Blessing in Disguise

Ezra asks:

[C]ould it be better that Kerry lost and the Democratic Party didn't have to take responsibility for all the messes Bush created?
In a word: Yes.

Yes, it's better, in retrospect, that Kerry lost. But not solely, or even primarily, because of some benefit to the Democrats. It's better because it will, I suspect, hasten the demise of the current thread of conservatism wreaking havoc on America (and elsewhere).

Granted, a lot of shit has happened in the interceding year under Bush’s second-term leadership. As outlined by one of Ezra’s commenters, there was the “hurricane Katrina f*&k-up, another deficit-busting budget, Patriot Act renewal, billions wasted on crony contracts (here and abroad), FDA screw-ups, Supreme Court nominee follies.” But it’s foolish to think that after the Bush-led gutting of FEMA, a President Kerry could have had it back in working order in time to significantly lessen the resulting Katrina crisis, and it’s even more foolish to think that a President Kerry could have appreciably minimized the legislative shenanigans of what would still have been a GOP-controlled Congress—a hostile and antagonistic GOP-controlled Congress to boot. In reality, his constant wrangling with an extra-rancorous opposition and trying to undo the damage of Bush’s first term would likely have undermined his focus on new policy initiatives. After four bitter years, I imagine he would have been tossed out, replaced by another conservative Republican; he would have been little more than a mere hiccup in their ascendancy, delaying but not derailing their supremacy.

The only thing, and it is, admittedly, not a small thing, on which a President Kerry would have made a world of difference is Supreme Court nominations. A thoroughly conservative court will be bad for most of America, but, again, if he had only managed to serve as a stop-gap measure against conservatives reaching the zenith of their 30-year climb, a conservative court may well have been an inevitability at some point, anyway.

Conservatives have been doggedly pursuing this moment for a generation, and I don’t think anything was capable of stopping them, except for what’s happening now—an exposure of their radical and heartless agenda for exactly what it is. It’s not just that Bush is incompetent (although he is), but that the conservative philosophy is fundamentally flawed and irreparably ill-suited to a liberal democracy. Only in its wanton and unchecked application were its intrinsic defects and hypocrisies laid bare to the average American; it’s wise to remember, the first widespread revolt against the current power-holders centered around a woman named Terri Schiavo. She was the beginning of their (domestic) end, long before a hurricane named Katrina.

The conservative movement reached its ugly pinnacle, pulling America along with it, and now it’s starting its long fall, taking America with it. Appropriate, I suppose, we’re hitting rock bottom with a dry drunk leading the way. Hopefully, on our way down, we’ll collectively learn something about this particular brand of conservatism, and be a bit more wary of its vile purveyors in future.

Open Wide...

Slinking Away With Our Tail Between Our Legs

Mr. Shakes passes on this article from MSNBC, reporting on the results of a major new study completed by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press and the Council on Foreign Relations, released yesterday. The study found that, similar to the post-Vietnam era, there is emerging an isolationist streak among Americans, “with more than two-fifths saying the United States should mind its own business.” What’s most interesting, however, is the disparity of opinion between elites and the hoi polloi.

The results, which are reported separately, paint a vivid picture of an America deeply at odds with those whom it pays to do its thinking for it.

If anything, the “influentials” (the report’s shorthand for its sample of opinion leaders) are even gloomier about America’s world prospects than the public as a whole. For example, 37 percent of Americans as a whole believe the U.S. effort to establish a stable democracy in Iraq will fail, but that view is held by 84 percent of scientists, 71 percent of foreign affairs specialists and 63 percent of journalists.

Meanwhile, while 44 percent of Americans believe the war in Iraq has damaged the international struggle against terrorism, higher percentages in every opinion leader category hold that view — including military leaders and 82 percent of those who study foreign affairs for a living.

And, except for military leaders, all of the categories of “influentials” are more downbeat about prospects for democracy in the Middle East. Even then, only 34 percent of the public (and the same percentage of military leaders) believe it will ever happen; by comparison, only 17 percent of foreign affairs specialists and 14 percent of security experts agree.
34%, huh? Where have I heard that number before? Oh, yeah—that’s President Bush’s latest approval rating. What a coinkydink. I guess when you win an election based on the exclusive premise that you’re the only one capable of running a war, and that war increasingly comes to be seen as the disaster it is, your job approval would track pretty damn closely with optimism about the successful realization of your stated war objective.

In any case, though the average American ding-dong seems to be wrong about just about everything else, they do seem to have been right about one thing: George Bush is indeed, despite his privileged upbringing and Ivy League education, one of them—irrationality convinced, against all evidence to the contrary, that we’re going to “win” an unwinnable war.

Open Wide...

Fess Up, Dick!

Tim Grieve, with a bit of speculation about Woodward’s source:

Assuming that everyone is being truthful -- and at this point, in this story, that's a very big assumption to make -- the New York Times helps narrow the list today. A "senior administration official" says it wasn't George W. Bush, Andy Card or Dan Bartlett. Spokesmen for Colin Powell, George Tenet and John McLaughlin say it wasn't them, either. Woodward says it wasn't Scooter Libby. Karl Rove's lawyer says it wasn't him.

So who was the first administration official to leak Plame's identity to a reporter? Check out this paragraph from the Times: "Mr. Cheney did not join the parade of denials. A spokeswoman said he would have no comment on a continuing investigation."
I can’t imagine Scooter risking jail for obstruction charges protecting anyone else.

Open Wide...

Friday Blogrollin'

Please stop by and say hi to...

Deborah Lipp

The Happy Feminist

Mad Melancholic Feminista

Main and Central

MoxieGrrrl

No, You Can’t Have a Pony!

Thick, Meaty Slices of Brain

Open Wide...

Funny

Woof indeed.

Open Wide...

Per Paul's Post Below...

...all I can say is No Way! I don't know what that's all about. Spudsy and Mannion are both rude bastards. The comparison is ridiculous.

Open Wide...

Jebus Bless Don Knotts

And whoever made this video.

(Tip 'o the Energy Dome to the great Lance Mannion.)

Open Wide...

Ordinary Oddities

Last night, I watched an interesting documentary about kids with Tourette’s Syndrome. I’ve known two people with Tourette’s, one of whom is incredibly brilliant, and one of whom launched a baloney sausage across K-Mart because his girlfriend refused to buy it (which had less to do with Tourette’s, I think, and more to do with being kind of a dope).

Anyway, one of the most fascinating parts for me was about OCD, which is a big part of Tourette’s for the vast majority of those who have it. I’ve always had a collection of weird little OCD proclivities, though unfortunately none of the variety that would lend themselves to my house being tidy and spotless. Many of them were much more evident when I was a kid, like I had to eat everything in pairs. If I had 37 peas on my plate, the last pea had to be cut as exactly in half as was possible—no easy feat. Not eating the last pea was not an option, although if I ate only half of the peas, it didn’t matter, as long as the half I did eat was in pairs.

One of the more curious obsessions stemmed from my hating the feeling of my mouth being too wet. I hated feeling like I had a slobbery mouth, and I was incessantly running the inside of my upper lip across the edges of my teeth to rid it of wetness. This wasn’t a conscious habit, and it was only as I grew up that I realized the fixation was so manifest that prevention of slobbitude had led to all sorts of covert (even to me) behaviors. On long road trips, my mother and sister always had to stop to go to the bathroom; I never did. I was a camel. It wasn’t because of extraordinary bladder capacity, but because I existed in a constant state of dehydration, having made a subconscious connection between dehydration and having a dry mouth at a very young age. It was really only as an adult when several trips to the doctor over the course of a couple of years for various unrelated little things prompted comments about my dehydrated state that I started to figure out I had OCD-ed myself into a perpetual Saharan existence.

I still do weird counting things in my head all the time, or tracing the outlines of things with my gaze over and over and over. None of this happens on a conscious level; it’s always just running in the background as I go along about my business. I don’t even think about it much, but watching the Tourette’s documentary made me consider all these little idiosyncrasies, and how curious they are. Where do they come from…?

Perhaps the oddest thing about them is that they aren’t really all that unusual. I thought the wet mouth thing was about the weirdest quirk ever, but one of the kids in the documentary was talking about how saliva drives him crazy. Strange to find out that even at my most peculiar, there’s someone else who’s just like me.

Open Wide...

Question of the Day

Well, I bet you can guess...

Whaddaya think?

Open Wide...

Wilson Questions Woodward’s Ethics

Joe Wilson just doesn’t back down. Good for him:

Joseph Wilson, the husband of outed CIA operative Valerie Plame, called on Thursday for an inquiry by The Washington Post into the conduct of journalist Bob Woodward, who repeatedly criticized the leak investigation without disclosing his own involvement.

"It certainly gives the appearance of a conflict of interest. He was taking an advocacy position when he was a party to it," Wilson said.

[…]

Wilson, a former ambassador turned White House critic, told Reuters that The Washington Post should reveal the name of Woodward's source, and conduct an inquiry to determine why he withheld the information for more than two years from his editors and the federal prosecutor.

Before publicly disclosing his involvement in the leak case on Wednesday, Woodward was a frequent critic of Fitzgerald's investigation in television and radio appearances. Woodward has described the case as laughable and Fitzgerald's behavior as "disgraceful" and has referred to him as "a junkyard dog."

One day before Libby was charged, Woodward said he saw no evidence of criminal intent.
Woodward = dickhead.

(That is not only all the commentary I can muster, but all he friggin' deserves.)

Open Wide...

Mirthless Murtha

UPDATE: BradBlog's got video.

Drum reports:

I don't know if this is a Walter Cronkite moment or anything, but conservative Democrat John Murtha has decided that things are going so badly in Iraq that we need to withdraw now. Not on a timetable. Now.
All I want to know is why a former marine and Vietnam veteran with over 30 years of service as a congressman hates America?

Open Wide...

That Damn Liberal Media

FAIR: LA Times Dumps Liberal Columnist

Los Angeles Times columnist Robert Scheer was fired on November 11 after nearly 30 years at the paper, the last 13 as one of its most progressive political columnists.

In a published statement announcing op-ed page changes (11/10/05), the Times insisted that it is dedicated to "provid[ing] readers with a wide range of voices and perspectives," but in dumping Scheer, the paper has gotten rid of one of the few prominent progressive columnists in the country.

Scheer's forceful and independent commentary has often placed him in the middle of national debates. He has been one of the strongest critics of the White House over the Iraq War. For instance, in a pre-war column (8/6/02) that undercuts the current notion that everyone got the WMD story wrong, Scheer wrote that “a consensus of experts” told the Senate that Iraq’s chemical and biological arsenals were “almost totally destroyed during eight years of inspections.” Shortly after George W. Bush’s “Mission Accomplished” speech, and well ahead of the pack, Scheer (6/3/03) called White House pretexts for war a “big lie.”

Scheer was also one of the first columnists to call for withdrawal from Iraq, in a November 4, 2003 column that presaged shifting public opinion on the issue--though his position is still hard to find among his fellow pundits. More than 1,700 U.S. soldiers and tens of thousands of Iraqis have died since Scheer’s call for withdrawal was published.

(snip)

In an email to supporters on the day he was fired, Scheer suggested that Johnson disliked his views: "The publisher Jeff Johnson, who has offered not a word of explanation to me, has privately told people that he hated every word that I wrote. I assume that mostly refers to my exposing the lies used by President Bush to justify the invasion of Iraq."

Whether or not ideology was behind Scheer’s dismissal, the timing is peculiar. The action removed one of the strongest critics of the Iraq War in a week when the White House lashed out at detractors, following months of public opinion drawing closer to the views of critics like Scheer.

It’s not as if the Los Angeles Times has a surplus of progressive columnists. Of the ten columnists in the Times’ new line-up, three are conservative movement favorites--National Review Online's Jonah Goldberg will soon join the Weekly Standard's Max Boot and the Hoover Institution's Niall Ferguson--and two are relatively less known progressives, Rosa Brooks and Erin Aubrey Kaplan. While the Times should be applauded for bringing new diversity to its op-ed page by hiring the two progressive women—Brooks, a law professor, was hired last June and Kaplan, an African-American writer formerly at LA Weekly, was added in the recent shake-up--it's puzzling that the paper would fire its most prominent progressive columnist at such a crucial time.


Just what the world needs... more Jonah Goldberg.

More at the link, and an e-mail address so you can let Los Angeles Times Publisher Jeff Johnson know (politely) how you feel about this nonsense.

Open Wide...

The Spit Take Makes It

Check out Keith Olbermann's reaction to the new "song" by the faaaabulous "Right Brothers."

Nothing makes a song RAWK like Zell Miller.

Open Wide...

What a World... What a World....




He's melting! Mellllllting!

Bush's Approval Rating Falls Again, Poll Shows

And that's from the Wall Street Journal.

President Bush's positive job rating continues to fall, touching another new low for his presidency, the latest Harris Interactive poll finds.

Bush's current job approval rating stands at 34%, compared with a positive rating of 88% soon after 9/11, 50% at this time last year, and 40% in August.



Hey Bush, I guess that "Hey, you were as wrong as I was!" bullshit you're slinging these days is really doing the trick, huh?

Oh, and Democrats, don't think that this means you're being handed a blank check. People may be getting sick of Bush, Cheney and the other Repugnicans, but they're expecting more from you.

And he's not alone. Cabinet members, Congressional leaders and both parties in Congress have also seen their ratings slip, with Democrats seeing one of the biggest dips in approval, the telephone poll of 1,011 U.S. adults shows.


People are finally realizing that Bush fucked up royally, and they're expecting some real solutions. Now is the time for real Progressive ideas and plans to take hold. Dems, just because nearly everyone in this country hates Bush doesn't mean they're automatically supporting you.
Get to work.

Thirty Four percent. Jesus. The "Nixon 29" is looming ever closer...

(We represent... the cross-post guild...)

Open Wide...

For Your Consideration

Shaker Angelos passes on this little tidbit, of which I cannot possibly verify the veracity, but would certainly answer the question any thinking person has asked themselves at one point or another: Why would an administration so thoroughly crooked not have just planted WMDs to justify their case for war?

Open Wide...

D is Alive!

I’ve just gotten an email from the MIA Shaker we all know and adore, the Divine Mr. D. He is alive and (reasonably) well; he’s been down with a horrible case of the flu for over a week, and is trying to get ready to move on top of that, which has left him sans internet access.

Amusingly, he notes:

I did try to access your blog through the office computers, and it was blocked due to "pornographic content"! So was Paul's, and Res's and even Chemist's). We're all a bunch of evil pornographers! LOL

Good stuff.

Get well soon, D—and good luck with your move. We miss ya, and we’re glad you’re okay.

Open Wide...

Ye Olde Enemies List III

We begin this morning with a letter from the incomparable Thesaurus Rex, who also has some good suggestions for dealing with any trolls one may acquire should the promised Enemies List ever actually go online.

----------------------

Dear Mr. O'Reilly and Staff-

Please be sure and include me on your list of anti-O'Reilly and anti-Christmas blogs. I don't watch your show on a regular basis and plan to not watch it all the time in the future. I think Mr. O'Reilly is a self-important, lying, cowardly moron with deeply repressed homosexual tendencies, which is one of the reasons he is so deeply angry and has issues with women.

So, when he has a moment between phone-sex calls with his vibrator jammed up his ass, tell Bill that Thesaurus Rex said, "Your retirement is coming sooner than you think, you sleazy ass-wipe! TICK...TICK...TICK...TICK!!!"

I hope you all have a miserable Christmas and a crappy New Year.

Sincerely,
Thesaurus Rex

----------------------

The so-far complete list of bloggers requesting inclusion on Ye Olde Enemies List:

Two Glasses, Agitprop, The Defeatists, Night Bird's Fountain, ReidBlog, Daily Pepper, Thoughts from an Empty Head, The Vitriolic Monkey, Archy, The One and Only Some Watery Tart, Whatever, Me4Pres, Expostulation, the Dark Wraith at Big Brass Blog, The Disgruntled Chemist, Official Reality Check, Dictionopolis in Digitopolis, Laughing Wild, Oh Well, The Fat Lady Sings, Incomprehensible Demoralization, A Mockingbird's Medley, Adventures of the Smart Patrol, Blue Gal, Rook’s Rant, Hole in the Bucket, The Gypsy’s Caravan, Blognonymous, Thus Spake Zac, Supergee, Shorty PJs.

I’ll continue to update as requested…

Open Wide...

Question of the Day

I keep meaning to mention this and keep forgetting…

There’s an article in SadieMag featuring some familiar bloggrrls (and Ezra) taking about the gender divide in the blogosphere. It’s a pretty good article, although I’ve got a few quibbles (chiefly, that an article attempting to address a gender divide in the blogosphere was seemingly quite careless about including bloggrrls of color).

(For some good critique of the article, see Jill at Feministe and Amanda at Pandagon.)

In any case, one of the points that Ezra makes echoes a point I made in response to one of the author’s questions about female and male bloggers having different voices (though it wasn’t published):

Every good blogger has her or his own voice. I wouldn't say that women generally have a particular voice and men generally have another. That said, I think there is a conceptual divide between blogs which trend to policy and wonkishness, and blogs which tend to be less exclusively focused on the same, instead favoring broader cultural analysis—policy application and social commentary; the personal is political. There are female- and male-authored blogs in both categories, although it seems the big male-authored blogs fall primarily into the former whereas the latter is equally divided between female and male authors. A generalization to be sure, but I think the conceptual differences separate the blogosphere more rigidly than gender specifically.

Maybe I’m just spectacularly tone deaf, because I constantly mistake bloggers for their opposite sex (and more often than the other way around, I think men are women), although people get Paul and me mixed up around here all the time, but maybe that’s just because Paul’s such a girl and still plays with Barbies.

In all seriousness, however, not a few of the emails I’ve received criticizing my insistence on using foul language have also accused me of being a man posing as a woman.

Anyway, what do you think—do female and male bloggers have obvious differences in their voices? Is the wonks vs. writers divide both Ezra and I identified touching on something you’ve noticed, or are we full of shit? Any other thoughts on the topic?

Open Wide...

Hadley

Raw Story is reporting that Plame was outed to Woodward by National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley.

It was bad enough when I thought Rove and Libby (high-ranking hacks, but hacks nonetheless) were the big players in this mess, but I have to admit, when I saw Hadley’s name, I felt sick to my stomach. National Security Adviser. Really and truly fucked up.

Open Wide...

Ye Olde Enemies List, II

The list of bloggers who have written their “Dear Bill” letters is in the post below, and I’ll keep updating it as long as people send me links.

I just wanted to excerpt some of the truly hilarious lines from some of the linked posts…

“I would like to say that, as a matter of balance, your television show has been a part of my nightly viewing habits, but that would be grossly dishonest. Truth to tell, I cannot abide the sound of your nasally, pedantic voice for more than a few minutes at a time, lest I start projectile vomiting…”

“I also once sent an email to The Factor. You were doing a segment on cameras in schools, and you argued that having cameras in school would reduce bullying. I offered the counter argument that you have cameras on you all the time, to no apparent effect. Sadly, you didn't air it.”

“I look forward to getting a copy of this ‘enemies list’ if only to find some nice new reading material.”

“P.P.P.S. - Did I mention that I hate Christmas?”

“I have a well-documented history of anti-war writings and try never to miss an opportunity to propagandize my family, friends and whomever else I can find with my peacenik, socialist and dangerously hilarious guttersnipery, especially when it involves calling you a misogynistic fraud, which I already did twice today.”

And courtesy of the Dark Wraith:


Keep ’em coming, Shakers.

Open Wide...