Our long national nightmare is over

Well, it's the season for Jesus Claus and Santa Christ. I am hoping to get through it without hearing too much of the yearly blather about the non-existent War on Christmas, a cousin to the shibboleth of Political Correctness that still seems to fuel the fires of conservative outrage (I suppose something has to, since things like Mike Huckabee's release of a serial rapist for political reasons and Rudy!s sex on the city raise nary a grumble on the right). Nothing ruins Christmas like Christians, of course, and over the last couple of years those of us with rational temperaments have had to endure a war on intelligence during the holiday season.

I worry no more. Bill O'Reilly has declared the war on intelligence a success. Christmas is saved from those "forces of darkness" that would allow businesses to cater to actual non-Christians during the holiday season by greeting people with "Happy Holidays" instead of "Get out of my store, you kike/raghead/atheist commie/dark person of indeterminate non-Christian religion-this is Our Time!" Or, well, whatever it was that privately-owned businesses were supposed to be forced to say to pay homage to the theocrats. Whatever. Anyway-to whom do Christians owe this overwhelming victory over the forces of almost nobody? Why, none other than-Bill O'Reilly himself! By jingo, Bill, you did it, with the strength of your hand and heart and your pure Christian spirit! Why, if it weren't for you, the overwhelmed, persecuted Christians would have had nowhere to turn, since they clearly have no power or support within our government or the media. But lucky for them, there was you, a man on a culture mission, making the world safe from licentious, amoral, sex-crazed anti-Christian liberals and their Christ-less allies. You know, when I think about it, that's probably the intersection between liberals and the terrorists. So, O'Reilly didn't really just save Christmas-he indirectly saved all of western civilizaion. That's quite a feat.

The War on the (non-existent) War on Christmas is stupid on so many levels that you could write a book about that alone and get a firmer understanding of the vapidity of the conservative Christian "movement." This, though, is a whole new level of dim. The ego of this man is stunning. The idea that America would become a Christmas-less nation (almost as though it were run by those anti-Christian heretics in Massachusetts) but for his tireless work is, well, ridiculous. For his support of this non-issue, he gives himself a public pat on the back. What I don't understand is, how can conservatives follow this nonsense? This little self-congratulatory wank inadvertently shows that his yammering about the non-existent War on Christmas was little more than cheap self-promotion. Beyond that, it has little meaning to him. You could say that about almost any subject he covers. Yet, he remains the idiot-king of the conservative talk-show world, the cubic zirconium in the Fox News tin crown. Liberals will generally eviscerate supposedly liberal pundits when they make fact-free or foolish assessments, or represent them poorly, as a quick Google search with the words "Joe Klein" will reveal. Yet, dunderheads like O'Reilly get a free pass, even though their ideology largely revolves around their wonderful selves and little else. When you're voting for a politician, you're forced to make a choice, even if it will be an imperfect one, and self-interest may be a part of the personality. That's just a part of the compromises one has to make in a democracy. But no one is forced to listen to a self-serving pudsmack like O'Reilly. That's a choice. That it's a choice conservatives make in such numbers is mightily revealing.

They are the wind beneath our wings

I am only a part time blogger. I'm not in an academic or politically connected field, so most of my day I can only barely keep up with current events. It makes my blog less satisfactory than I would like it to be. I would like to cover, for example, why libertarians and assorted Randroids give me a pain in my ass, or why I think the Straussian imperial project will suck America dry, or how I think the connection between private money, Christian fundamentalist theocracy, and the Republican party form a cancer on our political system. Doing that, however, takes a lot of time and research. I try, sometimes, but I have a hard time justifying to my employers why I am running down loopy documents from the AEI, for example, when I should be, you know, doing my work, which they pay me for. I have a lot of other commitments in my personal life, as well.

This leaves me only able to write, sporadically, about Republican windbaggery, hypocrisy, and assholery. Luckily for me, "movement" conservatives are the gift that keeps on giving, if by "gift" you mean chlamydia. Thus, within the last week or so we have had The Rush Phony Soldier Debacle, Tranny Annie Coulter's desperate wish to repeal the 19th Amendment, and my personal favorite, the smearing of a twelve-year-old boy. Smoove.

So, to recap: a man so cowardly he sent his maid to score his drugs for him in case the deal went bad chooses to disparage actual Iraq vets because they don't mindlessly follow the Dear Leader; right wing bloggers and politicians decide to attack the character of that highest symbol of political power in our world, a middle-school student; and, well, Chix-with-Dix Ann...what can you say? She is her usual asshat. These are amongst the leading voices of the right, lighting the way rhetorically for our great nation.

Movement conservatism is a cesspit.

Democracy at work, part II

Since the last couple of weeks have been the "Democrats as Spineless Curs" show, it will be interesting to see if they grow some testicles and do something about this:

Today, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) gave a speech on the Senate floor condemning Rush Limbaugh for calling troops who support American withdrawal from Iraq “phony soldiers.” He urged his colleagues — both Democratic and Republican — to sign a letter of disapproval to the CEO of Clear Channel.

Instead, Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) — who voted to criticize MoveOn.org — has decided to commend Limbaugh. Today at 3:16 PM, Kingston introduced a resolution “[c]ommending Rush Hudson Limbaugh III for his ongoing public support of American troops serving both here and abroad.”

What Rush has done to "Support the Troops!" exactly, beyond being a loudmouth windbag Republican with a thing for Dominican sex parties, is beyond me. Anyway, given the bold, strong leadership style of the Democratic majority, I'm sure there is no way they will cower before a known Republican drug-abusing liar.

I am so glad our leaders are spending time on important tasks like this.

Dick Cheney as Saruman

Whenever lib'ruls like me claim the Iraq war is about oil/rich guys or whatever, we're always told that we're moonbatty conspiracy theorists no one should take seriously. It would be a lot easier to accept that attitude if Republicans weren't always acting like a secretive conservative Legion of Doom.

Via a commenter at Lawyers, Guns and Money.

UPDATE: Via Digby, I see the plot thickens. A split like this would be disaster for the Republicans in 08. Obviously this is merely a guess, but I would see this trip as an effort to convince the fundies that whoever wins will toe the Christianist line just fine. Eventually, the limitations of associating with rigid, fundamentalist religionists was bound to show itself, and now it might just finally be happening. In any case, it's fun watching the conservatives eating themselves.

With people like this working for him we would definitely be in good hands

I see from Rick Perlstein's blog that Wisconsin hero Robert Kasten has joined Rudy's campaign team. He is racking up quite a crew of miscreants, isn't he?

Bourbon Bob in action:

Relates Badger State blogger Bill Christofferson, author of a biography of Gaylord Nelson, the great liberal senator and Earth Day founder Kasten knocked off on Reagan's coattails in 1980: "Kasten reportedly celebrated his victory over Nelson so hard that he was barely able to speak an intelligible word - or stand up - when it finally became clear he had won. He went on to distinguish himself as a drunk driver and, after losing to Russ Feingold in 1992, reportedly found work as an arms dealer."

A Figure of Fun

In one of my first posts, I mentioned the tiresome task of having to read tiresome "intellectuals" like the tiresome Jonah Goldberg. I think I may have to rescind that statement-his upcoming book looks like it will be brilliant comedy Iif in fact it is ever finished, or indeed, even started).

My favorite part of yesterday's blogospheric Jonah-kicking was his detailed, careful response to the fact that John Mackey is in fact a Libertarian:

He doesn't really seem to know what he's talking about (oh, and it's not like it's news to me that the owner of Whole Foods is a self-described libertarian but maybe the German obsession with organic food and environmentalism, for two examples, is news to Plumer). But that's okay, it's what I expected. To be continued, when the book comes out.

Breathtaking. A tortured, inane connection between German environmentalists, liberals and facism. I assume he is talking about 19th century German romanticism and its connection to the Nazis. Or something. In any case, now that this iron-clad connection has been made, I know that liberals like myself have been subconciously preparing for a supermarket Putsch. I can hardly wait.

The longer this book festers without being finished or published, the better it will have to be to avoid total ridicule. So many people are going to pick this thing clean that less talented writers like myself are going to have trouble getting in on the feeding frenzy.

If they're fashionable...

...do they have swinging parties? Are the chicks hot?

I am glad to see I wasn't the only one whom this article irritated. I didn't really know that there was a fashionable, intellectual left anymore. Maybe there is, and I'm just left out as always.

Anyway, the reaction of the right to Rushdie's knighthood is about what I would expect-a quick "congratulations" followed by a tirade about the Muslim reaction, blather about the left's wussified conciliatory attitude and it's supposed hypocrisy for supposedly not supporting Rushdie who fights the good fight against bigoted repression (just like those brave right wing constitutional heroes!) blah blah blah blah

Much is made of this quote by Ejaz-Ul-Haq-“The West is accusing Muslims of extremism and terrorism. If someone exploded a bomb on his body, he would be right to do so unless the British government apologizes and withdraws the ’sir’ title,” Mr. ul-Haq said.

It's a stupid comment, of course, and his little attempt at a save afterward doesn't cut it. The expected Muslim howling, riots, etc. will rightly be deplored. But expressions of violence like that are no stupider than, say, a multi-day celebration of a religious assassination in Milwaukee, for example . And, of course, they're only too happy to support denigration of Islam with a call to arms to protect civil liberties, freedom of speech, or whatever, but to do the same thing for someone insulting to Christians...not so much.

I was an atheistic teenager when Iran announced the Fatwa on Rushdie. Outraged by this kind of religious repression, I bought a copy of the book and immediately read it (take that, Iran! I'm sure the mullahs shake in fear knowing this). I still loathe this kind of mindless religious repression, and I support Rushdie's knighthood, even though I'm not a big fan of his actual writing. But it wasn't more than a year or two before this that I had to push through a Christian picket line to see "The Last Temptation of Christ," a movie that offended Christians, and they were no more open-minded about speech freedom than any Muslim fundamentalist. It wasn't long after that that abortion clinic bombings and threats entered my consciousness, and the news. Right-wing threats to all-powerful-activist-liberal-judges-who-try-to-ban-Christmas are greeted with a yawn by the right. The only reason that Christian Fundamentalist leaders haven't ordered Christian Fatwas, as far as I can see, is that they don't think they can get away it, not because they don't want to (oh, but wait, one DID kind of try).

This Christian Right-Wing outrage over the Islamic Fundamentalist Right-Wing outrage over the outrageous knighting of a mediocre writer is a bad-faith argument in the extreme. If I need my rights as an individual protected, I going to think twice before I turn to the political wing that brought us Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, Black Sites, the torture memo, trumped up charges of voter fraud as a means to fix elections, Constitutionally dubious signing statements, the stripping away of Habeas Corpus, illegal wiretapping, and a Justice Department that reshapes its mission so organizations can "discriminate in hiring in favor of people who share their beliefs even though they are running charitable programs with federal money." I'm sorry, but this just isn't the group of people that I would trust to protect my rights, or those of anyone else, and no amount of pontificating about the repressive Muslims is going to change that.

UPDATE: I finally get a commenter, and it's because I acted like a knob. I linked to In The Name Of Towelie to prove my Very Important Point, insinuating they were right wing Christians and the like, and it turns out they are nothing of the sort. Apparently reading the clearly written explanation as to who they are and what they do there was beyond my limited skills.

Maybe I should just go back to lurking.

Republicans are awesome

Or, in any case, conservatives are. As this proves. What absolute tripe.

Whatever anyone's beliefs about the Iraq war, making the comparison of Libby to a fallen soldier is repugnant. There are actual soldiers facing actual bullets, losing actual limbs and actually dying, everyday. Scooter Libby, by contrast, is a political hack, working in an office in America. He didn't bravely face down a horde of marauding Janissaries. He lied to a prosecutor to keep his bosses from looking bad. If his life is "ruined," well, he had other choices. In any case, the "hardships" poor Scooter will face in minimum-security prison will still be vastly safer than even the safest parts of Baghdad. And I'm sure that there will be plenty of well-paid opportunities in the private sector upon his release. Conservative plutocrats all over the nation will welcome such a faithful operative with open arms, methinks. Whereas the soldiers Ajami compares him to will have far harder roads to travel when they get home, what with their missing limbs, or PTSD, etc.

I shudder to think what the caterwauling and howling would be like if all of this swirled around a Democratic President. But now that the rule of law conservatives say they love so much is being applied one of their own, conservatives like Ajami are doing cartwheels to portray this two-bit monkeyshines courtier as a ruddy-faced, brawny-chested warrior who was merely doing his duty as a patriot and is being brought down by petty jealous rivals (and incidentally, I just love the little sad-face picture of Scooter, it really makes it for me). I know that for some reason conservatives believe that this "fallen soldier" needs to be pardoned. Just to reiterate what others have stated before, the American public is not following you down that road. The attempt to attach Libby to true casualties of war would be laughable, if it weren't so crude. Conservatives are becoming more and more deranged. I'm sorry that I am simply ranting, but, really crap like this is just flat-out crazy.

Innovative Conservative Thinkers

Dick Armey. Great.

This is one of those examples of "thoughtful" conservatism based on supposedly "Jeffersonian" principles that makes all kinds of ludicrous assumptions. Particlarly the assumption that

Government can only expand its scope of power and authority at the expense of the citizen.

This is based on the either-or assumption that if government does anything at all, it is automatically at the expense of the freedoms of the American citizen. Thus, any and all government programs or laws or whatever are automatically tyrannical. Any government program, no matter how high-minded, is thus a violation of the principles of the founding fathers, true conservatism which is the natural state of being, blah blah blah blah blah, and thus needs to be curtailed altogether.

Whatever. That is a way of looking at it, I suppose. Not a good way, but a way. Another way of looking at it is that the American government and the American people fashion an agreement as to whether the government will expand or contract, based on whatever conglomeration of interests can tolerate one another enough to get along and cooperate. The way we decide such things as a nation is based on voting. If we want the governemnt to do more things in various ways, we vote for candidates who say they will. When we decide otherwise, we vote accordingly. It's not a perfect system, but for the most part, it works amazingly well. Unless, of course, you believe in theories of, say, a unitary executive who can do whatever he wants without answering to written laws , and who can then, say, spy on American citizens without warrants even though most Americans don't believe he has this authority. Or unless you desire to clamp down on who can and cannot vote, through, maybe, trumped up charges of voter fraud as seen by politicized agents of government institutions. If something like that were to happen, then certainly the expansion of the government would be at the expense of the people, because they could not effectively react to it excesses. Unfortunately for Mr. Armey, he happens to be a member in very good standing with the American political party who have tried exactly these things.

Armey's simplistic "Governement equals Red Tyranny" version of freedom versus government comes up short when he applies it to health care, his chosen example with this post. Simply put, health care isn't a choice. I need it. And since I need it, I have to pay for it somehow. This is only a "choice" in the Libertarian, anarcho-capitalism, "true-conservative" meaning of the word, wherein I can "choose" to be fired from a job and lose my insurance; or "choose" not to have enough money to pay for insurance on my own; or "choose" to curl up in a ball and die. By any rational measure, these aren't really "choices" at all. Since it's accepted economic practice to raise interest rates as a mean of increasing unemployment to control inflation, which of course might leave me and many others out of work and thus out of insurance, in many ways I am already not free to choose the manner of my health care coverage. Given all of this, I might actually welcome government "interference" of some kind to foot the bill for health care. This doesn't threaten my freedoms at all. At worst, it is freedom-neutral-it doesn't affect my freedoms any more or less negatively or positively than the current system; and it could actually increase my choices in other ways.

If this is one of the leading voices of the conservative "movement," then the Republican party is even more vacuous and listless than I thought.

Withdrawing from Reality

From the New York Times today:

WASHINGTON, May 25 — The Bush administration is developing what are described as concepts for reducing American combat forces in Iraq by as much as half next year, according to senior administration officials in the midst of the internal debate.

The Washington insiders talk, the press dutifully "reports." If this seems familiar, it's because it is.

The idea that there is any really serious consideration of a troop decrease or anything resembling a withdrawal is clearly piffle:

So far, the concepts are entirely a creation of Washington and have been developed without the involvement of the top commanders in Iraq, Gen. David H. Petraeus and Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, both of whom have been enthusiastic supporters of the troop increase.

Those generals and other commanders have made it clear that they are operating on a significantly slower clock than officials in Washington, who are eager for significant withdrawals before the president leaves office in January 2009.

In an interview in Baghdad on Thursday, General Odierno, the senior United States ground commander, said any withdrawal of American troops was not advisable until December, “at a minimum.”

There is no "debate" about troop sizes or withdrawals. They will remain as they are, or get higher, just as they have each time before when the administration "debated" the future of the war. Bush and gang have repeatedly claimed that withdrawal is a sign of weakness that would be disastrous for Americans, leading to an Army of Janissaries at the gates of Washington, or Hustisford, or wherever. Their opposition to all things Democrat is predicated on the idea that they are surrender monkeys that cannot be trusted. Each and every one of the Republican Presidential candidates (save one) are falling all over themselves to prove that THEY will be roughinest, toughinest, torturingest, biggest-cock-wieldingest Real-'Merican on the block. They have already committed themselves to more troops under the requests of more time. In essence, they have dug themselves in, on purpose, and there is simply no way they can reverse this position in any real sense, no matter what posturing might filter through the media.

This is part of a game. The Democrats caved on the funding battle. This will allow two things: The Republicans can pretend to talk about troop withdrawals now, in order to take at least partial credit for the inevitable troop cuts in the future; and it also buys them time, time they need to keep it going until they can wheeze to the finish line, where they will be able to blame the Democrats for losing after they are gone. And, just like the post-Vietnam era, they will play this up for all it's worth.

Especially with returning veterans. Spencer Ackerman's article, here, details a problem facing Democrats in the future: Veterans feelings about "losing" the war. As someone who feels the war was unnecessary and futile from the start, I see the policy makers, not the soldiers, marines, etc. as being at fault. But veterans will not see it this way. Being pulled (as they will see it) prematurely will most likely leave many of them feeling bitter. And the lowest and most manipulative of Republicans will be there to welcome them with open arms.