Shakesville

Short Takes

Wanna read one hell of a rant? Linnet takes on the Moose. Yowza. Right on, girl.

Reason #1,643,297 (or so) why Rush Limbaugh is a disingenuous pile of vitriol-spewing lard who feeds on the fear-generated hatred he evokes from his vile army of mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging Dittoheads.

Even dead and gone, the unceasingly brilliant Tennessee Williams is still one of our best social commentators—the most recently unearthed of his lost plays takes on torture.

Lawrence J. Korb examines the Bush administration’s repeated violation of the policies established to support the all-volunteer Army. Do you feel a draft?

The Washington State Supreme Court prepares to take on gay marriage. (Quite long, but well worth the read, wisely noting, “it's hard not to foresee a time when its prohibition is viewed as archaic and appalling—as appalling as the old laws against miscegenation seem today, part of a shameful past.”)

32% Chance of Evil

The Dark Wraith points us this evening to the Gematriculator, which uses a complex numerical algorithm to analyze the content of a website to discern the balance between good and evil at the site.

Shakespeare’s Sister’s results were as follows:

I am 2% less evil and more good than the Dark Wraith. I think the difference in background color alone accounts for that. We’re probably equally evil otherwise.

Get on the Girl Train

Here’s a good example of why high-traffic male bloggers who normally don’t cover women’s issues should perhaps consider doing so:

Pharmacists for Life was birthed in part because of the number of pharmacists who are facing legal action for refusing to fill birth-control pills on the basis of religious and moral objections. With the morning-after pill already on the scene -- and the possibility it may soon become almost as simple to buy as aspirin -- members of the organization are deeply concerned about legal action that may be forthcoming against their colleagues, if they refuse to provide the medication.

For instance, Pharmacists for Life is currently following the case of Neil Noesen, a pharmacist in Wisconsin, who in 2002 worked as an independent contractor at a K-Mart pharmacy and refused to refill a woman's birth-control prescription because it was against his religion. Amazingly, Wisconsin responded by trying to take away Noesen's license to dispense medication in that state.

Because of such cases, and the potential for others like it, Pharmacists for Life is calling for federal and state lawmakers to pass "conscience clause" legislation that would protect the rights of pharmacists who wish to avoid dispensing hormone-containing birth-control pills, which can operate by abortive means -- that is, by taking a human life…

"We don't take a stand on contraceptives," said Barbara Holt of North Carolina Right to Life, "However, the national (Right to Life) organization worked on the federal level to make sure there was legislation that provided a 'conscious clause' for health-care providers and hospitals in particular so they don't have to provide services which are against their beliefs."

Mrs. Holt is referring to the Hyde-Weldon Conscience Protection Amendment, which was signed into law by President Bush last December as part of the 2005 Health and Human Services appropriations bill. The legislation grants freedom of choice to a "health-care entity," which means an individual physician or other health-care professional, a hospital, a provider-sponsored organization, a health maintenance organization, a health insurance plan, or any other kind of health-care facility, organization, or plan, does not have to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.

It’s also a good example of why women get annoyed when abortion is cited as an issue on which the Left should be willing to compromise. No. N-o. No. Because, see, they won’t stop at criminalizing abortion…they want to make it legal for doctors, pharmacists, and even EMT crews to be able to dispense healthcare services and drugs based on their own personal religious beliefs. First it will just affect women, especially women in highly conservative/religious areas, where there might not be a pharmacist for miles who is willing to fill a prescription for birth control.

But once that door’s been opened a crack, what’s to stop them from throwing it wide? Will healthcare workers be legally allowed to refuse medical care to someone of another religion? Will they be legally allowed to refuse medical care to gays and lesbians? Oh, wait—that’s already happening.

Disguised as legislation promoting one’s right to “protect one’s conscience,” Hyde-Weldon is just another step in eroding the rights of anyone who isn’t “them.” And while, as Rox says, you’re busy penning “the same 'ol Social Security post written 18 different ways by 27 different male bloggers, regurgitated day after day after day after day,” they’re coming after our rights, slowly but surely, doggedly trying to make our bodies property of the state again.

And guess what? We’re just a pit stop on the road that will eventually lead them to your door, too.

(Thanks to John at AMERICAblog, who actually writes about these things.)

Stressin'

Did I mention that Mr. Shakes and I work together?

And that we're both quitting smoking?

At the same time?

So we're together, like, 24 hours a day. And we're both kinda cranky. Right now, I can hear him crunching potato chips really loudly in the other room. I may have to go in there and put the bag over his head. That's if he doesn't come in here and put it over mine first.

So Long, John

John Emerson, one of the contributors at the always stellar Seeing the Forest, is taking a break from blogging, maybe permanently. (Dave and the rest of the STF crew will still be there.) He’s having a serious case of the fuckits, and I can’t say I blame him:

I really dread the next four years. I expect the worst from Bush -- specifically, war fever plus McCarthyism. There have been a number of positive changes in the Democratic party, but Democrats as a group still don't seem prepared for what's going to happen, and it may be too little, too late.

At the beginning of my blogging career I was happy just to vent, but over the last year or so I've tried to figure out a way to make something of my political writing. That really hasn't happened -- I still seem to be speaking to the same small audience of people who basically already agree with me, without really getting my message out the generic Democrats or the big-time bloggers -- much less the party leadership.

I will always be angry about the crappy 2004 campaign, the overpaid consultants, and the unresponsive and bureaucratic Democratic Party (and Kerry campaign) -- and especially, the New Dems who are only now finally realizing that perhaps their destruction of the left wing of the Democratic party left them vulnerable to attack. Lieberman's hot wet kiss with Bush at the State of the Union speech was just the killing blow.

[…]

The United States has been taken over by a cult -- the hardcore 30% who think that nuclear war is a fun idea, that France is an enemy nation, that the Confederacy was perfectly wonderful, that Armageddon is coming soon and is something to pray for, and that the federal government should be starved to death. They're the bad guys, but the ones who you really have to blame are the ones who don't bother and don't care: the cynics, the apathetic, the non-voters, the game-players, the media careerists, and the self-described "moderates". By the time those guys get the idea, it will probably be too late.

Go read the whole thing. John’s mad at and disappointed in a lot of stuff, all of which any of us can understand. I wish he weren’t leaving, but I can totally relate, I totally commiserate, and I’ll totally miss him.

Social Security Shocker!

My word, Senate Majority Leader Bill “Kitty Cutter” Frist is saying that Bush’s Social Security reform might be delayed as much as a year.

Hmm. Wonder why that could be?

Oh right. Despite having sent every available GOP Senator and Rep, plus all their paid and unpaid shills, out to promote the president’s lunatic reform plan for Social Security to every speaking venue and media outlet that would have them, the administration is finding that the Democrats just aren’t caving on this one, and the American people aren’t proving to be as easily swayable as usual. Stubborn commoners!

Frist's comments came as lawmakers returned from a week-long break during which many held town meetings to discuss the president's Social Security plan. Some Republicans were shocked by the intensity of opposition expressed, while many Democrats seemed emboldened by the reaction.

[…]

Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) told reporters that the past week of public forums "has proven that the president's message is not selling."

I think the GOP is starting to discover some interesting things about their supporters. First they found out the churchly types in the red states actually are the religious nutjobs Bush & Co. only claim to be, so even though gay marriage might be little more than a wedge issue as far as Rove is concerned, Dobson and his minions aren’t about to be satisfied with mere lip service. (Wow—ever since Gannon, it really is impossible to talk about gay issues and the White House without everything becoming a double entendre.)

Now Bush discovers that lying to them about his reasons for killing some dirty Arabs isn’t the same as lying to them about their checks. Lying about the Iraq War, well shit—when the half-assed, badly concocted tale of national security using dubious intelligence was revealed as a fairy tale, sure red America shrugged. Such careful posturing had been an unnecessary political formality as far as they were concerned; they were quite happy to go along with bombing the ragheads for no reason at all. Lying about their checks, though—hold on a second now. They’re sitting up and paying attention on this one, and they don’t like what they’re hearing. Go figure. Each week, the figures look worse for the pres.

You can only sell someone a bill of goods if they’re willing to buy. Bush’s supporters gave him a pass on the war because they’re inveterate racists and warmongers. But they won’t let themselves be swindled, dammit!

(Kudos to the Dems for staying strong on this one, too. It’s nice to see a vaguely solid opposition again. As always, Joe Liebertwat can lick my clit.)

Quitter

All right, I’m three cigarettes away from quitting.

They’re lying here in front of me, and I wish there were more—I wish there were endless rivers of beautiful, tasty cigarettes in front of me—but there aren’t. There are three. And then I’m supposed to quit. In fact, Mr. Shakes and I are both quitting.

I feel really nervous about quitting, for the stupidest reason imaginable—I’ve smoked for 12 years, and it’s such a part of my identity; I can’t imagine myself without a cigarette. How am I going to sit at the computer and write a post without a fag dangling from my lips, the lovely smoke curling around between myself and the monitor? I also feel really nervous because I’m scared to fail.

Now I have 2 and ¾ cigarettes left.

Smoking is, of course, the most disgusting habit in the world, and I love it endlessly. It makes me short of breath, lethargic, congested, and stinky, and I can’t imagine why I would ever consider giving it up because it makes me so happy. When I see public service announcements about the dangers of smoking, they make me want a cigarette. This is my sickness. I am a serious, serious addict, and I’m going to die if I don’t stop. Still, this has no effect on me. I suffer from a complete disconnect between the reality of smoking and my slavish devotion to it.

The insane amounts of money I spend on cigarettes goes to Big Tobacco which then goes to the GOP. I’m literally killing myself for Republicans. Sadly, that—and the fact that smoking is getting far too expensive—are the only reasons I can convince myself to give it up. And I really hope it sees me through, because when I start jonesing, there are going to be some desperately ugly moments, and I need my hatred for Bush and his corporate contributors to pull me through.

2 and ½ cigarettes left.

I may be pretty cranky for awhile. I hope that, if nothing else, the shame of admitting to you all that I’ve started again will keep me from doing just that.

Why did I ever start smoking? What an asshole.

2 cigarettes left.

Death and Stuff

I don’t have much to say about the Supreme Court decision to outlaw the death penalty for juvenile criminals, except that it’s a good thing. I don’t support the death penalty at all, because I believe anyone who commits a crime worthy of death deserves far worse—to sit for the rest of their lives in a tiny cell, hopefully quite miserable and haunted by nightmares of the horror they perpetrated against others.

I know that’s a lot to hope for, but I think death is too kind an end for monsters.

I also believe that our criminal justice system is imperfect, and that putting people to death who might well deserve it by some measure is not worth the risk of executing even one innocent man or woman.

I’ll get more excited if they ever see fit to legalize euthanasia, so people who don’t deserve to suffer and have no hope of recovery can end their anguish should they so choose. There’s something incredibly fucked up about forcing people to linger; prolonging agony when death in inevitable seems the very definition of cruel and unusual to me.

Bloggrrls (Part 3)

Okay, so maybe I was a little hard on Kevin Drum. Not to say he wasn’t wrong, but picking on him singularly when he’s certainly not the only one who’s said something less than thoughtful to get we girls’ ire a-firing, and certainly not the only one who maybe hasn’t done everything he could to promote bloggrrls, might have been unfair.

So here’s my final word on the matter (unless someone wants to challenge me a duel a la Zell Miller at any point, in which case I’ll be happy to oblige), and it’s directed to any popular male blogger who has a genuine interest in addressing the disparity between male and female bloggers in the upper echelon:

Part of the reason women get angry about the periodic navel-gazing about aforementioned disparity is because it gets old hearing you talk about it without actually ever seeming to do anything about it (with some exceptions). When the issue raises its head every so often, all of us girls say, “Here we are! Here we are!” and then it settles down, back to status quo. If you are legitimately concerned about the lack of women among the most highly trafficked political sites, stop talking and just take action.

Add a few chicks that you like, whose content you think is right on. If nothing else, doing so will help discern whether a lack of links from popular male bloggers is really the issue, or part of it. Continual wondering from the big dog male bloggers about whether it’s an issue is just irritating, when they’re the ones who have control over whether to change it.

Because if we have to read what amounts to the equivalent of, “Gee girls—why aren’t you more popular? Do you think it’s because we don’t link to you?” one more time, there may well be bloodshed.

Question

What would you most like to hear in a speech from a Democratic presidential contender (not necessarily a specific person)? Let's just say it's still before the election (sigh)--and our guy/gal is giving an important policy speech. What would make you cream your britches if they said it?

It can be serious, funny, anything. I'm just curious to hear what isn't getting said that people want to hear.

(No fair copying the opening line from my previous post. We all want to hear that--it's a given.)

The Price of Free Speech

Motherfucking cockwanking dicklicking cunts!

If Bush has his way, it would cost me $2,000,000 to say that on national television.

(Unless "cockwanking" is counted as two separate offensive words, in which case it would cost me $2,500,000. Or unless the whole thing was counted as one offense, which would cost me a mere $500,000—what a bargain!)

Editor's Choice

Incredibly busy at the moment. Will be back later with more of the regularly scheduled rants and raves. In the meantime, here’s some good stuff to check out:

Pam culls Freeperisms on the NC beating of a gay man. No surprise here—Freepers prove exactly why the existence of hate crime laws are necessary.

Linnet and Rook debunk David Brooks’ stealth antifeminism. Yo, Dave—there are some guys (and girls) who think that fiercely independent women are sexy. And guess what? They get all the cool chicks.

The Fixer on zombie terrorism and what must surely be the end of free speech as we know it.

Gary on the RNC plot to drive him insane.

Mahablog on Albert Einstein, Juan Cole, and other good stuff. (That’s not a good sell, I know—read it, anyway.)

Ezra on how completely idiotic this country can be when it comes to abortion rights.

Enjoy!

The Ultimate Scandal?

John at AMERICAblog asks:

What Scandal Could the Bush Administration NOT Get Away With?

I can’t think of one. It couldn't be anything that could even remotely be seen as an accident, no matter how tragic. Even if he were to do something like get drunk and run over a kid, he would appeal to the Jesuslanders for forgiveness, which would be immediately granted.

It would have to be something deliberate. He'd have to be caught on tape molesting a kid or killing someone or acknowledging foreknowledge of the exact details of 9/11 and telling his minions to let it happen or something. Even then, the tapes would probably be regarded as fakes, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary which would be provided by experts.

I honestly can't imagine what it would take.

Bloggrrls (Again)

At first I thought I just didn’t have enough energy to respond to Kevin Drum’s asinine follow-up to his original post that claimed “the fundamental viciousness and self aggrandizement inherent in opinion writing turns off a lot of women.” (That’s right, I’m linking back to me, not him. I don’t feel a particular urge to drive more traffic his way, as it happens.) But it turns out I do have the energy, with a little help from my friend Linnet, who first notes that Drum’s observation that a search of popular male bloggers’ blogrolls finds a distinct lack of estrogen does not lead him to conclude any of the following:

-that popular male bloggers are overlooking the women, while the women are more impartial, giving the men more links than men give to women

-that women bloggers tend to write about different political subjects than men do

-that there are different "circles" of popularity in the blogosphere, and blogs like Mouse Words and Echidne of the Snakes belong to a different circle than, say, Kevin Drum and Matt Yglesias
No. Instead, he concludes that there are fewer female political bloggers.

To that I would add that he also doesn’t consider that many of the popular male bloggers tend to favor bloggers who are already employed in a related field—consultants, political writers, professors, economists, etc.—and whose blogging is a natural extension of their day jobs (as it were), whereas female bloggers don’t seem to place such an emphasis on one’s paying gig; if you’ve got something worth saying, your bona fides as a paid observer don’t really matter. (And do they? It seems fair to point out that some of these same popular male bloggers were staunch supporters of Howard Dean, who went from doctor to politician, which is certainly a less traditional trajectory.)

So Kevin then responds to the collective outcry with this:

My critics certainly make a spirited – if anecdotal – case for the proposition that women have no problem being as nasty as men.

Says Linnet:

Kevin? This is what's called a bad way of convincing people that you're not sexist.

It certainly is. Part of the problem is the dismissiveness with which women’s issues are treated by the popular male bloggers (and their readers). In the comments thread at Drum’s place, Bitch, Ph.D notes:

As to the "why don't women read the big (male) political blogs?" question, I'll say, for my own self, one reason I don't do it is because I am so often irritated by the way that feminist and/or women's issues are completely not addressed, and/or marginalized ("I can live with restricting abortion rights in order to appeal to more voters"), or completely ignored. Which gets us back to the definition problem: women, by definition, aren't political--neither what they say, nor what affects them, is really all that important.

It’s a problem throughout the political arena (could that be why so many single women don’t vote, perhaps?), and it’s part and parcel of the assumption that we’re done with the whole “sexism thing.” I mean, hey—we’ve got a female GOP Secretary of State, right? How much can women really have to complain about?

Well, there’s the small problem of still earning less money for the same amount of work than our male coworkers. There’s the issue of abortion rights, which, while it may be an acceptable compromise for liberal men, isn’t something on which liberal women are willing to compromise…and we’re none too pleased that the men don’t back us up on that one, either. And there’s the tiny challenge we face each and every day of men who like to think of themselves as egalitarian who clearly are not, and instead of ever facing up to their latent sexism, attribute disparities to inherent traits in women, thereby making it our collective fault for lingering inequalities and implying that said traits are immutable, with reasonable rebuttals dismissed as anecdotal. Spirited, but anecdotal.

It is inexplicable that otherwise intelligent men cannot wrap their minds around how such an attitude is insulting, nor grasp that women’s issues are not tangential concerns of the overall progressive movement. The insistence upon marginalizing legitimate concerns of women is sexism at its very worst, and yet because dudes like Drum aren’t lounging around in a beer-stained wife-beater ordering their bitches into the kitchen, they somehow manage to convince themselves that they are infallible supporters of feminism (and feminists). Suppressing women’s voices, who are miraculously loud, plentiful, and in direct contradiction of the small-minded assertions that periodically bring them to the fore en masse, is not a minor thing, and continuing to feign innocence to its detrimental effects is not forgivable when there is so much evidence to the contrary.

There are plenty of boys who manage to be good to the girls in the blogosphere. The only difference between them and the boys who don’t is that their heads aren’t up their own asses. Maybe Drum and his ilk should consider coming out for a peek; they might be surprised by the plethora of interesting and amazing bloggrrls populating the landscape.

Sick Fuck

Serial killer Dennis Rader, who nicknamed
himself BTK for Bind Torture Kill

When I say what follows, I don’t mean to be flippant, but instead intend to point out just how seriously fucked up some members of this administration are…

I’m just wondering if maybe Dennis Rader didn’t find laws against his actions quaint, too? I mean, I'm just curious if maybe the women who are brutally bound, raped, tortured, and manage to survive it, or family members of the women who don't, are offended at all that exactly this kind of treatment of other humans is considered by our new Attorney General to be acceptable under certain circumstances.

As an aside, I’ve noted, as have many others, that in every article about Rader, it’s pointed out that he was a churchgoer and a Scout Leader. I could write volumes about how interesting that actually is (and common among serial killers and serial rapists), but instead, I’ll leave it to John Howard, who has an uncanny knack for summing things up rather efficiently:

So, does that mean, when it comes to being involved in Scouting, that atheism and homosexuality are bad, but serial killing is ok? Or does he just have to keep his objectionable behavior secret, like the heathens and the fags do?

A Liberal Argument

While minding Ezra’s place this weekend, I wrote:

Whatever the issue is, Democrats’ advocacy stems from a belief in equality and the advancement of human rights. Our policies are not forged by social Darwinism, but by empathy and justice. Those are our moral values, and they’re not that difficult to convey.

There are those who disagree (as evidenced by the associated comments thread), but I’ve found that when you’re actually talking face to face with one of those people we’re forever hearing about—the ones who support Democratic principles yet persistently vote Republican (i.e. against their own interests)—a human rights argument, playing to people’s empathy and sense of fairness, is a damn effective strategy. It’s also amazing how quickly people can become ashamed of beliefs rooted solely in self-interest, and thereby open to alternative ideas, when you construct a real world scenario for them in which others are disadvantaged by policies extending from those beliefs.

Supporting policies out of self-interest favors conservatives and hurts liberals, because often the benefit to the individual offered by a liberal alternative is not immediate and must be explained with nuance, which we are all painfully aware is anathema to the typical voter. For example, saying “I’m going to give you a $300 tax cut right now and you’re gonna get a check in the mail” is a lot more appealing than “Because we’re at war, tax cuts aren’t a good idea, because we can’t do both without driving the deficit into the stratosphere, but in the long term, not getting a tax cut is healthier for our economy and thus will prevent job losses and the devaluing of the dollar and the increased cost of goods and the unavailability of college grants and a whole lot of other things, which will be worth far more than $300 to you in the long run.”

The way to get past that inequality is not to constantly try to reframe each argument individually, because there are some, like the example offered, that just aren’t ever going to be able to compete with the delicious simplicity and immediacy of the counterargument. Instead, we must lead the nation away from self-interest; we are all dependent upon each other in infinite ways and it is our obligation to remind the electorate of the importance of such interconnectedness. No man is an island. So said John Donne, and so should we say. We are in this thing together, and our policies are geared to ensure that no man is ever left adrift on his own, without a safety net, without the help he needs, without a community. To vote purely out of self-interest is to turn one’s back on the belief that there is a social conscience to be nurtured for the benefit of us all.

Empathy and justice—justice for all—are our guiding principles. When we shy away from them, we fail. When we refuse to say the patently obvious—voting out of self-interest alone and ignoring the oppressed or the weak among us is not what America is about—we fail. People don’t like being called greedy or stingy or mean or exlusionary, even though they’re quite content to act that way. What allows them to continue to act (vote) that way is our reluctance to force them to see the results of such choices. Your choices are hurting other people. Your self-interest comes at the expense of others. Our priority must be refocusing voters’ attention outward so that they may see the lives and needs of others in addition to their own. As long as they gaze inward, they see only their own desires, only that which affects them. Everything else is expendable; all other rights are special; nothing else registers.

But there is a solution, if we are willing to grab it with both hands. There is no better antidote to unmitigated self-interest than honest self-examination. How long will we wait for something that most people actively try to avoid spontaneously begins? I for one can wait no longer.

E pluribus unum. Out of many, one. That is our country’s motto, and we need to take it back…and we must say it over and over and over again, until the notion that policymaking for the greater good of the many has been brought back to prominence and usurped the tempting urge to give singular attention that which best benefits oneself.

True Lies

The LA Times reports that Governator of Callyfornia, Arnold Schwartzenegger, though he disagrees with the administration’s stances on gay rights and abortion, does agree with them that propaganda is a good way of promoting one’s agenda:

Using taxpayer money, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's administration has sent television stations statewide a mock news story extolling a proposal that would benefit political boosters in the business community by ending mandatory lunch breaks for many hourly workers.

The tape looks like a news report and is narrated by a former television reporter who now works for the state. But unlike an actual news report, it does not provide views critical of the proposed changes. Democrats have denounced it as propaganda. Snippets aired on as many as 18 stations earlier this month, the administration
said.

[…]

The video shows construction workers, waitresses, nurses, farmworkers and a forklift operator at their jobs, and includes interviews with a farmer and a restaurant manager. The narrator says the proposal would permit workers to "eat when they are hungry, and not when the government tells them."

The tape makes no mention that organized labor opposes the changes, or that workers would have a harder time suing employers over missed meal breaks.

Take note, Dems. There are fewer and fewer elected Republicans these days who aren’t willing to do whatever it takes, regardless of whether it’s unethical or even illegal, to promote their agenda.

If there’s an elected Republican left who disagrees with these underhanded tactics, I don’t know how you sleep at night.

Mission Creepy

Pierce has an interesting post up that reports on the “Chief Privacy Officer” (WTF?) of Claria (nee Gator) being appointed to a four-year term on the Department of Homeland Security's Data Privacy and Integrity Advisory Committee.

Pierce has all the relevant background on the company from whence came Big Brother’s new consultant pal. Scary stuff, if you ask me.

(Crossposted at The Seventh Cross.)

Rock on Bush

Not to be confused with Rock on, Bush!, a colloquialism which might be employed to express support of the president's agenda, the header actually refers to Oscar Host Chris Rock riffing on George Bush (in case you missed it):

A lot of people like to bash Bush. I'm not gonna bash Bush here tonight. I saw Fahrenheit 9/11, I think Bush is a genius. I thought Bush did some things this year, you, nobody in this room could do. Nobody in this room could pull off ok? Cause Bush basically reapplied for his job this year.

Now can you imagine applying for a job, and while you're applying for that job, there is a movie in every theater in the country that shows how much you suck at that job?" (Laughter)

I'd be hard to get hired wouldn't it?(Laughter)

Now I watched Fahrenheit, I learned some stuff man. Bush did some things you could never get away with at your job, man. Never, ever, ever.

When Bush got into office he had a surplus of money. Now there's like a $70 trillion dollar deficit. Now, just imagine you worked at the Gap.(Laughter)

You're closing out your register, and there's $70 trillion dollars short.(Laughter)

The average person would get in trouble for something like that, right?(Laughter-Applause) Not Bush, no.

He started a war, that's cool, support the troops, he started a war. Now just imagine you worked at the Gap.(Laughter)

You're $70 trillion behind on your register, and then you start a war with the Banana Republic...(Laughter) 'cause you say they got toxic tank-tops over there.(Laughter)

You have the war. People are dying. A thousand Gap employees dead, that's right, bleeding all over the khakis.(Laughter)

You finally take over Banana Republic and find out, they never made tank-tops in the first place.(Laughter-Applause)

Warfare Class

Compare this story in the Washington Post to the one in USA Today about which I posted earlier:

Army Capt. Lonnie Moore lost his right leg and -- he thought -- his career last April when his convoy was ambushed on the road to Ramadi, in central Iraq. The injury led to some dark days in Walter Reed Army Medical Center as Moore, 29, began his recuperation and contemplated life outside the military.

Within months, however, he had received job offers from a munitions company, an information technology firm, and the Department of Veterans Affairs itself. And that's without sending out a résumé.

"People tend to seek us out," Moore said of the veterans, particularly those who have been injured, returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. "They know we'll be an asset to their companies, and that we're not going to let our injuries stand in the way. . . . Everybody I've known that's gotten out, they're not having a hard time finding jobs."

The only other personal account of a wounded veteran finding such lush job placement was also an Army Captain. Maybe I’m being too cynical, but I’m distressed by these two stories—one in USA Today featuring the difficulty of infantrymen and reservists (and one Marine corporal who is singled out as not having PTSD) getting back to their lives, where it is said that it’s the responsibility of the soldier to seek help, versus one in the WaPo featuring Army captains going to career fairs at Walter Reed where they are offered jobs by US government contractors without so much as a résumé.

I’m reminded of Fahrenheit 9/11, which, contrary to popular opinion, I felt was much more about classism in America than a divide between the Left and the Right. I get the feeling that the soldiers featured in the USA Today article are of the kind picked up in the parking lots of poor communities—the kind of recruiting we saw in the aforementioned film. The soldiers from the WaPo article…well, I don’t know if they were West Point grads, or grunts who worked their way to captain or what, but the important part is that they came out as captains, and that seems to have afforded them a certain level of concern that the other soldiers weren’t.

There’s not really enough information between these two stories to definitely discern whether my suspicions are accurate, and I hope I’m wrong, but there was an underclass of severely messed-up and forgotten vets created after Vietnam, and, at this point, it sure looks that’s yet another mistake from which we’ve failed to learn.