Dada is the sun, Dada is the egg. Dada is the Police of the Police.


Gay Marriage and the Democratic Party

Wow. The Ethical Werewolf (is such a thing possible?) does a pretty good job of shredding the logic (or lack thereof) of Keith Burgess-Jackson's hyperbolic post in which he asserts that the Democratic Party's support for gay marriage exhibits a "death wish":

My guess, having surveyed the political landscape for many years, is that at least three of every four adult Americans oppose homosexual "marriage." This does not bode well for any political party that endorses such an institution. But the Democrats appear to be doing just that.


To the extent that liberals control the Democrat party, the next presidential nominee will be someone who favors homosexual "marriage." This will virtually guarantee defeat.

First of all, I'm pretty sure that an endorsement of gay marriage is not to be found in the Democratic Party platform, and none of the major contenders for the 2004 Pres. nomination were in favor of gay marriage, but never mind that for now. Let's assume KBJ is correct in taking the Dems to be the party of gay marriage. Is this really tantamount to a death wish?

Ethical Werewolf demonstrates that it is not. First off, he points out that when you look at actual polls, you see that the opposition to gay marriage is not nearly as overwhelming as KBJ claims it is:

On the first thing, let's look at some actual polling data, rather than using the >75% opposition number that the AnalPhilosopher pulled out of his ass ... Usually, you get 30+% support for full-fledged marriage and ~60% opposition with 5-10% undecided, when those are the only options offered. While a slight majority opposes civil unions, the civil-union + full-fledged marriage disjunction actually wins a majority when both options are offered.

Werewolf correctly concludes that

this talk of a 'liberal death wish' is radically overstated.

Furthermore, he takes a look at what the gay marriage issue might mean in the future:
According to every poll that breaks things down by age groups, the 18-29 age bracket is by far the most pro-gay, and the 65+ folks are the most anti-gay.


eventually the old folks will cease to be physically located, the kids will grow up, and Democratic fortunes will grow with them. In terms of sheer political strategy, supporting gay people's right to marry is an investment that's going to pay off huge for us. Twenty years from now, we'll have a clear majority and you guys will be trying to figure out what to do with a losing position that costs you more every year.

This is exactly right. I can't for the life of me understand why a good number of Democrats are running around saying that the party needs to find a way to get in touch with culturally conservative voters. You'd think Dubya just won a landslide as opposed to a mere 51%. Democrats who think like this are not looking at things in the long run -- or rather, the medium run, since twenty years is nothing. The anti-gay prejudice of the GOP's base is on the way out big time. People in their twenties and younger are overwhelmingly supportive of gay rights.

A related point is the connection between politics and religion. After the election, there was much talk about how regular church-goers voted mostly for Bush, and this was understood to be a significant problem for the Democrats. But by all accounts, regular church attendance is on the decline. Fewer and fewer people are going to vote according to what their pastor tells them, which is what a lot do now. The GOP's close association with organized Christianity is another thing which gives them a slight advantage now but will hurt them in the long run.

Ethical Werewolf is correct that "our grandchildren will see the conservatives like we now see George Wallace and the old segregationists".

The only way this might change is if Burgess-Jackson is not just being an irrational alarmist when he says

given an institution as old and important as marriage, there should be a strong presumption against changing it, if for no other reason than that we don't know what will happen if we do. The likelihood of harm may be small, but the magnitude of harm should harm occur may be large and irreversible.

But KBJ's worries of the possibility of some kind of societal collapse in the aftermath of gay marriage seem, well, kind of stupid, as Ethical Werewolf also demonstrates in his post, pointing out that it really isn't that radical an idea:
On the whole, I expect that this expansion of the right to marry won't be nearly as far-reaching a social change as integration. Many fewer people are directly affected, and the indirect effects are small. So if you fear radical social changes, there's really not much here to be afraid of and only a tiny presumption against should apply. At the very least, you ought to support civil unions. They're a nice incremental measure, if that's how you like it. When you see after a decade or so of civil unions that we aren't falling into barbarism, you'll be ready to go the rest of the way.

Well said, and a conclusive refutation of KBJ's post. And, another example of why Democrats need to stop listening to Republicans' advice about what is best for their party.


The nicest thing anyone has ever said about me

Apropos of absolutely nada, the best compliment I have ever received came from Max Goss, in response to a post of mine from a couple of weeks ago entitled "OH MY GOD YOU IGNORANT FUCKTARD", in which I called a right-wing blogger a douchebag, among other things. Max said:
Charming. Wherever did you learn your way with words? You have developed brute, impotent rage into a high art.

That, friends, is what you call high praise! I might have to find a permanent home for that quote somewhere on the site.

UPDATE: I think I will put all praise from my fans on the sidebar to the left, beneath my profile. That way everyone will know that they are not alone in their admiration and appreciation of me.

Well this is interesting

Anal / Conservative Philosopher Keith Burgess-Jackson has kind words for Noam Chomsky!
I just read Chomsky's essay "Simple Truths, Hard Problems." His main complaint is that the United States and other "enlightened nations" don't play by the same rules they impose on others. This is a reasonable complaint, in my opinion. The United States should never support dictators, even when it's in our interest to do so. We should stand on principle. Chomsky loves his country. He simply wants his country to do right.

I have really got to hand it to Burgess-Jackson. This is by far the most intellectually honest thing I have ever heard a self-professed conservative say about Chomsky. Most on the Right can't stop themselves from smearing Chomsky with all sorts of obscene lies, as uberwanker Andrew Sullivan did on Bill Maher's HBO show, when he accused Chomsky of having supported the Soviet Union, which of course he did not. (Incidentally, Sullivan also, at the end of the show when the guests and Maher stood around chatting, performed a bizarre butt-rubbing ritual right there on camera.)

So mad props to KBJ -- proof that not every right-winger is a total prick. Some are just part-time pricks! (Just kidding, of course.)

Right-wing relativism

One of the more annoying criticisms that the Right often makes of the Left is that lefties embrace "moral relativism" and thus reject the notion of an absolute right and wrong, or of absolute moral principles.

Of course, this is rarely accompanied by some sort of argument as to why we shouldn't be relativists, but never mind that. More and more, I've noticed that right-wingers are tending toward relativism themselves. Dennis Miller (who owns the title "Least Funny Comedian", though Colin Quinn was a close second) responded to Phil Donahue's anti-war argument by saying something like, "Well, that's your truth" or "that's right for you." And we've all heard the comment about the "reality-based community."

In this tradition, blogger John Henke at Q and O Blog, in a post criticizing "liberalism" for not having a raison d'etre, says

at the end of the day, I don't think a political philosophy can be "right" or "wrong", except in matters of internal consistency, and the reliability of its assumptions.

Egads!! Mr. Henke, are you saying that there are no moral truths? Are you saying that our society is not objectively superior to that of, say, North Korea?? Are you saying that democracy is not morally preferable to totalitarianism? You dirty relativist!! You looney multiculturalist!!

Next thing you know, you'll be saying that worshipping Christ is not "right", and that pagan worship of the Earth is not "wrong"!!!

In another post, Henke writes:

Let us remember, there is no intrinsic "value" in anything. Value is always, only a subjective judgement.

Well, a lot of people would disagree with that. Plato. Aristotle. Kant. Christians.

I suppose it is up to the Left, now, to defend such absolute moral principles as "It is wrong to lie" and "It is wrong to deprive people of their liberty" and "It is wrong to attack another country without provocation."

And by the way, the raisin debt that I would recommend the Left embrace would be:

Liberals: we are not maniacal fascists without the slightest regard for human life.

They've got my vote.


More on Condi

Condi Rice is, of course, a huge liar. No wonder the GOPers are tossing her name around as a presidential candidate for '08! The latest evidence can be found at Daily Kos, via Atrios. Seems Rice claimed that in the early days of the Bush administration, no one notified them about the Al Qaeda threat. As it turns out, a mere five days after Bush's inauguration, Richard Clarke wrote Rice a memo saying

We urgently need such a principals-level review on the al Qida [sic] network

(original emphasis). It also stated:

Al Qida is not some narrow, little terrorist issue ... Rather, several of our regional policies need to address centrally the transnational challenge to the U.S. and our interests posed by the Al Qida network.


Seriously, GOP, even you guys can do better than this, surely.

If things keep going the way they have been, Condi's association with Bush is not going to help her chances of getting elected to anything.

And frankly, I wouldn't feel safe with her at the helm.

Rice's press coverage is, on the whole, positive. It's understandable: she's an appealing story in a lot of ways. But if the Right has begun to canonize her, that means it's time for us to tear down that effort before it is too late. Given her almost total lack of talents -- other than obsequiousness and playing the piano -- it shouldn't be that difficult.

Then again, we are dealing with people who managed to turn the colossal fuckup George W. into a superhero, and in true MacGyver fashion at that, using only a bullhorn, a flight suit, and Uncle Karl's knack for political theater.

Praying for Dubya

Blogger Ambra Nykola says

if we're wise and take heed to the words of 1 Timothy 2, we'd spend less time berating our leaders and more time praying for them.

I'll be honest: my first reaction to this was something along the lines of:


But then I thought, hey, why not pray for our "leaders"? There is certainly much to pray for in reference to the current crop. So I said a little prayer for G.W.:

O spiteful one, show me who to smite and they shall be smoten!!!

Wait, that's not it. Let's try this again:

O Lord, I pray to thee as directed by Timothy and by Ambra Nykola, which is to say I pray for our leaders during this time of worldwide crisis, especially he who bears so much responsibility for this crisis, the one they call "Dubya".

O Lord, please grant Dubya a functional conscience, as there is clearly something wrong with the one he has now. I believe that with a conscience that is in working order, our Dear Leader may finally stop to think about the morality of killing tens of thousands of innocent to advance the strategic goals of his administration and their corporate cronies. Also, he may stop trying to keep poor people from going to college, and telling people who they should and shouldn't be having sex with, and destroying the gift of Nature that thou hast so generously granted us.

Also, O Lord, please wipe that obnoxious fucking grin off his face.




As if we needed another reason to hate George W. Bush

Via JMB, I hear that Bush's proposed budget would eliminate Perkins loans (a type of student loan).

If this happens, it would be very, very bad. For many people, these loans are the difference between going to college and not going.

Bush's war on the American public continues.

Quotable Quotes is having a fundraiser to keep the site afloat. (Hat tip to Wolcott, as if he needed it.) Anyone who can afford it should consider donating.

There is lots of cool stuff on the site, including a list of war-related quotes. Among them:

War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious.

~General Smedley Butler

Death has a tendency to encourage a depressing view of war.

~Donald Rumsfeld

After every ''victory'' you have more enemies.

~Jeanette Winterson

The de facto role of the US armed forces will be to keep the world safe for our economy and open to our cultural assault.

~Major Ralph Peters, US Military

Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really easy way: stop participating in it.

~Noam Chomsky

Look at you in war...There has never been a just one, never an honorable one, on the part of the instigator of the war.

~Mark Twain

A man who says that no patriot should attack the war until it is saying no good son should warn his mother of a cliff until she has fallen.

~G. K. Chesterton

Every war when it comes, or before it comes, is represented not as a war but as an act of self-defense against a homicidal maniac.

~George Orwell

and my personal favorite, from one of the greatest men who has ever lived:

Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.

~Albert Einstein

That one might have to be posted here permanently.


More Dean

Bull Moose is of the opinion that cracks are beginning to appear in the GOP coalition. However, the Moose believes that "the donkey may be riding to the elephant's rescue" by giving the White House a "gift-wrapped" present in the form of Howard Dean as DNC chair. To support this claim, the Moose quotes a passage from the Washington Times:
Critics say Mr. Dean hurt both his candidacy and party with some of his statements during the Democratic primary campaign. Mr. Dean said terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden should not be judged until he has had a jury trial, expressed doubt about whether Iraqis were better off with Saddam Hussein out of power, called Hamas terrorists "soldiers," and angered Jewish Democrats when he said that the United States should be "evenhanded" in its Middle East policy rather than always favoring Israel.

I suppose these quotes are supposed to be self-evidently indicative of Dean's unsuitability to hold the chairmanship of the DNC. Are they? Forget for the moment that not a single verbatim quote is offered; for the sake of argument, I'll assume that what Dean actually said is accurately characterized in this passage.

What, exactly, is so outrageous about these statements? Let's look at them individually.

Mr. Dean said terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden should not be judged until he has had a jury trial.

This sounds reasonable to me: innocent until proven guilty and all. The operative moral principles behind the ideals of due process and presumption of innocence are universal; we don't get to pick and choose who they apply to, if we are going to do anything but make a mockery of them. If we're convinced of bin Laden's guilt, then what do we have to fear from giving him a fair trial?

Dean expressed doubt about whether Iraqis were better off with Saddam Hussein out of power.

I don't remember Dean saying this, but I probably just missed it. As it is, I don't see anything appalling about this statement. It may be false, but it's not obviously false. Given the daily violence in Iraq, as well as the fact that the same kind of human rights abuses that Saddam was guilty have continued under U.S. occupation, the fact is that a lot of Iraqis might very well agree with this statement.

I remember Dean also catching shit for saying that Americans weren't any safer with Saddam in jail (Joe Lieberman said that Dean had "crawled down his own spider hole of denial"). But this is obviously true. Saddam was clearly not a threat to Americans, and the invasion of Iraq has made Americans more, not less, likely to be the victims of terrorism.

Dean called Hamas terrorists "soldiers"

The distinction between soldiers and terrorists is fuzzy at best. U.S. military personnel have routinely been employed by Washington D.C. in the service of terrorism, yet nobody complains about their being called "soldiers". The same goes, of course, for Israeli fighters. Hamas does, indeed, commit acts of terrorism. But in doing so they are no different from the nation-states whose similar acts are cloaked in the rhetoric of national defense.

Dean angered Jewish Democrats when he said that the United States should be "evenhanded" in its Middle East policy rather than always favoring Israel.

This is perhaps the most unobjectionable statement. It's a problem because Dean said we should be fair with regard to the Israeli-Palestine conflict?!? Who argues that we shouldn't be fair? If we want to have any hope of ever resolving this dispute, we had damn well better be.

That's it. That's all these outrageous statements amount to. This is the supposed "gift" to the GOP that Dean represents.

Dean's not perfect, but he's got balls, which is more than can be said of too many Democrats. He is willing to fight, and the importance of that in the party of Joe Lieberman cannot be overstated. This gift to the Republican Party might just end up being a Trojan Horse.

Condi v. Hillary?

Via GOP Bloggers comes word that noted sage and toe-sucker Dick Morris believes that a Condi Rice run for president in '08 is the only thing standing between Hillary Clinton and the White House. Morris makes several questionable claims, though, in trying to establish this. He writes:
Since Bush'’s success in Iraq has laid the basis for negotiation in the Middle East, there is every prospect that Rice may preside over a diplomatic triumph in catalyzing the discussions between Sharon and Abbas.

If what's going on in Iraq right now is a success, I would sure hate to see a failure. And Dick is in a distinct minority if he sees Israeli-Palestinian peace in the near future, much less peace precipitated by the Bush administration.

He goes on:
a Rice candidacy would destroy the electoral chances of the Democratic Party by undermining its demographic base. John Kerry got 54 percent of his vote from three groups that, together, account for about a third of the American electorate: African-Americans, Hispanics and single white women. Rice would cut deeply into any Democrat’s margin among these three groups and would, most especially, deny Clinton the strong support she would otherwise receive from each of them.

Hmm. Dick offers no evidence for his claim that Rice would do well among these demo groups, so it's difficult to evaluate the claim. I don't see at all how Rice holds any particular appeal to Hispanics. Single white women? Blacks? Maybe. But the real question is whether or not her gains in these areas would offset her inevitable losses in the key GOP constituency of white racists, who, while they may not actually cast a vote for Hillary, are not going to be very motivated to get out and help elect a black woman to the presidency of the United States.

Morris fails to see this point again:

As a social conservative and deeply religious person, she would face no bar in winning the votes of the Christian right, so crucial to winning the Republican nomination. Unlike former New York Mayor Rudy Guiliani (R) and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) — both of whom could probably win in November — she would be very attractive to the pro-life, anti-gun-control, anti-affirmative-action base of the GOP.

How many of those anti-choice, gun-loving racist are really going to be able to stomach voting for a female African-American? No doubt some will, just to keep the Democrat out of office, but I suspect that especially in a Republican primary Condi would have trouble with these folks.

So anyway, conservative bloggers seem to be reacting positively to the prospect of a Rice '08 run. Matt at The View From My Right thinks Condi would fare well in the primaries:

When the religious right and gun advocates step into the primary booth and their choices are Rice, McCain, and Giuliani who do you think most would vote for?

And what is the likelihood that those will be the only three names on the ballot? Rumor has it Newt Gingrich is considering a run, for instance. And while McCain has been effectively demonized by the GOP as a "fire-breathing liberal" (in the words of Pat Robertson), Guiliani would probably have a certain "tough guy" appeal to the NASCAR set.

Precinct 333 is also enthusiastic at the idea:

the GOP has a field of candidates who in all likelihood cannot emerge from the shadow of George W. Bush as he works to complete his legacy. Cheney is out. Frist lacks the appeal, and Rudy stands at odds with the conservative base on social (and personal) issues. More troubling is the lack of a frontrunner.

And then there is Dr. Condoleezza Rice. Attractive, well-spoken, charismatic, intellectual, and a self-made woman,

I'll take a pass on the "well-spoken" and "self-made" comments (except to note that, if 2004 is any indication, being well-spoken isn't particularly important in presidential campaigns, and may even be detrimental). "Attractive"? Well, she ain't my type. Charismatic? The woman has the personality of a sandwich! Intellectual? Maybe when she's standing next to George W., but let's face it: this woman does not have nearly the firepower required to effectively run the country.

So my take? Let Condi run. Let her run on the record of eight years of rule by the Bush junta. Let her run on the "success" of Iraq, and perhaps a similar such "success" in Iran. Let her run on the administration's irresponsible fiscal policy and pointless tax cuts. Let her run on the dismantling of social programs. Let her run on the criminalization of abortion. Let her run on everything that BushCo truly represents.

I'm not saying she wouldn't win. After all, Bush did. But hopefully the American electorate will come to their senses in time to forestall the creeping fascism that pervades the U.S. these days. One can only hope.

Howard Dean, sideshow freak

Mike from Sworn Enemy seems happy to hear that Howard Dean appears to have the race for DNC chair all sewn up. (Unless, Mike says, "his body is found in a DC area park, a la Vince Foster." Charming.) But he is not impressed with the choice, saying that with Dean as chair the Democratic Party will become even more of a "freakshow".

What does he have against Dean? Well apparently he takes issue with a couple of quotes from the former Vermont governor. One is:

I've waffled before. I'll waffle again.

The other:

We won't always have the strongest military.

Dean's sin in the first comment is presumably his admission that at times he has failed to straightforwardly answer a question put to him, and that in all likelihood he will fail to do so again in the future. Now ideally politicians and other public figures wouldn't "waffle", but the political reality is such that anyone who wishes to run for public office with a non-infinitesimal chance of actually winning had damn well be prepared to do some waffling.

So really all Dean did was admit what we all know: that politicians sometimes strategically frame their rhetoric! Gasp! If a Republican had said the same thing, Mike and other wingers would be applauding him for his "honesty" and "straight talk", the way they did when Cheney told Patrick Leahy to go fuck himself, and when Bush called Adam Clymer a "major league asshole".

As for the comment about the U.S. military not always being the strongest ... well, that's just fucking true. Does anyone, even these right-wing fucktards, actually believe that the American military machine will reign supreme for ... forever, I guess? The negation of Dean's claim -- the proposition that must be true if Dean's is false -- is: We will always have the strongest military.

Who thinks this? Let's be charitable and assume that anyone who does believe such a thing doesn't mean that the U.S. will rule militarily until the end of time; after all, at some point the Sun is going to shrivel up or whatever it does and humans will cease to exist. So let's assume they mean that the U.S. will have the strongest military as long as civilization exists.

Though slightly more plausible than the "end of time" claim, this too is extraordinarily unlikely. What makes them think the U.S. has magically hit upon some formula that will prevent it from suffering the fate of all previous global powers? I assume that at some point the United States as such will cease to exist. Remember, we're talking on a timescale of tens of thousands of years; that's how much time is probably left for this species on Earth. Does anyone really believe that 10,000 years from now the U.S. will be anything but a distant memory?

So actually Dean was simply expressing a proposition that comes close to being a truism, assuming we reject, as all reasonable people do, the immortality of nation-states. So what's yer beef, Mike?

There is no point

The Defeatist explains why.


Why does David Shuster hate America?

Via Crooks and Liars, we have what might be a first -- a mainstream journalist calling the GOP on their bullshit!

MSNBC "correspondent" David Shuster tells us what he thinks about House Republicans' show of "solidarity" with the Iraqi people -- i.e., their ridiculous stunt of showing up at the SOTU address with their fingers stained with ink, a la the voters in the recent Iraq election:

The courage of ordinary Iraqis last Sunday was unmistakable. They were literally risking their lives by standing in line to vote and by getting their fingers stamped with ink. The members of Congress who stained their own fingers and wagged them proudly for the cameras were an affront to that courage ... if members of Congress want to show "solidarity" with the Iraqi people... they are welcome to head to Baghdad, put on a flak jacket, and help/advise the new assembly on writing the constitution. Or, our lawmakers could serve as "election monitors" in Iraq when the constitution is put to a vote as early as this fall.

Something tells me we won't be seeing this happen any time soon.

It would be nice if this sentiment by Shuster weren't buried on the MSNBC group blog; the blatant hypocrisy of the GOP should have been pointed out on the evening news. But I'll take it.

Republicans are becoming experts at exploiting the struggles and sufferings of others in order to score political points. The audacity of holding their convention in New York, very near September 11, and then basically reveling in the tragedy the whole time was proof of that. This latest stunt merely demonstrates that they've learned to adapt their parasitic exploitation as circumstances warrant.

Clever little bastards, these ones are.

We may be doomed.

Who was Deep Throat?

Pat Buchanan? George H.W. Bush?

The great Olbermann says that Deep Throat may be on or near his deathbed. You might remember that Woodward has promised to reveal D.T.'s identity once the man dies. So his revealing may be imminent.

This is awesome!

Via Brian Leiter, watch a Fox News anchor lose her shit when a guest dares to question the propriety of having a $40 million inaugural party when U.S. troops have to cover their HumVees in scrap metal because they don't have the proper armor.


Who the fuck gives a fuck about fucking Ward Churchill?

And in "no shit, Sherlock" news, right-wingers continue to thump their chests about the latest non-controversy, Ward Churchill and his "blame-the-people-burning-to-death-first" philosophy. Somehow, the Right sees Churchill as decisive proof of the moral bankruptcy of the Left, despite the fact that Ward Churchill is just some fuckwad professor at a school best known for letting its football players rape their female kicker who nobody in their right mind should give two shits about (Churchill, that is, not the kicker).

Of all the Leftists who supposedly "blame America" for 9/11 -- you know, the usual suspects: Chomsky, Sontag, Moore, Krugman (ha ha) -- the only actual example of such a sentiment that these retarded, feces-flinging chimps could come up with was some obscure essay by some obscure academic.

I'm waiting for the first right-winger to use Churchill as evidence that the First Amendment needs to be cancelled, or at least curtailed.

On top of the complete irrelevance of Ward Fucking Churchill, Digby, via the great James Wolcott, points out that the Right's flailing about on this issue pretty much stands in direct contradiction to their own whining about being denied their right to spout their fascist nonsense on university campuses:

And, of course, the true irony is that all this breast beating and calls for dismissal and censorship comes on the heels of years of braying about political correctness in academia squelching free speech and dissenting points of view. It seems like only yesterday that I was reading conservative intellectuals like Walter Williams saying universities are 'the equivalent of the Nazi brownshirt thought-control movement' and Paul Hollander calling it 'the most widespread form of institutionalized intolerance in American higher education.' (I won't even mention that champion of intellectual diversity David Horowitz.) Well now, it would appear that "political correctness vs academic freedom" comes in all flavors.

and also that the Right fails to hold their own to the same standards they hold the Left to (I know, big surprise):

And it's always a-ok for mainstream, influential intellectuals like Frank 'Cakewalk' Gaffney to say things like 'The U.N. is a hateful and anti-Semitic mobocracy' or Michael Ledeen to publicly float a theory that 9/11 was the result of a 'Franco-German strategy ...based on using Arab and Islamic extremism and terrorism as the weapon of choice, and the United Nations as the straitjacket for blocking a decisive response from the United States.' These inflammatory statements at a time of great global unease are not repudiated by anyone. Indeed, such dangerous rabble rousing is completely accepted and in some cases endorsed by the Republican establishment. No one questinos whether such statements might endanger American security or its stated foreign policy. Indeed, one is left to ponder whether it might actually be American foreign policy, considering the fact that those who write these screeds are welcome in the White House.

We are living in a hall of mirrors. The Iraqi elections are somehow proof of the moral rightness of Bush's unprovoked invasion; Bush's appointment of an A.G. who advocates torture is progressive because said torture advocate is Hispanic; and the words of one obscure academic are grounds for condemning anyone situated to the left of Rudy Guiliani.

Just kill me now.

Tell us what you really think, Kim

Kim du Toit is sick of the anti-killing rhetoric:

Some people deserve killing, and their dispatch should be performed with joy.

Had that turd Mohomed Atta (of 9/11 infamy) somehow survived the NYC airliner crash, and I’d seen his worthless person walking towards me, I’d have shot his ass full of bullets (both my primary and backup mags), and then danced around his bleeding corpse (after first pissing in the bullet wounds).

How’s that for fun, you bunch of pantywaisted pussies?


War is barbarism, and the Geneva Convention is a pile of wussy bullshit.


I’m likewise sick of the denigration of the warrior culture in our pussified society. As far as I’m concerned, every rifleman out there is a fucking hero, and if he enjoys killing the goddamn enemy, more power to him.

And it's the Left that's supposed to be angry all the time???


Incredibly dumb prediction

Iggles by a field goal.

Fuck the Patriots!

.... see, I told you it was incredibly dumb. Though not too far off.

Fuck the Patriots!

Blogarama - The Blog Directory Sanity is not statistical.