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

2/19/2005

Democratic potheads and Republican coke fiends

From Daily Kos via The Ethical Werewolf:

It's the cokehead party vs. the pothead party. It is no coincidence that I can't stand people on coke and I can't stand Republicans. Potheads? Some of the best people I have met are potheads. One party is all about belligerence, overconfidence, and it hates nuance. The other is about reflection, introspection, and making sure there is enough food. The last decade of politics has seen a cranked up, delusionally overconfident jerk trampling all over a well-meaning, gifted, but underachieving slacker.

Don't believe me? Picture yourself at a bar. A brawl breaks out. Would you rather be aligned with the potheads or the cokeheads? Well, you would probably say the cokeheads (but of course, then you are probably with the jerks who started the fight). Republicans are the party of war. Now, picture yourself hanging out at home, eating dinner, watching a movie. Would you rather be surrounded by the cokeheads or the potheads? Democrats are much better on the domestic front because it is there natural environment. Plus, potheads care about others: "It must really suck to be out delivering pizzas right now so we better give the delivery person a really good tip. "


Who do the people on ecstasy represent? Maybe the Green Party -- those cats are full of love not only for their fellow humans but for all of God's creation! Also, there's a lot of "free love" going on in that community.

Libertarians would have to be beer drinkers -- the happy kind, who don't want to fuck with anyone and don't want anyone to fuck with them. They lack the heightened critical thinking skills of the pothead, however.

LSD? Let's see ... delusional, think that God talks to them ...

Evangelical Christians?

This game is fun!


NOTE: Original HaloScan comments for this post can be found here.

Daily Show on the White House Man-Whore

Anybody who hasn't seen the Daily Show piece on Jeff Gannon should check it out.


2/18/2005

Right-wingers aren't always stupid

As evidenced by this post by James K. Hat, in which he refutes the idea that class action lawsuits hurt consumers:

President Bush is going to sign a bill that would severely restrict class action lawsuits. I know that the reaction of most people is to say "good, lawyers are scum," but I don't think that those people fully understand how beneficial the class action lawsuit is to most consumers.

I'm not saying that there aren't problems with the class action system, but people should understand that the advent of the class action suit was a huge triumph for the consumer. Today, many seem to be trying to cast the class-action suit as somehow being "anti-consumer," saying that "we all pay for these huge judgments, so we should all stop them." Please - that argument is a bit like saying "we all pay to house and feed criminals, so we should stop putting criminals in prison."

The fact is, companies lose class actions when they rip-of consumers. Severely restricting or eliminating the class action will once again give companies license to do exactly that, without fear of reprisal.


Now, if only James would recognize that giving corporations license to rip off consumers without fear of reprisal is the essence of the GOP agenda!


NOTE: Original HaloScan comments for this post can be found here.

Ward Churchill is a jackass

Look, the uproar over Ward Churchill is preposterous; Churchill is a nobody, and he is not representative of "the Left".

He is, however, a total ass. On Common Dreams Michael Faughnan, whose brother was killed in the World Trade Center attack, writes "An Open Letter to Ward Churchill" subtitled "My Brother, the 'Eichmann'":

At 8:46 a.m. on Sept. 11, 2001, you claim that my beautiful brother Chris, a "technocrat" in your words, received his "befitting penalty." While Chris rarely used a cell phone in his work (much less self-importantly brayed into one), he did make one call that fateful day. At about 8:30 that morning, Chris bantered back and forth with his 4-year-old daughter to get her to say that she loved him — she was the last of his family to talk with him.

Mr. Churchill, what I want you to see is the human face behind the rhetoric. Human beings are not symbols, and your essay's dehumanization of the victims of 9/11 reduces them to mere symbols — drones in a capitalist machine. In this way, you are guilty of what you claim to condemn, that is the dehumanization of individuals. It is the inability to see the human face of "the other" that allows the horrible violence in this world to continue.

...

Recently, our family has been discussing what would be a befitting, honorable tribute to his life. Ironically, your essay arrived with its own recognition of Chris's memory — as a faceless technocrat who deserved to die.


Now, this may just cause right-wingers' heads to explode, but Mr. Faughnan, while condemning Churchill, also condemns Churchill's enemies:


Behind the painful rhetoric you use, I sense a nobler goal, the desire to tell the American people that we must be aware of ourselves in the world, take responsibility and work to understand and change the wrongs that have been committed. If this is your greater message, my brother Chris would have agreed with you whole-heartedly. And if this is your message, please state it clearly, and abandon the dehumanizing rhetoric and the pathetic metaphors. If you cannot make your point this way, it is you who is "braying," playing the role of provocateur and not speaking from any coherent moral conviction.

Regrettably, you, like many of those who are zealously attacking you — political leaders, talk-show hosts, those who profess their views around the office water cooler — disgracefully use the victims of 9/11 to advance your own cause. In the view of this family, your grossly inappropriate characterization of Chris and the other 9/11 victims has been surpassed in vulgarity only by the misinformed advocates of aggression who used those beautiful innocents who perished on 9/11 as propaganda for immediate and misguided violence and destruction.



Stephen Minarik you suck

From Pandagon:


State Republican officials yesterday had egg on their faces after peddling a photo they erroneously said proved that convicted terrorist supporter Lynne Stewart was a Democratic Party activist.

State GOP Chairman Stephen Minarik and party Executive Director Ryan Moses gave The Post a photo taken at a Democratic protest outside last summer's Republican National Convention.

They claimed it showed Stewart, a civil-rights lawyer, pictured with Jesse Jackson, filmmaker Michael Moore, actor Danny Glover and two Democratic councilmembers.

The problem is, the woman in the picture isn't Stewart — it's Leslie Cagan, of United for Peace and Justice, which organized the rally. Cagan and Stewart bear a resemblance.


Why do the facts hate America?

Dean v. Perle

Josh Narins says that Howard Dean is supposed to be debating "Richard Lying-Gasbag Perle" (in Josh's words) on CSPAN saturday.

Also, he mentions something that I did not know: that in the 1980s Perle was debated by none other than Noam Chomsky, also known as the world's greatest living philosopher. And the audio is on the web.


UPDATE: Okay, apparently this already happened, but it will be aired on CSPAN Saturday. And apparently someone threw a shoe at Perle and screamed "motherfucking liar!". I couldn't agree more.

Also, I was listening to the Chomsky/Perle debate (also originally on CSPAN) and I found out that Perle was "working on a novel" at the time. I don't know whatever happened to that.

Also, Chomsky (predictably) kicked Perle's ass up and down the floor.

2/17/2005

American Idiots

Somebody at The American Patriots site (which at the top of the home page features pictures of Washington, Lincoln, Reagan, and Dubya, all with some weird holy glow around them) thinks Howard Dean has "put his foot in his mouth":

Howard Dean claims he hates Republicans and everything we stand for. If you take him at his word you must believe that he hates things like patriotism, loyalty, freedom of worship, strong national security, supporting out men and women in the military and countless other issues that are important to all Americans.

Beg the question much, asshole?

The GOP doesn't stand for any of those things, with the possible exception of "loyalty," which can hardly be considered a virtue until you specify what it is you're loyal to.

And Dean knows it. He knows the difference between rhetoric and reality.

Yes, Republicans say they support patriotism. But such a thing should be judged by deeds, not words, and anyone with eyes can see that the GOP acts like it doesn't give two shits about the country, about its reputation, about its environmental health, and especially about the welfare of its citizens -- at least, the ones who aren't millionaires.

Strong national security? I don't think so. A brutal and aggressive war machine is not the same think as protecting the American people. In fact, our country is less safe as a result of the war in Iraq, which even the government admits. And the Bush administration has almost totally ignored homeland security and the changes recommended by the 9/11 commission.

Supporting our men and women in the military? How, by trying to deny compensation to soldiers who were tortured during the first Gulf War? By sending them into battle without the proper armor for their bodies and vehicles?

The Republican Party stands for nothing but its own interests. That is what Dean hates, and rightly so.

More right-wing insanity

This time it's AnalPhilosopher Keith Burgess-Jackson:

President Bush should make it clear to the North Koreans that if they attack the United States, their people, their culture, and their land will be incinerated. It will be as if they never existed.

Any reasonable person, Republican, Democrat, or whatever, has to realize the extraordinary immorality of the sentiment expressed in this comment.

Hey, Keith: "the North Koreans" won't be attacking anybody. If their country did attack someone, it would be the decision of their leader, Kim Jong Il.

And why are you even talking about this? Do you have any indication that Kim is planning an attack on the U.S.?

Even Max at In Hoc Signo Vinces, a conservative, sees how preposterous this comment is:

Somehow I don't think Keith is sensitive to Just War Theory's requirement of proportionality or its emphasis on the distinction between aggressors and innocents, not to mention conservatism's worries about unintended consequences.

Keith's attitude, sadly, is not at all uncommon; I imagine a poll would demonstrate that a large portion of the American public would agree with his statement, as sick as it is.

Right-wing anarchists???

Until very recently, I was only vaguely aware that right-wing anarchists -- or "anarcho-capitalists" -- even existed. For me, "anarchism" has always meant an ideology that was grounded in leftist principles (even though most anarchists would probably disagree with this characterization -- both the "ideology" and the "leftist" part). Specifically, I always associated anarchism with the abolition of property, or at least the capitalist conception of property, as well as a strong opposition to capitalism itself. Emma Goldman would be the paradigm anarchist of this kind.

Left-anarchism (or "anarcho-syndicalism" or whatever you want to call it) has a distinguished intellectual history; in addition to Goldman, its advocates have included Noam Chomsky, Leo Tolstoy, Peter Kripotkin, Murray Bookchin, and others. I myself have sharp anarchist sympathies, though I have yet to arrive at a definitive politcal philosophy.

But right-wing anarcho-capitalism might just be in the running for looniest ideology out there. What brought this peculiar philosophy to my attention was a post by Jackie Passey, and the reaction from the folks at Catallarchy (the same site that outed Libertarian Girl). Jackie, in advocating a tax scheme based on property taxes (and not income/sales) which I commented on earlier, justified taxing property on the grounds that the state is what makes property rights possible:

I prefer real property taxes to other kinds of taxes for a variety of reasons: 1. You can’t have property without government. I distinguish here between property and possession. Property is knowing that when you come home, your house is still your house. Possession is having to worry about armed thugs taking it over while you’re out and not being able to do anything about it. I get into arguments with my anarchist friends about where property comes from, but as I’ve studied development economics and institutions its clear that the functions of property very much rest on the legal institutions created to define and support property rights.

The anarcho-capitalists at Catallarchy didn't much like the notion that property rights are grounded in state authority, though:


It is not clear that anglosphere property rights institutions arose from government. In fact, Anglo-Saxon customary law seems to have been outside of the purview of anything we would associate with a government. Nor is property rights in Middle Ages Iceland dependent or derived from government - there was not anything we would recognize as a government in existence. Early American West settlements existed prior to the active managent of the U.S. government, and had a thorough set of property rights institutions independent of federal law.

...

Yes, many social institutions must exist in order to have any meaningful ownership of anything, but these institutions do not need to be provided by coercive monopoly, or provided for by taxes.


One problem with the examples cited here is that they all involve the relatively simple notion of ownership of land; you claimed the land, and, most importantly, used it, and it was "yours." However, the contemporary concept of property is much more robust than this.

Another is that the anarcho-capitalists are coming very close to making a distinction without a difference. The writer here is admitting that "many social institutions" must exist for property rights to exist, but insists that neither the state nor taxes is necessary to provide the relevant institutions.

However, it's extremely hard to understand how there could be an institution that could enforce property rights without having the ability to resort to force if necessary. The commenters at Catallarchy seem to advocate two "solutions" to this problem. One is to arrange privately for the securing of your property -- in other words, hiring somebody to enforce your right to your property. The other is to defend it yourself, apparently by stocking up on weapons or something.

The first option leads to something very much like a state; the only difference is that there might be more than one coercive institution. It's hard to see how, exactly, this is desirable.

It is true that taxes are not absolutely required for the existence of an institution that would secure property rights; however, that institution is going to have to obtain funds somehow. The anarcho-capitalists would have us privately contract with said institution. But if this happens, the enforcement of property rights will not be homogenous; it makes sense to think that a private organization would offer a higher level of protection to, or simply would go to greater lenghts to protect those who, were able to provide them with more money. Folks who couldn't meet a minimum would presumably be shit out of luck.

I don't understand how such a society is one that would be preferable to the vision of the Left, where everyone's rights are guaranteed equally.

A private organization with the power to enforce property rights is just a state going by another name. In fact, this is what the state as it stands today essentially is. For the most part, governments exist not to enforce the will of the people, nor to protect their individual liberties, but rather to preserve the status quo for the wealthy by creating a system that will keep the behavior of individuals in line and thereby coerce them to recognize the property rights of the wealthy.


NOTE: Original HaloScan comments for this post can be found here.

2/16/2005

Dean rocks; Minarik blows

When liberals (or anyone right-wingers perceive as being liberal) say anything that the Right deems objectionable, they form a cyber lynch mob and scream bloody murder about it. Witness the Eason Jordan episode, or the outcry over Ward Churchill.

Maybe it is time for us to take a page from them, because lord knows their side has plenty of people talking out of their ass 24/7.

For instance, just the other day Faux News anchor Brit Hume (who also compared Jeff "Right-Wing Manwhore" Gannon to Mark Twain) made an ass of himself on air when he completely distorted the words of Franklin Roosevelt to make it seem as if FDR would have supported Bush's idiotic "privitization" plan for Social Security, prompting Roosevelt's grandson to call for "a retraction, an apology, maybe even a resignation" on Keith Olbermann's show.

And then there is Stephen Minarik, the head of the New York State GOP, a pile of infectious human waste if ever there was one, who said, in response to Howard Dean's election as chair of the DNC:

the Democrats simply have refused to learn the lessons of the past two election cycles, and now they can be accurately called the party of Barbara Boxer, Lynne Stewart and Howard Dean.

What's offensive about this, you ask?

It's the reference to Stewart. Lynne Stewart was a lawyer for Omar Abdel Rahman, the "blind sheik" who was accused of terrorist plots. Stewart was convicted herself for aiding Rahman's terrorist associates by covertly transmitting his secret messages to them.

So in other words, Minarik was basically accusing the Democratic Party of being in league with anti-American terrorists.

Of course, this is nothing new. But such rhetoric has been heating up again lately on the wingnutty side of the aisle. For instance, there is this post by some idiot blogger:

This newly ever-growing Western left, not only in Europe, but in Latin America and even in the US itself, has a clear goal: the destruction of the country and society that vanquished its dreams fifteen years ago. But it does not have, as in the old days of the Soviet Union, the hard power to accomplish this by itself. Thanks to this, all our leftist friends’ bets are now on radical Islam. What can they do to help it? Answer: tie down America’s superior strength with a million Liliputian ropes: legal ones, political ones, with propaganda and disinformation etc. Anything and everything will do.


Which was linked to approvingly by Instapigfucker, who commented, "Sigh. I wish he were wrong."

And then there was Jonah Goldberg's challenge to Juan Cole:

let's make a bet. I predict that Iraq won't have a civil war, that it will have a viable constitution, and that a majority of Iraqis and Americans will, in two years time, agree that the war was worth it. I'll bet $1,000 (which I can hardly spare right now).

...

One caveat: Because I don't think it's right to bet on such serious matters for personal gain, if I win, I'll donate the money to the USO. He can give it to the al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade or whatever his favorite charity is. (Emphasis added.)

For anyone who doesn't know, the al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade is a Palestinian group that is supposed to be behind many of the suicide bombings targeting Israeli citizens. So Goldberg is basically accusing Cole of being a terrorist sympathizer. (BTW, does anyone actually buy Goldberg's claim that he can "hardly spare" a thousand dollars? Come on, Jonah; there's more money in right-wing hackery than that.)

This kind of rhetoric is reprehensible, and a testament to the utter lack of character and integrity on the part of many GOPers. Fortunately, the days when the Democratic Party took this kind of abuse -- or worse, like Joe Lieberman, agreed with it -- might be coming to an end. In reaction to Minarik's repulsive comment, Dean -- whose supporters are running a blog affiliated with the DNC called Kicking Ass -- came out swinging. From ABC news:

Howard Dean, the new chairman of the Democratic National Committee, called on the head of New York's Republican Party to apologize or resign Wednesday over remarks linking the Democrats to a civil rights lawyer convicted of aiding terrorists.


Dean called Stephen Minarik's comments offensive, and said, "The American people deserve better than this type of political character assassination."


Yes they do, though they're not likely to get it from the current crop of GOP "leadership."

And in case there was any doubt that Minarik is a complete tool, Atrios has somehow tracked down his AOL profile:


Name: STEPHEN MINARIK
Location: Webster NY
Gender: Male
Marital Status: I'm there again
Hobbies & Interests: Golf, Hockey, Sex
Favorite Gadgets: IBM Compatible
Occupation: Electoral Guru
Personal Quote: There's winning, and then there's misery


What an incredible asshole.

The new libertarian girl ...

... is shaping up to be quite a bit different than the old one. Which is to say, she's actually posted something that makes sense and contains good ideas!

Jacqueline Passey's proposal for tax reform is to place the weight on property taxes, as opposed to income and purchases. This sounds like a good idea to me, though it also sounds a lot like one that a lot of lefties have been advocating -- the taxing of property rather than wages/labor. Not very libertarian-like.

When I pointed this out to her, she resonded:

I am a left-libertarian... a libertarian, but from the left wing of the movement.

...

I favor equality of opportunity and a meritocracy.

I consider myself to be from the left wing of the party because my priorities are the issues we share in common with liberals -- free speech, gay rights, separation of church and state, ending drug prohibition, etc. Democrats are my lesser evil.


Democrats are my lesser evil too! New libertarian girl, you're all right! I had assumed she was a righty; most people who call themselves libertarians seem to be more concerned about the economic liberty of the wealthy than the civil liberty of all people. But I was wrong.

Maybe I should stop jumping to conclusions like that. I doubt I will, but maybe I should.

Jackie Passey, you are mah new friend!

White House Man-Whore or next Mark Twain?

Brit Hume of the illustrious Fox News notes that Jeff Gannon is following in the honorable footsteps of Mark Twain, who also used a fake name!

No word on whether Twain also whored himself out on the side to make a few extra bucks.

Victory!

For me and Jacqueline Passey, who has decided to end her discriminatory policy of deleting comments from her blog by posters whose name she deems "not real." In her words:

I instituted the no anonymous/pseudonymous comments policy in the hopes that it would reduce the number of abusive posts, as people would only post what they were willing to sign their real name to. As my blog has grown in popularity this has become far too time-consuming to explain and enforce.

Plus, it was a flawed policy to begin with, as there was never any way of determining whether or not someone was using their real name. If I went over there and posted under the name "Joe Smith" she wouldn't delete my comments, even though that is of course not my real name.

Her new policy seems like a reasonable one:

What I will do is just arbitrarily delete comments from assholes.

Every blogger should reserve the right to do this, I suppose. I never delete comments, even ones that are abusive toward me -- in fact, if you scroll down a bit and look at the sidebar, you can see some examples of them. But I can imagine scenarios where I would delete a comment -- for example, if someone started using overtly racist language. Or if they threatened to kill another blogger. (Only I can do that.)

So the reason this is a victory for me is because I have been agitating for such a change, and because now I can post comments on Jackie's blog (I like to call her "Jackie"). Which is, of course, a treat, because she is a very nice lady.

And it is a victory for Jackie because I can now heartily endorse her candidacy to succeed Libertarian Girl! With the all-important dadahead endorsement, she should be a shoo-in.

Although she could ruin it with too many more posts like this one, wherein, after resolving to give up men entirely for the next six months, she exclaims:

Hey! It just occured to me that I don't need to shave my legs for the next six months... just think of all the time and money I'll save. So I suppose every cloud really DOES have a silver lining! :)

That is not a pretty picture. One libertarian girl with hairy legs is enough.

More posts about naked blogging, on the other hand, and you'll make everyone forget all about a certain Russian mail-order bride.

More GOP hypocrisy

Nico at Think Progress notices yet another example of hypocrisy on the Right:

On one hand, you have Ward Churchill, the college professor who tried to morally justify the Sept. 11 attacks. Since his writings were given national attention last week, Churchill has received pariah treatment in the press, and his incendiary comments were widely condemned by academics and commentators of all political stripes.

On the other hand, there’s Jerry Falwell, who also tried to morally justify the 9/11 attacks. On Sept. 13, he said "pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America" had "helped this happen." Falwell now frequently provides political analysis for mainstream media outlets, and regularly hosts a television program on CNN.


This is a good reminder that many right-wing extremists are members of the "Blame America" crowd that GOPers like to go on about.

I now demand that every person who deems him or herself a conservative loudly and publicly denounce Jerry Falwell and any one who's ever known him.

I will also use Falwell as evidence that the entire Right believes America had it coming on 9/11. After all, by any reasonable standard, Falwell is more representative of the Right than Ward Churchill is of the Left.

Why do Republicans hate America?

Do the idiots at PoliPundit even know what racism means?

Apparently not.

Jayson at PoliPundit tells us of a recent scenario that played out in Washington the other day:

In a meeting with members of the party’s African-American caucus, Senator Lott looked around the room and asked whether anyone thought the Democratic National Committee could get so many minorities together in one place.

“Only if they had the hotel staff in there,” Senator Lott said, answering his own question.


Jayson's reaction?


Implying that the “hotel staff” must have consisted of African-Americans. Hell, that’s pure, unadulterated racism, correct?


Uh, why do you ask?


Only I substituted “Democratic” for “Republican” and “Senator Lott” for ... Howard Dean, who actually uttered those words.


Ahh, you sneaky bastard! What a clever little tricky-poo you just played! Let me guess: this demonstrates the hypocrisy of the left, correct? And in one little anecdote! You're good.

Although when you said "the party’s African-American caucus," I knew you weren't talking about the GOP.

And, the whole point of Dean's joke was to point out the racism of the Republicans. His point was that at a meeting of GOPers, the only African-Americans you would be likely to find would be serving the rich bastards, because they sure as hell wouldn't actually be attending the meeting.

(Yes, I'm aware there's a handful of black Republicans. He was exagerating. It's called a joke.)

So, actually, Jayson, your little story doesn't demonstrate shit.

Oops.

2/15/2005

I want to kill Instapundit

Instashithead is without question one of the most reprehensible people on the face of the Earth. Atrios refers to him as "The Blogger Who Must Not Be Named". Here are a couple of posts that demonstrate what a total bag of scum Glenn Reynolds is.

First there is this post:

InstaPundit's Afghanistan photo-correspondent, Major John Tammes, sends this report:

"The end of the 10 year drought has been a boon to most here in Afghanistan. However, for some it has not been so great. We are helping the Afghan government with aid for those snowed in up at the higher elevations. Down here at 5000 feet above sea level, the roads have been taking a bit of punishment. On a patrol yesterday, we came across this truck mired in a section of “road”. A couple of minutes hooking up to a winch on one of our HMMVs and a quick pull got them out."

I guess this is that "silent genocide" that Noam Chomsky was talking about. Or maybe it was a transcription error, and instead of "genocide," he said "roadside assistance" . . . .

Yeah, as if four guys helping somebody pull their Jeep out of the mud somehow negates any war crimes the Bush administration might have committed. Idiot. (Hat tip: Pumpkinhead.)

In this one, he is complaining about lefty bloggers outing Jeff "J.D. Guckert, male prostitute" Gannon:

What I don't quite get is when the Left became such a bunch of obsessively puritanical, curtain-peering Gladys Kravitz types. Lighten up, guys! It's only sex, and as we all know, especially post-Clinton, sex, and lying about sex, is no big deal!


You know what, Instadouche? FUCK YOU. The Right has been utilizing smear tactics since time began, and now they're going to whine that the Left isn't being fair to them? SHUT THE FUCK UP.

I should probably be more specific here and stipulate that I am not talking about all conservatives. Conservatism itself is not a wholly unreasonable political orientation (though I think it is incorrect).

But true conservatives are quite rare these days. There's no meaningful sense in which George Bush or Dick Cheney or Karl Rove are conservatives, and the same goes for Instafucktard, Andrew Sullivan, and the maniacs at Little Green Footballs and Free Republic. Rather, they are hyperpartisan extremists, cultists even, and they care about nothing but winning. What they win at is more or less irrelevant.

These hyperpartisans have been sucking each others' dicks for months now because they think they got Dan Rather fired, even though they didn't. But Eason Jordan is gone. Ward Churchill is apparently more of a threat to the country than Osama bin Laden. Henry Hyde publicly accuses George Soros of drug trafficking with no evidence whatsoever. And THEY are whining about the "politics of personal destruction"? After they've tried to make a scandal out of anything they can get their hands on?

They're going to complain about mean old lefties pointing out the fact that the White House was giving a daily pass every day for a year or more to a fake reporter with a fake name from a fake news agency who asked softball questions in order to bail Scott McLellen (I don't know if that's the right spelling and I don't give a shit) out when things got a little too heated for him, and who, on the side, was apparently whoring himself out as a gay military stud -- hey "Jeff", what do you think of the "no fags allowed" policy of the U.S. military? -- all the while professing to be a Christian?

The Left is simply starting to fight back. And we should. Make scandals out of nothing. Sling mud. Destroy reputations. If we had a more gentlemanly group of opponents, maybe we could think about playing fair; as it is, we would be stupid to do that, because they aren't going to.


The truth is out

The Jawa Report claims to have discovered the true identities of both Libertarian Girl and the Russian mail-order bride.

Ejaculation: the silent holocaust?

If there was any doubt about the real agenda of the anti-choice movement, this should dispel it. At The American Street you can read about how the fundies have taken the next logical step: looking to prohibit birth control in general:

What is stunning about all this is the growing condemnation of, not just abortion,but birth control itself. The anti-choice movement keeps re-drawing the lines where personhood begins so that, for some, even a freshly fertilized egg less than an hour old becomes the moral equivalent of a 5 year old child.

For example, this quote comes from the "American Life League":

Furthermore, all contraception (even those contraceptives that do not kill embryonic persons) is, in and of itself, a grave moral evil that civil authority should notpromote in any way.

(I especially like the bit about "embryonic persons," which is a completely incoherent concept. Next thing you know they'll be talking about "seminal persons" and "ovarian persons." Soon, "spilling your seed" will be tantamount to mass murder.)

Apparently this is all part of a larger ideology that abhors childlessness in general. Again from The American Street:

But not only is the concept of limiting, even outlawing, birth control, becoming more mainstream as the anti-choice movement gains momentum, but joining it now we see “Pro-Natalism” ... More and more, the childless (or parents of only children)are being beseiged and put on the defensive for making choices that are nobody’s -- let me repeat that -- nobody’s damned business. The theology of Christian fundamentalism is being used to give moral weight to the coercion of people who prefer to remain that way, and to restrict this most fundamental and private right, the right to choose ... to reproduce.

What's clear is that anti-choicers are showing their true colors, namely an adherence to an ideology that condemns any sexual activity that doesn't take placein the context of a heterosexual marriage. This has nothing to do with stopping abortion and everything to do with punishing women who dare to step out of line. And make no mistake: this theocrats want their religious beliefs to become the law of the land. Remind you of anyone?

Check out the rest; it's definitely worth a read.

And welcome to Dubya's America.

Google hates bloggers?

First Atrios, now all of us? Mithras (via Majikthise) is on the case:

In the past few hours, Google apparently updated its database and moved blogs way, way down the list of search results ... if it persists, this is very bad news for blogs. I have written elsewhere that blogs are only an important phenomenon (important other than for the intrinsic satisfaction of writing) to the extent that search engines prioritize blogs.

Strange indeed. The question is whether this is a purposeful move by Google -- which would be exceedingly strange -- or whether it's simply a result of a change in their algorithms. Either way, it needs to be remedied.

2/14/2005

How they really became conservative

Over at The Conservative Philosopher Keith Burgess Jackson has asked his fellow bloggers to explain how and why they became conservatives.

This ought to be good.

I imagine we'll be hearing some high-falutin' rhetoric about tradition, and family values, and Freedom.TM

You'll have to pardon me if I suspect that the actual reasons are not likely to be quite so noble. Of the top of my head, I think the most popular reasons for becoming conservative probably include the following:

  • Wanted to stop feeling guilty about being rich
  • Democratic Party moved too far to the left when it adopted its "Let's at least stop and think before we bomb somebody" policy
  • Frightened of own homosexual urges
  • Sharp blow to the head
  • Felt only Republicans really understood how hard it is to be a white, middle class male these days
  • Wanted a philosophical foundation for xenophobia
  • Got mugged
  • Lady friend murdered by Black Panthers
  • Figured if they couldn't get laid, why should anyone else?
  • Strong support for Israel seemed like a good way to hide anti-semitism
  • Wanted vicarious thrill of killing without actually putting selves in harm's way

Then again, maybe they were just convinced by the thoughtful arguments of Limbaugh, Hannity, and Coulter.

Weird

Atrios says he has been banished from the Googleverse.

Racial harmony

Via a comment by Bill on Lib Girl's site comes word of a great site dedicated to promoting harmony between blacks and whites, Black People Love Us! Its creators, Sally and Johnny, explain the genesis of their site:

We are well-liked by Black people so we're psyched (since lots of Black people don't like lots of White people)!! We thought it'd be cool to honor our exceptional status with a ROCKIN' domain name and a killer website!!

They also include testimonials from real black people, including:

  • Johnny is generous enough to remark upon how "articulate" I am! That makes me feel good!

  • Johnny calls me "da man!" That puts me at ease. It makes me feel comfortable, because I am Black and that's how Black folks talk to one another.

  • Sally and Johnny are always giving me my props on how good it is that I graduated from college and that I do not have any illegitimate children. The fact that I have never been to jail makes me a "credit to my race" in their eyes. They know my race needs all the credit it can get. Thanks for looking out you guys!

  • I work with Johnny, and sometimes he stops in the middle of our corporate hallways, but instead of shaking my hands he gives me a fist pound and says "what up." He's so in touch with the street, its astonishing.

  • I like Johnny and Sally because they NEVER flaunt their wealth in front of me. In fact, they go to great lengths to keep their valuables as well as their wallets and purses as far away from me as possible. How cool is THAT???

Check it out.


2/13/2005

Successors to pseudo-hot female libertarian blogger throne

In the wake of the exposure of Libertarian Girl's ruse, the race is on to replace what apparently is a reasonably significant niche in the blogosphere, that of a female, young, attractive-for-a-blogger, right-winger.

So far there seem to be three front-runners:

Jacqueline Passey
, who is openly campaigning for the job:

for those of you disappointed by the revelation that Libertarian Girl isn't really a girl, you can get your fix of libertarian girl politics and economics here instead. :)

In this post she assures all of us that she is truly a female, and apparently also a libertarian.Like Libertarian Girl, Jacqueline has her picture prominently displayed on her blog, but unlike LG, offers sources that establish the veracity of the picture.

Dadahead is opposed to Jacqueline Passey succeeding Libertarian Girl for two reasons. First of all, she is, while not unattractive, certainly not the kind of jack-off material that LG apparently was. Second, she has a ridiculous and discriminatory policy on her blog that does not allow me to comment there, as she is convinced that I am using a pseudonym, even though I assured her I was not.


Another candidate is Sara Swart. Unlike Jackie, Sara is not only not campaigning for the job, but her blog has actually been defunct since November of last year. But there is a burgeoning movement to draft her, led by Eric Cowperthwaite.

Dadahead is reserving judgment on this one, as I have not yet had a chance to read any of her posts.


The remaining candidate is Libertarian Girl. Having been outed, she is looking for a way back in:

I’m certain that I have what it takes to get a blog into the A-list, so long as there’s a picture of a beautiful young woman on the sidebar. Once we get into the A-list, there will be media opportunities and book deals.

All you have to do is supply photos and be available whenever a real person is needed. Otherwise, I’ll run the blog and pretend to be you
Whether or not this admittedly Milli Vanilli-ish scheme can work or not is unclear. However, she is a sentimental favorite on the part of yours truly, since the only reason this blog exists is because I visited LG's site, wanted to post a comment, but had to sign up with blogger to do so. After I signed up, I figured, hey, what the hell, I might as well start a blog. So Libertarian Girl will always hold a place in my heart.


So those are the contenders, until and unless someone else throws her hat in the ring. It should to be an interesting competition!

Words of wisdom

Libertarian Girl shares the lessons she's learned from her experiment in internet deception/satire:
One thing I learned from this blog is how easy attractive woman have it. When I had a blog as my real self, no one linked to me, no one left any comments, it was as if the blog existed in a vacuum. But things were different for Libertarian Girl. Every day I’d check Technorati and discover new unsolicited links. It was like I had warped into an alternate universe where all the rules had changed. At the rate things were happening, this would have been an A-list blog in a few more months.

...

People who are attractive have an easy time going through life and derive far too many advantages from the status quo to ever question it.

In the comments section, Apesnake takes issue with this claim, saying
There are plenty of mentally ill, or worse, intelligent people that also happen to attractive.

and then adding one of the best lines I've heard in quite a while:

Just because everyone wants to sleep with you doesn't mean the shit of this world suddenly smells like rose water.

Indeed.

Badasssss right-wing bloggers

Inexplicably gloating over the completely meaningless resignation of CNN news chief Eason Jordan, NewSisyphus beats his chest:

Message to MSM: you no longer control the news nor the agenda. You no longer dictate what is news and what is not. You no longer have the power to jam your liberal agenda down our throats.

Deal with it.

DAMN! I bet Ted Turner is shaking in his $500 cowboy boots!

What is it about right-wingers and their triumphalism regarding bloggers?

You're just some guy with a website. (Or perhaps you prefer internet tough guy.)

Douche.

The jig is up!

And she confesses.




... but still no explanation as to who, exactly, was cruising the Russian mail-order bride site and found her out.



... and just for the record, I believe that bloggers who hide behind false identities ought to be ashamed of themselves.

Libertarian Girl or Russian Mail-Order Bride?

Okay, this gets kind of complicated. Via Scott Scheule's comment on Libertarian Girl's blog comes word that LG may be misrepresenting herself. Or living a double life. See here for details.

Basically, we have an apparent match for LG on a mail-order Russian bride website. See here. Or judge for yourself. Here's LG's picture from her blog:



And here's the pictures from the other site (which includes the above):











Her profile says she is a Taurus, and "a sociable, active lady" who is "fond of sports (swimming, volleyball), dancing and travelling" and "looking for a caring, patient, family-oriented gentleman, serious, non-smoker."

It also describes her language abilities:
English: Level 3, Understands basic written text with help of dictionary, needs complex letters translated.
That I believe. As for the rest, who knows?

Blogarama - The Blog Directory Sanity is not statistical.