if it's factually correct. And these days, if you are able to read and write on the Internet, there is no excuse for being factually challenged, no matter what your politics.

Please note that I have not said anything whatsoever to indicate what I might actually think on anything said above. I've only stated my opinion of the "reasoning" expressed. It would be particularly stupid to assume from that, or from the fact that I write in a particularly high-falutin' way that I'm some "liberal" or "socialist."

I AM an intellectual. So was Barry Goldwater. So was Henry the K. So was Nixon. And (as much as he tries to hide it) so is Bill Clinton. As is Ron Paul and his good buddy Dennis Kucinich.

None of them would agree on much, overall. And not one would be unwilling to back up their views with facts. Nor would any of them, to the best of my knowledge, WHINE about having to be accountable for their words - indeed, all of them are or were willing to be tried in the court of public opinion based on how well their ideas worked out.

Not so with the folks at The National Word, so deep in their dittohead groupthink that they are incapable of perceiving the irony in calling those who disagree "socialists," thinking that the definition of "socialism" is putting people into groups and making them think alike. It's an hilarious case of the National Socialist calling the Christian Democrat black.

Especially if his name is Sven.

Rocketboom.com video depicts evangelicals and their opinions.

The first two persons speaking, mind you, are ORDAINED, Evangelical ministers.

I usta remember when a paster was kind of expected to have some of that book larnin' that's jus' too dangerous for people like the Huckabees and the Jukes back up in the holler.

Well, 'cept for those things about not screwin' livestock. Lessn' the only other choice was your sister, 'cause, well, cain't hunt squirrels if'n you go blind.

Lots of people are saying it's unfair to pick on folks from Tennissee for such obvious stupidity. Indeed, I grew up with the same sorts in Washington State. They talk just the same (slightly different accent, same casual disregard for grammar and fact) and the wronger they were, the more sure they were right, because, the Good Book Said So.

You'd probably be unsurprised to find out that if you actually looked it up in the good book, and you could even find something vaguely like what they were referring to, it said something completely different. Funny to realize that the Catholics didn't want to give up Latin because then the People would know what the Good Book said. I imagine this sort of counter example is the sort of thing Jesuits use to torment Dominicans with.

But really and for true - these are the exact thirty percent that put Bush into cheating distance of the Presidency. These are the same thirty percent that try and shut down anyone trying to commit any act of decency or common sense in our nation. And they are just as fanatically stupid as they sound.

We have to start taking them seriously - as a serious threat. NOT as people who's faith and opinions deserve respect, (for they are, as they are more than happy to point out to you, one and the same) but as potential terrorists and of course, fomenters and cheerleaders for being terrified and using terror and torture in order to inflict "God's wrath" on unbelievers.

It is, I suppose, an ironic but fortunate truth that a disproportionate share of their offspring will be paying for the sins of their fathers. But then, seven generations ago, they were as well.

At Cemetary Ridge.

read more | digg story

From the Department of I Told You So - Looking back on 9/11

I wrote this @ 2001-09-19 18:11:00 in a LiveJournal group. Every year or so, I go back and re-read it, at times wondering why I've ever bothered writing anything more, considering all I've achieved in writing them. But then someone has to write them. And I haven't had anything better to do.

This time around I realized that it was at least time to revisit, republish, correct a few omitted words, fix grammatical errors, put it into context - and spell check!

I am uncomfortable with the idea of my words having lasting meaning, and given the topic I was writing on, even more uncomfortable with the idea than I might otherwise be. But I'm starting to face the fact that if these particular words do or do not, some words saying something like them must be uttered for any of the crap we have all been through to make sense, and to honor those who didn't make it all the way through.

Still I cannot escape the idea that I was entirely too correct for my comfort, and all the more so by how uncommon that viewpoint was, outside of those opposed to all violence for any reason.

And yet, I go back to this piece, I see what was clear to me a mere eight days after 9/11 - and I wonder where all the professional, paid pundits, where all the trained journalists, where all those we trust to have better trained and more restrained reactions than the ordinary run of persons were.

I'm gratified that out of so many, I was one of the few to be this correct - until I stop to think about what I was correct about, and how little intelligence, moral courage and will on the part of so very many people at so very many different choke-points could have made me seem utterly hysterical in retrospect. It's not at all difficult to see how those who have a better opinion of their fellow man could have been led astray.

How much I wish I could look back on my work and see how utterly wrong I was, and how depressingly ironic it is that those who have been as wrong as I wish I had been - are better paid the more incorrect they have been.

But then, that seeming irony also explains a great deal. We all trust that those who have the smarts, the insight and the access to know better will actually pass on their insights, instead of saying the complete opposite in return for large packages of unmarked bills.

And, lest that be seen as slander, let me say that it's a far more charitable assumption than the presumption that people such as O'Reilly, Malkin, Coulter and Savage are speaking to us out of sincere conviction.

Since, well, when you make provably untrue statements or unprovable statements with the assertion they are factual, you are either lying, or deluded. Don't much matter which, really; though I happen to think that being a knowing, paid liar might just be a little easier to live with than having been a useful, sincerely deluded tool - all untraceable bearer bonds aside.

I'm not complaining. I could conceivably have chosen to roll that way, and it was damn clear at the time there was no profit at all to be had in being reasonable.

But, well, I'm me, and that's how I am. Every once in a while sheer perversity ends up putting you on the right side, in retrospect. That doesn't mean that it wasn't the result of being naturally perverse. It was, and is a tragedy that any sort of perversity could shake out this way at all - much less to this degree.

The Grand Old Flag and all that.
I'm having an aspy moment. In fact, I've been having an aspy moment ever since the rubble of the World Trade Center stopped tumbling.

I'm tying to figure out how posting flags on every available surface and hanging them from every crossbar, antenna and flagpole is supposed to achieve anything.

It sure appears that everyone is convinced it will, and anywhere will do. Around Reno, someone has figured out that you can print flags out with your computer, and someone slapped one on the apartment's dumpster.

I think that's in very surreal taste.

I'm completely baffled by the consensus that I should be emotionally devastated by the deaths of so many people and the blow to our national prestige.

Well I'm an aspy who's spent a lot of time out of the country. I'm not emotionally affected... and I assure you, rumors of our national prestige have been wildly exaggerated!

That shouldn't be a shocking revelation. If we were universally loved and respected, people wouldn't be diving airliners into our landmark architecture.

You don't see people dive-bombing Canada. Of all the aspects of American Culture that the Taliban and other funnymentalist Islamic splinters revile, Canada is every bit as gleefully guilty. Hell, it's not even illegal for women to go topless in public in Canada, in the aftermath of a Charter of Rights ruling. You can just see Ayatollah eyeballs bleeding at that concept. And in terms of enforcing social conformity and family values on the general population - well, Canada is utterly delinquent, much to the impotent frustration of the DEA.

Yep, the interdiction of that Demon Weed, Marijuana is not exactly a high priority of Canadian police agencies. And that sort of lax response to moral turpitude is something that convinces the self-righteous that God or Allah will rain retribution upon the offending culture.

But for the most part, they are indeed content to leave such things TO Allah.

On the other hand, Canada doesn't routinely fire cruise missiles at people in the fond belief that it's a solution to a complex foreign policy issue.

The peculiar American delusion that one can rain death from a great height and not gain enemies thereby is somewhat baffling to me; it seems an obvious violation of common sense, however justified such "big stick" actions are.

"Justifiable" does not mean that those ducking the shrapnel are going to be suddenly struck by the irrefutable reason of our diplomatic position. If they were, it wouldn't have been necessary to deliver a stiff diplomatic cruise missile.

But whatever I think of American foreign policy, it doesn't follow that diving airplanes into buildings is a reasonable, appropriate or defensible thing to do.

Anybody who thinks I'm attempting to justify such an act is utterly mistaken. I do, however, think it's wise to at least attempt to understand it; the motivations for it and the context it exists in, just for the sake of self-preservation.

But the national psyche seems to support any number of bizarre and inexplicable assumptions.

Today, a man said on national television that those who are not overwhelmed by grief at the untimely end of thousands of unrelated strangers is emotionally disturbed and should seek treatment. And one is tempted to nod until you realize that no one would suggest that the entire nation should be so paralyzed with grief at the passing of an equal number of Chinese in an earthquake. It would be tragic, it would noted, we'd contribute money and dry socks to the rescue efforts - and then we'd get on with our lives.

More directly and relevantly - where were the candlelight vigils for the civilian victims of the aerial assault on Baghdad? Whatever you thought of it, whether you felt it a justifiable and necessary act, no matter how unavoidable those civilian casualties were - still. Why were we not moved? How can we justify being horrified now, if we were not then?

The fact that the US military moved heaven and earth to avoid civilian casualties and managed to do so up to the limits imposed by physics, intelligence and human perversity is beside the point. If every corpse in the World Trade center is worth a bio on CNN, SO WERE THEY.

And while it was not precisely a terrorist act, certainly the idea that we were "sending a message" was an integral part of the exercise.

Personally, I was not moved at all. And after the sheer, overwhelming surprise wore off, I was not moved by this, even though a distant cousin I'd never met perished in one of the planes.

My response seems to be purely intellectual, and from an intellectual viewpoint, I can see the argument for launching cruise missiles at Baghdad - considering the Scuds raining on the whole region and the Iraqi attack on Kuwait.

The fact that our national motivations were not entirely idealistic doesn't bother me. Our government's JOB is to pursue our national advantage. That includes securing an oil supply. If that happens to mesh with our national ideals, O happy day! And it did, very much so, and that's aside from treaty obligations.

But still, I don't see why a dead US citizen should be regretted more emotionally than the deaths of strangers who have the misfortune of living in an a tyranny with opposing agendas. But it's apparently supposed to be, for "normal" people.

So in order to be "normal," I have to place myself in a disordered, irrational mental state that prohibits me from thinking clearly or doing anything useful about the situation.

Well, I'm not normal, and thank God. I'd think that at times like this, we could profit by having more like me manning vital functions while all the normal people make utter inconveniences of themselves.

I don't see how being paralyzed with grief, racked by irrational fear and plunged into depression is going to help anyone, any more than wearing a red, white and blue jockstrap is going to do one single thing to combat world terrorism.

I would like to see a lot less patriotic posturing and a lot more serious thought about what can be done to prevent such things from occurring while at the same time, how to do that without turning ourselves into a repressive police state.

That's real patriotism. It's an expensive habit, real patriotism. Ask any of the signers of the Declaration of Independence. At the end, those that weren't dead were mostly broke.

Real patriotism takes a deal more commitment than printing out a stack of flags, sticking them up randomly and sighing with contentedness at how much of a Real American you are.

It demands an unemotional determination to do what it takes, while maintaining our Republican principles. (Some would say Democratic principles. That's another cultural myth. This has never been a democracy. It's a republic. That's a significantly different thing.)

Irrational patriotic fervor will not help and will likely lead to yet an exponential increase in the number of our live enemies, instead of what we actually want - a smallish smoking hole filled with thoroughly dead ones, communicating the global impression that a policy of terror against us is not just a bad idea - it's an absolutely fatal bad idea.

I refer you to what happened to the terrorists that killed the Israeli Olympic team at the 72 Olympics. The Mossad tracked each of them down and killed every one of them with surgical precision. There have been terrorist acts against Israeli citizens since - but none like that.*

This can only be achieved by a very clear view of the ends and a diamond-hard determination that the means must be both measured, appropriate, and applied with total commitment.

It will take a great deal of time to do this. It's complicated, messy and it will be unavoidably bloody. The world at large is convinced that the United States is willing to do whatever it takes - so long as it doesn't take more than six months, result in any actual casualties, raise their taxes or affect their lifestyle in any way.

So far, I see no evidence this perception is inaccurate to any significant degree.

That is exactly why the terrorists think they can get away with this - they are convinced that the United States simply does not have the attention span to allow any other outcome.

We had best decide to disabuse them, or this will continue. And next time, it might be a building you are in, or even a city.

We also have to face something else - that this particular conflict arises out of an irreconcilable ideological difference. It's not something we can defuse with gifts, bribes, apologies or even the removal of key figures in the terrorist community.

Ultimately, there IS no rational solution to this situation because the fundamental world views of the opposing sites are utterly, starkly and completely incompatible; the two systems cannot co-exist. The means by which western culture will destroy the Islamic Fundamentalist Movement don't involve bombs and guns; they are nonetheless as destructive of that culture as a rain of atomic weapons on us would be.

More so.

And it's a good thing, too, because it's an evil culture that should be eradicated, root and branch.

Those who are aware of the world outside of the Lower 48 have been warning of the increasing threat of religious fundamentalism in general and Islamic fundamentalism in particular.

In ironic illustration of this, Jerry Falwell made a statement that any Ayatollah would agree with.

"RICHMOND, Va., Sept. 18 ? The Rev. Jerry Falwell has apologized for saying God had allowed terrorists to attack America because of the work of civil liberties groups, abortion rights supporters and feminists. Falwell said his comments were ill-timed, insensitive and divisive at a time of national mourning. President Bush had called the minister?s statement inappropriate."

You note that he didn't say he'd changed his mind, he just apologized for bad timing.

While the Ayatollahs and Mullahs may disagree with Jerry about certain abstract theological issues, boy, they sure do agree about the proper fate of faggots and loose women. They certainly agree that religion should have the right to enforce "proper" behavior, even on those who don't share the beliefs that would make sense of those behaviors.
If Jerry had his way - we'd be stoning "harlots" and "apostates" in the street too.

Think on that.

Think on the logical danger of permitting that degree of delusional self-righteousness to take on the form of a government. Realize what sort of threat that is to EVERY person of EVERY belief EVERYWHERE... and then realize what needs doing. It's not something we can afford to tolerate; not a movement that we can allow to spread.

The fundamentalism - stupid and irrational as it is - THAT we must tolerate. It's the idea that it may permissibly be enforced on those who do not share those beliefs is what must be eliminated from the world consciousness.

It's that paradigm that has prevented any widespread outrages against the large Islamic communities in the United States in particular and the West in general. Contrast that against your survival chances as an identifiable Westerner in the general vicinity of whatever happens next, folks.

Maybe you can't do anything personally about middle eastern terrorists - but you can speak against the sort of mindset that exists here that would do the same here and HAS done it, in Oklahoma City, Selma, Alabama and at abortion clinics across the nation. The idea that anyone has the right to enforce a moral standard or ideological belief through terror cannot be tolerated.

It's not an idea that can be combated selectively and conveniently; it's far too fundamental. It has come down to a choice. This is, if you like, Armageddon; The Place of Decision.

So decide.

So the next time you see hate speech, do something. The next time you hear someone advocating violence against others based on their beliefs, sexual orientation or gender, do something.

You think there's any fundamental difference between Operation Rescue, the KKK, Bader-Meinhoff, the Red Brigade or Islamic Jihad? They all believe passionately in their causes; they are all willing to die to further it. Now, that's reasonable. It's even laudable to be willing to die for a belief.

Being willing to kill innocent (or at least, uninvolved) persons in wholesale lots in order to terrify the surviving masses into compliance with an agenda - that's just plain evil.

It must not be allowed EVEN IF YOU AGREE with their goals. No matter HOW urgent, how imperative it is. If your cause is not such that passionate speech and personal example will not serve to sway the majority - it could just be that you are passionately and sincerely wrong.

That's what the marketplace of ideas is for, what freedom of speech and freedom of the press is intended to ensure; that ideas are fully tested before they are implemented as social policy.

We can see what happens in cultures where this doesn't happen. Not only are they generally tyrannies, they are dusty, repressive, broke and BORING tyrannies.

We must also embrace that ideal as a national policy. The US government has, from time to time, thought it appropriate to "support freedom" by supplying "freedom fighters" in their struggles against... well, usually something that will cost us money or prestige.

We have to stop doing that, if for no other reason than an easily-documented history of this short sighted policy biting us on the butt.

The Taliban is just the LATEST example of "heroic freedom fighters" who suddenly became terrorists when they decided we were legitimate targets. Understand that their motivations and means havn't changed in the slightest - just their point of aim.

The Viet Minh, The Chinese Red Army and the Cuban patriots of the Bay of Pigs have all managed to inconvenience us. And that's just from this century. It's taken the South over a century to live down Quantrell.

You would think someone in Langley, VA might have gotten a clue by now, but since that is apparently not the case, you might wish to write your Congresscritter about your concerns - and suggest that more attention to the long term effects of foreign policy is NOT incompatible with their responsibilities for packing the pork in barrels and shipping it home.

In light of the likely costs of "America's New War," I'd say that a little more attention would have been cheap at nearly any price.

But hell, I'm just an aspy. I obviously don't grasp the damage to the social fabric, or the visceral need to go and kill someone, anyone, whether or not they had anything to do with this. Forgive my impatient foot-tapping as you persist in flapping helplessly, achieving nothing at great length. But if I hear one more person say that this outpouring of patriotism has Strengthened Our Great Nation, I may just puke.

I'm not hanging any damn flag, going to any candlelight vigils or indulging in any other pointless exercises that are intended to promote the sort of emotional solidarity I'm mentally incapable of feeling.

But I do see the utility of meaningful gestures.

Click here and donate to the Red Cross.

In retrospect, I see only two failures of assumption - the idea that given the circumstances, evangelical funnymentalism would lose rather than gain support, and the slightly less embarrassing assumption that the Red Cross was a responsible and charitable organization.

I wish I'd had a few more inaccuracies - and that they were inaccuracies in favor of a more charitable view of human nature and the intelligence of the American People.

At this point in my life, I believe I have achieved a level of wizened cynicism that would have appalled PT Barnum, or even Boss Tweed. I apologize to all of you who relied in any way at my earlier, innocent and touching naiveté.

Authoritarian Personality Disorder Victims want to regulate fat people.

This is a textbook case of APD, if I've ever seen one - the idea that intruding in the lives of other people and messing with their business and their caloric intake will be a good thing to do.

It's said that Mississippi has an undeserved reputation for inbreeding; perhaps that's true, but nonetheless, such disorders do run in families.

Hell, that's why I ran as far as I could from mine.

ECHIDNE OF THE SNAKES:

Three legislators in Mississippi want to make restaurants into an obesity police:

House Bill No. 282, which was introduced this month, says: Any food establishment to which this section applies shall not be allowed to serve food to any person who is obese, based on criteria prescribed by the State Department of Health after consultation with the Mississippi Council on Obesity Prevention and Management established under Section 41-101-1 or its successor. The State Department of Health shall prepare written materials that describe and explain the criteria for determining whether a person is obese, and shall provide those materials to all food establishments to which this section applies. A food establishment shall be entitled to rely on the criteria for obesity in those written materials when determining whether or not it is allowed to serve food to any person.

The proposal would allow health inspectors to yank the permit from any restaurant that "repeatedly" feeds extremely overweight customers.

The article also points out that about two thirds of Mississippians are thought to be overweight.

The proposal is most unlikely to pass, of course. But it's pretty disgusting and also politically stupid, given the numbers of overweight voters in the state. I now want to know the body weights of those three legislators. Also their alcohol consumption levels, their exercise patterns, the kinds of things they eat and whether they have ever been rude to little children or the elderly. Indeed, I want to know all their failings and I want them made public so that we can all police them appropriately.

Why not just put some kind of a sticker on fat people? Then we all know whom to taunt and despise, for their own good, of course.

The source article gives us a name and political affiliation, but only one of the three, but the bill itself is hyperlinked, to helpful biographies and legislative records. I'm not sure these folks should be minding the health of other folks - the two Republicans and one Democrat all remind me that I've seen better-preserved specimens pickled in formaldehyde.

Principal Author: Mayhall
tmayhall@house.ms.gov

Additional Authors: Read, Shows

jread@house.ms.gov

bshows@house.ms.gov

Oh, and an examination of the legislation of each member shows that this excretion is about par for the course, both in terms of significance, and in general tone. Seems that not one of them has seen a problem that can't be fixed by a law intended to forbid something, or make it compulsory.

But I have a modest proposal, not just modest, but modestly amusing. I invite a representative selection of the electorate of each district to descend upon their offices and hold an eat-in.

This seems to be JUST the sort of stupidity that should be discussed in a representative's office over takeout Chinese, pizza and Mexican.

UPDATE: According to this report, via YouTube, the legislators were "Just trying to get some attention."

Yeah, that's probably what I would say too after the mockery started.

If your husband told you to jump off a cliff, would you do it?

Salto sobrius: Jim Benton on Fundies vs. Gay Marriage

A very interesting article on why gay marriage upsets the fundie applecart. Turns out said apple cart is hauling horseapples anyhow - the rationale for opposing gay marriage hinges on the despicable abomination of a man submitting to another man.

a heterosexual marriage that deviates from "God's plan" can be condemned as such, and there is always hope that through "good Christian example" teaching, preaching, and prayer, these "misguided sinners" can be shown the proper path. (And the true dominionists can hope they will have the power of the state at least to teach students properly, and even have laws that will correct the poor, deluded "equalitarians".)

But there is no way that a gay couple can choose to conform to these teachings. The roles, in the minds of the radical Christians are biologically and theologically based. The question of which gender should be submissive is not a matter of choice. It is rooted in the idea that "man was created first and woman sinned first" in Eden. Yes, a woman may (and should, according to voices like Stormy Omartian's) freely choose to submit to her husband and act according to God's plan. But that is because she is a woman. A man who should choose to submit to his wife, in the same way, would be an unnatural abomination.

And, obviously, same-sex marriages either do not have a woman to "willingly submit to whomever it is we need to be submitted to", or they lack a man to be submitted to. No amount of preaching can change this, no amount of Christian example will change this. Any gay marriage, by existing, challenges this idea of a proper, "traditional" marriage.

Well, you know MY methods, Watson. Not only should gay marriage of all sorts be recognized - to the extent that I admit that the state has any business recognizing any relationship at all - but more heterosexual couples should make a point of giving the horselaugh to this nonsense:

For a similar view let's look at the Southern Baptists. In an article on subjugation of women in that denomination, Dr. Bruce Prescott & Dr. Rick McClatchy (who have become "Mainstream Baptists", a group which split from the Southern Baptists as a protest against the emergence of extreme and rigid conservatism in the older group) write in Baptist Faith and Message, a Baptist "Confession of faith"):

"subjugation of women extended to the privacy of Baptist homes when a statement on the family was added to the BF&M. In line with the chain of command made explicit in the 1984 resolution, the 1998 family amendment advised wives that they must ‘graciously submit' to their husbands."

"The unconditional nature of the wife's subjugation became clear at the official press conference following the statement's adoption. Dorothy Patterson, wife of Paige Patterson and a member of the committee that drafted the family statement, said, ‘When it comes to submitting to my husband even when he is wrong, I just do it. He is accountable to God.'"

But these groups are relatively liberal. I could go on and on -- oh, you've noticed -- but I'll end this by requoting Tedd Tripp, from my article on baby beating.

"You must provide examples of submission for your children. Dads can do this through biblical authority over their wives, and Moms through biblical submission to their husbands." p. 142

"Don't waste time trying to sugarcoat submission to make it palatable. Obeying when you see the sense in it is not submission; it is agreement. Submission necessarily means doing what you do not wish to do. It is never easy or painless." p. 145

"Your children [and by implication, your wife] must understand that when you speak for the first time, you have spoken for the last time." p. 151

Yep. Funnymentalism; the last refuge of the bull asshole - and those to weak and stupid to lead a household without violence. But nonetheless, I support the right of those who wish such relationships and are above the age of consent to enter into them.

However, raising children to behave this way is, I think, child abuse. Not to put too fine a point on it, I think that the widespread abuse of children by people who loudly adhere to such beliefs is all the force this argument against it being either Christian OR American needs.

"Is Our Children Learning?" Visual Aid from the View.

And Kieth speaks for me when he speaks of the overwhelming ennui's caused by being affronted with such breathtaking, smug ignorance on a daily basis.

Nyet to missile defense shield, Putin says.

Yet another Foreign Policy Triumph!

Russia withdraws from arms treaty - CNN.com: "President Vladimir Putin signed a decree suspending Russia's participation in the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty due to 'extraordinary circumstances ... which affect the security of the Russian Federation and require immediate measures,' the Kremlin said in a statement.

Putin has in the past threatened to freeze his country's compliance with the treaty, accusing the United States and its NATO partners of undermining regional stability with U.S. plans for a missile defense system in former Soviet bloc countries in Eastern Europe."

Yep, with all the potential fallout of the Cuban Missile Crisis. If you won't impeach Bush because he has committed illegal acts, how about impeaching him for deliberately, stupidly and willfully endangering our national security?

Amen!

DemiOrator: "As I consistently stress: I have no grudge against Christians. However, those Christians who focus almost exclusively on 'evil' and finding groups of people or ideas to burn are in a separate category. I continue to maintain that, despite calling themselves 'Christian', they are essentially consumed by hatred and the elevation of Satan to the status of a god. There is little in their philosophy I recognize as 'Christian' as I understand it. My perspective may offend some Christians and I apologize but this is what I see manifest in some fundamentalist groups and philosophies. I refuse to call hatred 'love'."

Selah!

Limbaugh Jumps the Shark

Alternet wonders why Limbaugh hasn't been fired yet - apparently not understanding what "syndicated" means. But I do wonder how long it will take for people to realize he's about as funny and relevant as "Who's the Boss" re-runs.

This is a head-shaker. Imus gets canned for calling some college women basketball players "nappy-headed hos" and yet Rush Limbaugh plays "Barack The Magic Negro" on his show and he is still on the air?

And the story links to a video that is one long "coon joke" which makes me wonder another thing entirely: How stupid do you have to be to consider this either funny or informative?

If the best ammunition you can come up with against the policies of flaming liberals like Barak Obama and Al Sharpton is that they are (gasp) black, you ain't much use. Because, well, I got eyes, son. And whether their skin color matters to me or not, it's damn insulting that you think I think that's the ONLY thing that matters.

When the sum total of Conservatism has been reduced, on air, to "be afraid of the scary brown people" and "Trust George Bush because he's a good Christian White Man," I start recalling the awkward fact that George Wallace was a DEMOCRAT.

To add to your discomfort, here's a few more examples of what Conservative talk has become:



To think that thirty years ago, there were Conservatives on air like Ira Blue - and now all there is to represent the Conservative worldview are intellectual failures like Limbaugh, Imus, Boortz, Morgan and Coulter.

Good thing I'm a Libertarian already, or I'd have to become one just to save myself from the shame.

tag: Rush Limbaugh, jumped the shark, conservative radio, conservative commentary, , libertarian, bigotry, xenophobia, ethics, free speech, Liberalism, Barack Obama, Al Sharpton, bullying, prejudice

Know Something About Kieth Olbermann?

This Right-Wing tabloid site wants to know.

And, well, obviously they are having a lot - repeat, A LOT of trouble finding any real ammo to use against Olbermann, since the worst thing they can say about him is that his ratings are low (on MSNBC? Imagine that!) and this:

Keith Olbermann's career schizophrenia continues. He's a Sports Guy. He's a News Guy. He's a Sports Guy (again). Oops, back to News. And guess what? Now he's back to Sports, according to Keith's personal PR flack aka TVNewser:

More! "Olbermann Schizophrenia: Is he a Sports Guy or a "News" Anchor?"

Yep, being able to do more than one thing well is a clear sign of inherent, invidious, elitist Liberalism. Judging by the journalistic standards of this blog, so is walking and chewing gum at the same time.

This link was advertised to me via google promising to "Expose Olbermann's lies." As I expected, this was a usage of the term, "lie," that I was previously unfamiliar with. A "lie" in this usage seems to be a truth that makes you want to stick your fingers in your ears and chant "la la la la I can't HEAR you!"

I see this as symptomatic of the sad, impotent and pathetic devolution of the right-wing blogosphere, that this blog gets enough eyeballs to justify a google Adwords account. They don't take just ANYONE, you know.

So, the dead-enders are still out there - but clearly, they are being driven to a subsistence diet of undiluted stupidity as the former stars of the Right are, one by one, falling away toward the center, leaving the core ideologues exposed in their dogged determination to win their Culture War against everyone and every institution that is smart enough to know better.

Hell, if you are smart enough to put three thoughts in a row, you are savvy enough to realize that the Administration can't. And a lot of former Republicans have come to the conclusion that what they stood for, indeed, what they still stand for, was seen as simply a set of talking points by the Administration; a means to get to an end that was nothing good, Republican, conservative or apparently achievable.

There is only so far wanting to believe can take you in the face of an overwhelming flood of fact. Bloggers, to be relevant at all, have to swim in facts and even (gasp) differing perspectives on them. After a while, it's hard to ignore that of the facts that are in, the facts speak against the President, that:

• He has indeed lied in order to wage war against Iraq.
• entered office with the intention of waging war against Iraq.
• used (or even contrived) 9/11 as a pretext for that war (and in that, did nothing to actually find, prosecute and execute those who were actually responsible).
• Illegally wiretapped citizens.
• Suspended Habius Corpus.
• Kidnapped and tortured people without even the pretense of due process.
• Tried to establish a legal basis for torture - despite it being explicitly illegal and ineffective.
  
• Is in Contempt of Congress on multiple counts (signing statements)

And yet, given nearly totalitarian powers even FDR did not wish to have, has managed to completely fail to win a war our armed forces were equipped and trained to win - a war of maneuver in the deserts of the middle east - by putting them into urban combat zones, the sort of warfare that eats armies for lunch.

Understand this very clearly; there was absolutely no reason for anyone to expect that our military forces would be unsuccessful in securing Iraq with good intelligence, solid planning, competent leadership and enough boots on the ground. Even those of us who doubted that it would be as easy as described would not have gone so far as to use the word "difficult."

We asked "why Iraq, and why now." I cannot recall many asking "what if we can't win?"

So, not only did he lie us into war, he fucked up that war. Why? Well, never presume malice when stupidity is a sufficient explanation. But if George Bush's intent were to destroy this nation, cripple our vital alliances, isolate us in terms of world opinion and still lead us open to a far more probable threat of terrorism, in that light, he's been consistently correct in his choices of policy and personnel.

What we are seeing here is the result of a total failure of leadership, even by the standards of a corrupt, corporatist, kleptocratic, nepotist and increasingly fascist-lite ruling elite.

It would be wise to recall that, first, the French Revolution occurred because of and in response to leadership of such quality. And second - the outcome, driven as it was by a situation driven beyond extremes, resulted in some extremely Bad Things.

Now, I don't know about you, but I think that the existence of social stresses that could lead to civil war to be a very significant National Security Issue. So, I think it's time we all took a deep breath, got over ourselves, and made a choice to stop making war on other people. Especially when those people are fellow Americans.

Update: this post was linked on Olbermann Watch and this was the only comment there:

You know what I see as symptomatic of the sad, impotent, and pathetic devolution of the LEFT-wing blogosphere? They can't even spell Olbermann's first name correctly while trying to defend him. Kieth? How hard is it to spell K-E-I-T-H?

If that's the only criticism, I believe we can take every actual point as being unaddressable by those who I am addressing.

Sad, ain't it? That, and the fact that once again I'm accused of being "a liberal."

tag: Miserable failure, Impeach, George W. Bush, 2008, Civil War, Revolution, Global Terrorism, Kieth Olbermann, Keith Olbermann, Spelling Flames