A Chicken Is Not Pillage

This Really Pisses Me Off To No End!

(Bonus points if you know the origin of that quote.)

Tim Tebow is coming to Montana; Kalispell, more specifically.   He's the carrot for a Christian school fundraiser in March.  He will speak of football, his life experiences and his faith.  Given his obvious charm, he will no doubts enthrall the assembled donors.  I've no problem with that.

But he is my quarterback, for good or ill.  And I'm already tired and annoyed by the attacks against Tim Tebow the person hidden within complaints against his football skill.  So lets get a few things clear, 'kay?

Tim Tebow is mostly what Christians aspire to be.  He's also what many of us wish Christians in general would be.  He is (as indicated) charming, humble, humorous, giving of himself, thankful, faithful, very hard working and committed.   There are those who've asked many times and I ask the same question:  What's not to like?  He's a good man, who may or may not ever become a great NFL quarterback.  American sensibilities have changed somewhat about what is a good man, and I think most would have been pleased if he had entered the news confab after the Pittsburgh game, muscular arms spread wide, screaming "Are you not entertained?"  (Small points if you know that quote.)

There are those who absolutely must point out that "Tebow worships a magic sky fairy ~snicker~"  Uhm, fine.  I would ask this:  Tebow doesn't deride you to accept his religion.  Why would you deride him to accept yours?

Then there are those who want desperately to believe that Tim Tebow makes them feel bad.  These are mostly the ones who just wish he would quit talking about his faith.  I see no reason why he would or he should. It's still magical thinking.  'Tebow gives credit to his God but he should make that private because somehow it will be bad - while he wins games.  Personally, I don't give a crap if he gives credit to his toilet bowl, as crazy as that would be.   Tebow followed his path and he likes it, so others want to believe that he's looking down on them because their results weren't as stellar or what-have-you.  That's mostly fear and jealousy.  If you feel bad because Tebow wears his faith in the open, then I suggest you commit to your path as he has committed to his.

There are those already who suggest that Tim's Christian piety is an act, a hustle, a grift.  Show what you know.  Tim Tebow works his ass off, and people aren't as stupid as one would expect.  If Tebow were running a hustle he would be exposed as simply as Ryan Leaf or as complexly as JaMarcus Russell.  Tebow wins games.  He competes.  If he is running a hustle to give God the credit, then all power to him.  I'm a Bronco fan.  I like the Broncos winning games.  And most high-profile wide receivers are grifters anyway ...  (So what did happen to Randy Moss and Terrell Owens? ...)

I like Tim Tebow and look forward to seeing him after 7 months of working with John Elway.  John Fox should be the Coach of the Year (though Jim Harbaugh likely has that won.)  If Tebow wants to come to Montana to raise money for schooling then good on him.  I truly don't care.  His faith is part of what makes him an exciting draw to watch.  For me, he is my quarterback.  So, bring on New England.

Here's to a Leftward Moving 2012

2011 probably wasn't the best year for most folks, though there was considerable improvement for many.  Politically speaking, it's been one of the most polarizing years I can think of.  Here's hoping for a better 2012.

We can make that happen.  Many individuals, smart and otherwise, have argued loud and long that America has a two-party problem.  We have a center right party and a far right party.  I'm not going to argue that; I never would or have.  Here's the thing, though.  Our challenge, which should be clear, remains muddied.  How do we get a left party in control of our governance?

If 2010, an awful year, is any indication, then the path would be to kill off the center right party.  How'd that work out?  Not well, obviously.  Since handing the US House back to the Republicans, the 99%ers have been held hostage at least 5 times.  I'm certainly glad we got rid of those Blue-Dog Dems in favor of truly partisan tea-baggers.  After all, partisanship is the problem and getting rid of partisans for more strongly partisan folks is surely the answer.

Or not.  How about this?  If the country has moved to the right because we have a center-right party and a far-right party, maybe the solution in defending the left isn't to attack the anchor in the middle.  Just saying ...  Maybe, just maybe, if we destroy the far right, utterly obliterate them, then maybe we might have vision left to support the left.  Just maybe.  It's easy to see that destroying the far right would leave us with a center right party in control, and doesn't that suck.  Maybe it does, except ...

You've all taken high school math, right?  If you want a function to move in a desired direction, you don't remove a moderating variable.  You remove the extremes.  It is that simple.  Remove the far right and you have a median that resembles more the country in representation.  The center right party already contains those who are of the left.  Destroy the far right, and you can't help but have a policy forwarded that better favors the middle and lower classes.  More to the point, you have a starting position for moving policy and politics towards the left.  This isn't that goddamned difficult.  Remove people like Skees, Burnett and Rehberg and you are left with people who are more pliant to your needs.  Start from the center right, and you're  one helluva lot closer to where you want to go than giving the game away to the far right, as we liberals did in 2010.

Here's to a happy New Year, one in which liberals finally decide to fight back rather than let the right take our apathy as acquiescence.

"WE Must Think Of The Children!"

No.

No, "We" really mustn't.   If there is one political argument that drives me crazy with it's stupidity, that would be the one.  "We must think of the children".  Sentimental, manipulative, ridiculous.   We must!  No.  NO.  I don't have to think of your children.

Y'see, I've done my job.  I've tried much of what I can to leave a better world to those who come after me.  (95% of those who claim they've done everything they can are probably lying.)  I've supported and voted for those who seem more concerned about people than they are money or status.  I've supported almost every effort for equal opportunity and help for those in need.  I've rejected those who tell me that Mother Gaia is more important than the folks who inhabit this rock in space.  I've been as informed as possible about life needs, human, animal, plant and the rock we share.  I've studied morality that I might be the best for those around me.

But still, there are those who expect me to accept responsibility for their failures, or their lack of will.  Here's the point, folks:  I owe nothing to your children.  I owe nothing to the planet.  I owe nothing to the future.  I pay my debts everyday.  So, those of you wailing about what I owe your children, you tell me:

Do you support those who want you to hate public workers as tax leeches?   Do you believe in welfare queens?  Do you think tax cuts for the rich are a way to help your children?  Do you support wars to kill brown people half way across the world?  Do you think unions are 'something for nothing' scheme?  Do you value the environment above the people who live and breath and work in it?  Do you value the people who live and breath in the environment more than the environment in which they live and breath?  Do you fear the national debt?  Do you not fear the national debt?  Do you watch FOX news?  Do you vote Republicant, and hate the tax-and-spend liberals?  Do you not vote thinking "both parties are the same"?

Then don't tell me that I should give a shit about your fucking kids.  I'm not responsible for the world that you are leaving them.  I've done my part, and they're not my kids.  You're the one's who fucked up.  Don't tell me I should care for your little snowflakes.  I don't, and I won't.  The point is, I shouldn't.

A Clear Statement Of Principles

After a pleasant weekend spent mostly away from the 'Tubes, I awoke this morning to much wailing and gnashing of teeth over the fact that the Congress may be close to passing a budget/deficit/debt resolution bill.  No one seems happy with it, and I'm not either, even though the specifics remain illusive.  Paul Krugman thinks it a disaster.  Booman attempts to see the glass as half full.  A valid point of contention is the call for a "Super-Congress", 12 special folk who have the ability to make or break the nation's economic future .. to a point.  That's insidious and likely not very Constitutional.  An invalid point of contention is that Congress is enacting the wrong policy, the point about which Krugman is very shrill.  I agree that this austerity push is the wrong direction for economic policy, but that isn't the claim being made.  The claim at hand is that these people don't have the authority to do this contrary to the people's needs and the people's will.  Yes, they really do because ~we~ gave it to them when ~we~ elected them.  Just ask the voters in Wisconsin.  Sometimes politicians lie.  Okay, most of the time, politicians lie.  It's often helpful to remember political reality is what it is, and saying you want to do something you fail to do is not always a lie.  That's because, quite simply, others carrying the authority ~we~ gave them might just disagree.

As of this writing, the Senate will pass this deficit reduction 'compromise'.  Nate Silver is handicapping that the House won't.  I'm not going to bother linking to Twitter because that could all change in the next hour.  But what is, or at least should be, clear is that Congress is pursuing this effort.  That is as it should be.  Not the result, of course, but the effort certainly.  What has struck me strongly through this whole debate is the importance given to one man, truly desperately, by both the right and the left.  This is all about President Obama.  We have been lied to, duped, by a meme far beyond the idea policy should be what we want it to be.  We have been duped into thinking that we have a unitary executive.  I can't count the number of times I have written that the President is the executor of the will of Congress, and that Congress is the representative body of the American people.

All sorts of progressive folk this past two days are writing that they will never again vote for Barack Obama.  I'm not disagreeing with them.  I just think they're following a path set by the right that will damage the country far more than accepting the austerity thematics/dramatics.  These folk are buying into the idea that we have a unitary executive.  They have accepted what the right has worshiped as gospel for at least 30 years.  They think we have a king we can vote for.  We don't.  In fact, we have a populace that increasingly accepts that we don't have a role in governance, and we elect 'leaders' who have no principles by which to govern.  We blame the President for not being what he/she was never meant to be.

Alex Knapp makes really great points:

Any prioritization scheme amounts to the Treasury making de facto appropriations decisions.

I think this is worrisome. But on the other hand, it goes to a trend in our politics that has been escalating since the 1960s. More and more, Congress has been willing to simply forego its role in making policy to the President. This trend has only been highlighted during the Obama Administration, because Obama, more than any President in recent memory, has been deferential to Congress’ role as policymaker. We saw that in the Health Care Bill and Stimulus Packages, and we’re seeing it now in the debt ceiling fiasco. The result is an almost desperate flailing by Congress to get the President to do something. That’s a bad thing for Constitutional governance.

...

Third and finally, however, there’s a lot of rhetoric in conservative circles about fidelity to the Constitution. Well, it’s clear who’s supposed to originate budget and revenue related policy: Congress. Not the President. Congress. All the Constitution allows is for the President to veto budget laws. Yes, we’ve established a tradition of the President putting forth policy, but it’s just that — a tradition. And not a healthy one.

That's the point that keeps getting missed with the frustration, desperation and agitation over this debt ceiling fiasco.  It isn't Obama's job to fix this problem.  It wasn't his job to fix health care, or DADT or DOMA.  It isn't the job of the President to "fix" Congress.  It's ours.  And holy crap have we dropped the ball.  'Fixing' Congress should be the clear principle we follow.  After all, it's stated very clearly in the Constitution that that's our job, our goal and our agreement by which we will live with ourselves in this country.

President Obama has already said that this debate may be the one that 'gets him fired' next year.  If the 'Tubes are to be believed, it will be.  To me, that's fine.  He's already done more for the effort of forcing Congress to represent in 3 years than any President I remember in the last 30.  He's tried to get Congress to do it's job.  We progressives love to talk about how we want to hold politicians "accountable".  Obama has actually attempted to do that.  I respect that effort.  It won't make me vote for him; I have other reasons to do that.  But his efforts speak clearly to my principles, chief among them supporting the rule of law as defined by the Constitution.  I don't like this budget "compromise", which is more of a capitulation.  But if we want different, perhaps we'd be better served by getting the Tea Party and corporate Republicans out of our governance.

I've no interest in having the same tired arguments about how corporations force every hand in the voting booth save our special digits, when we bother to bring them.  There is no point to discussing how big money purchases our politicians.  If all that caterwaul is universally true, then there isn't a damned thing we can do anyway, and all this smack talk about how Obama is dead to our principled selves is just ego blather.  Our politicians will do what we want when ~we~ remember who they serve and why.  They take an oath to serve the Constitution.  It's hard for them to remember that, I'm certain, when the electorate forgets that we implicitly serve the Constitution as well, as it serves us.  A unitary executive doesn't serve anyone, and there is strictly no principled point to demanding that it will.  That's where the Republican/Tea Party fails the principles of the Constitution.  If the American people didn't agree with them, the Overton Window wouldn't be drifting to the right.  I wonder why many on the left are so willing to follow those lemmings off that cliff.

I haven't any doubt that there will be those who read this and say to themselves "He's just a Demorat/Obamabot defending President Betrayer".  Hardly.  Turner, over at 4 &20, sarcastically asked:

Would President Bachmann please you?

My answer:  Yes, IF I could have a Congress that actually represented the will of the people, and was actually capable of accomplishing anything.

(X-posted at LITW)

Let's At Least Keep Things Honest

In a post about raising "hell" in Wisconsin, jhwygirl writes:

For every action there is an equal an opposite reaction. Those crazy tea party people! Look what doo-doo they got themselves into over there.

I'm probably just being pedantic in pointing out that the reaction equation only works in Newtonian physics.  It's never worked very much or at all in the social/political sciences.  The bulk of her post is worth reading and crowing about.  Wisconsin did good, and that's no lie.  Keep in mind, though, that the Wisconsin primary vote wasn't about the Tea Party.  It was anger at the people that these same folk who voted for true Democratic candidates yesterday elected just 9 months ago.  If there is a reaction then it was from those who 'acted' in the first place.  I find jhwygirl's post adorable, if only because she can't use the term "shit" when it's really deserved.  And shit is truly what the Tea Folk have offered to Wisconsin, and Wisconsin reacted appropriately.  This is their fight.  The rest of us can support them, with money and praise, but making the larger point that the Tea Party is facing annihilation due to their actions is a bit over the top.  Let's see what happens in the general of the recall.  (For the record, I think those six state Senators are going down.)

As most of you who have read me for than a day can well sense, I haven't brought this up without a more serious disagreement.  jhwygirl writes:

Thank Goddess for those crazy radical storm-the-capital union-loving progressives! It sure as hell wasn’t a bunch of milquetoast leftys out there camping in the capital, or marching the streets or gathering signatures up within weeks of their legislative session’s sine die to recall the Republicans and regain control of their state.

 

I'm having a real difficult time knowing exactly what the hell she's writing about here.  Union loving progressives?  I don't know how familiar she is with what actually happened in Wisconsin, but the first salvo in this progressive fight was from students at UW Madison with a bunch of Valentine's cards to Scott Walker.   When the capitol got "stormed" it was by those students and public union members themselves.    I will likely remain curious as to why jhwygirl was so intent on pointing out "progressives" as opposed to the actual unions, which organized very quickly.  Within a day of the first protest march, the SEIU and the AFT were organizing protest against provisions which had already passed the Wisconsin budget repair bill, but not it's more loathsome requirements.  Within 2 days the Capitol hill (which lies in the middle between two large lakes, yes, I've been there) was occupied by between 30,000 and 50,000 people.  Most of those folk were union organized.  So why should there be a distinction between " union-loving progressives" and the unions themselves?  That makes little sense, unless one has an agenda  beyond promoting union activism.

Quite recently, here in Montana, we had a bunch of "anarchists" protest big oil.  They acted like a bunch of buffoons, but it seems important that some Montana progressives promote them as doing important stuff.  They didn't, but the folks in Wisconsin did.  Which leads to the real quandary I have with jhwygirl's post.

It sure as hell wasn’t a bunch of milquetoast leftys out there camping in the capital, or marching the streets or gathering signatures up within weeks of their legislative session’s sine die to recall the Republicans and regain control of their state.

If that's sarcasm, it really isn't very good.  It reads way too much like an indictment.   Democracy for America were those milquetoast lefties out there garnering signatures.  The SEIU were those camping out at the capitol.  The union protesters weren't trashing the place as the right accused them of.  Are some of the left accusing them of the same?  It wouldn't surprise me.  It was the milquetoast lefties that got this damned job done.    There is more to do, and the DFA, the SEIU, the AFT and other organizations (not anarchists) will see it through.  It hasn't been radicals (extremists) that have seen this calling to this point.  It's been working people who actually care about what happens beyond dancing on tables.

Whose Side Are You On?

I originally started writing this post as a comment at 4 & 20 Blackbirds.  But the Askimet commenting software they use tends to see a comment with multiple links as spam.  So, if'n none y'all mind, I'll post it here instead.

John Cole notices what I have written about at length.   Glenn Greenwald, progressive icon, asks the question that was mandatory as a patriot oath for the wargarblers several years ago.  Whose side are you on?  I have a better question.  Do you understand what you're doing?

jhwygirl wrote a post remarkably hopeful that the GOP might be willing to move on revenue increases to solve our economic woes in the face of extreme austerity measures.  She even refers to these efforts as "refreshing honesty", though in fairness her quote of honesty refers to a GOoPer no longer in any power.  I doubted it would be believed among the GOoP faithful, and indeed it wasn't, and my response was very direct and also honest.  "Don't believe a word of it."  The Republicants currently in power don't care about the deficit or deficit reduction.  They care about garnering power, and they are willing to destroy this country to get it.  They sure as hell don't want to actually raise revenue, no matter how much ear-play they give it on the talkies.  In the comments responding to my brother, Lizard posits the same tired trope that I only see such because I am a blind partisan who can't see beyond the label divide.

the problem with how “the established left” responds to the fractured right is that the left needs a monochromatic boogeyman as badly as the right does. just look at your brother, moorcat. don’t believe a word of it, he says. he says that because his ideology appears to render him incapable of thoughtfully considering different strains of conservatism.

And with pompous pontifications such as this, the so called 'reality-based' community jumps the shark.  What Lizard appears clueless about is that this very issue is being played out in the debt ceiling negotiations.  Republicants don't care about the deficit, and they will not accept raising revenue.

The ransom note is delivered.

The president and his party may want a debt limit increase that includes tax hikes, but such a proposal cannot pass the House.

Should one think the Senate more amenable, this is Mitch McConnell:

"So there’s one of two things going on here: Either someone on the other side has forgotten that there’s strong, bipartisan opposition in Congress to raising taxes. Or someone involved is acting in bad faith," McConnell said. “We’ve known from the beginning that tax hikes would be a poison pill to any debt reduction proposal." he said.

SteveM, from NoMoreMrNiceBlog, notes what should be obvious:

I think the walkouts on budget talks by Eric Cantor and Jon Kyl, taken in isolation, make Republicans look intransigent, in a way that generally polls very, very badly. In isolation, it’s a bad political move. Voters, especially swing voters, regularly tell pollsters they want the parties to compromise and negotiate like grown-ups, not act like stubborn children. The problem is, those same voters also think that if Democrats can’t somehow persuade Republicans to negotiate like grown-ups, then they’re equally at fault. So it’s a wash. And Republicans know it’s a wash. So there’s no downside for them in acting like stubborn children. Now, if the mainstream media would even occasionally float the theory that perhaps, just perhaps, the Republican Party is sometimes a tad extreme and irrational, maybe the truth of what’s going on here would have a chance of sinking in with average voters.

I submit that when liberal and/or progressive blogs join that media narrative of how the Democrats should be able to *do* something about the Republicant intransigence, they reinforce the voter idea that 'might makes right'. It's a twist such that Republicants, instead of looking like the saboteurs of the American dream that they are, end up looking like the strong leaders, and Democrats are again punished for not joining in the right-wing pogrom against the common folk. 4 & 20 is certainly not the only website to join in that insane chorus. But insane it is. jhwygirl's post and many comments to it paint the same picture. Republicans said things we like so Democrats should be responsible for "jumping on" this opportunity that is, was and will remain an illusion. And when Republicans do exactly what they've been doing, we can blame the Democrats and the President for not altering the behavior this bunch of tantrum-driven children have exhibited since Ronald Reagan. Lizard says:

both sides of the isle (sic) work behind the smoke screen when it comes to perpetuating this insane downward spiral of austerity, squeezed productivity, stagnant wages, and obscene corporate profit, but Obama groveling before wall street is suppose to be somehow better than the scary looming alternative. what the hell does it matter when the results are the same?

So, if the Democrats capitulate to the Republicans, they lose. Wall Street wants the debt ceiling lifted, so if Democrats attempt to do what needs to be done to get that and fail or win, then they are just serving their plutocratic overlords. There are only three ways to increase revenue and lower the deficit load in any significant fashion. Support terrorism (with an immediate and complete withdrawal of support to Afghanistan, and yes the "support terrorism" part was a sarcastic poke at what will be the public media narrative), raising taxes, and/or passing a stimulus significant enough to fully employ half of those unemployed and underemployed. All of those efforts have enough Republicant opposition that they would fail.  Damned if you do, damned if you don't.  That is the Republicant agenda.  Many in the progressive community seem to have missed Mitch McConnell saying that very thing a year ago.  They will burn this nation to the ground if it gives them the Senate and the White House back.  The media are helping them do that very thing.  I'm curious as to why so many progressives seem willing to assist that effort.

They don't care about deficit reduction.  They care about keeping voters interested in deficit reduction, where the rhetoric serves them.  They don't care about increasing revenue and will fight that tooth and nail.  They have so many folks twisted in knots that anyone liberal loses either way.  I'm not partisan for pointing that out.  I'm realistic.  I simply wish more progressives were.

Relief, Joy, Sadness, Humor? YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!

I didn't discover that Osama bin Laden had been killed until I pulled the rubber bands off the newspaper this morning.  Since I don't obsess over TV, it came as a surprise to me.  Yes, sometimes bloggers still learn things from the fish-wrap.  It's really all I thought about on the way to work, and many hours after I got there.  8 years since Chimpy McWorthless told us all that the mission was accomplished, with Osama bin Laden still roaming free.  9 years since our leaders were obviously lying us into a war against a nation that had nothing to do with the attacks of 9/11.  Almost a decade since our great national commitment to invade Afghanistan, depose the Taliban, destroy Al Qaeda and capture or kill Osama bin Laden.  Whatever I felt this morning or feel now was a long time coming.  A very long time.  And now it's here.  Osama bin Laden is dead.

I thought a great deal, on that short/long ride to work, about what the reactions would be online.  The reaction from the right was a given.  Joy without acknowledgment of what it took to bring them happiness in destruction,  complete avoidance that anything significant had happened, distrust that a Soschulust could have accomplished such a feat.  Oh, and Go Warriors (WOLVERINES!)  I expected the reaction from the left would be mixed, some subdued and celebratory, some condescending and dismissive, some questioning the morality of what had happened and some pointing in any direction away from a rather significant event.  (I'd provide link examples to all of these reactions, right and left, but I'm just not that enamored of getting into arguments with fools at this point.  People react in different ways.  Just take that as a given.)  The one thing I knew for certain would be the reaction from the tinfoil hat crowd.

Conspiracy theorists, right or left, react in pretty much the same way to contrary information.  A very rare few of them will, never admitting they're wrong, change their minds and go their way.  The vast majority of this remarkable minority will simply double down on the claims of conspiracy.  Which leads us to Mark Tokarski.

Osama is dead, says Obama.

Osama bin Laden probably died in late 2001 in the early bombing of Afghanistan. His images over the years have varied. He’s gotten younger, worn jewelry, a changed his dominant hand. Who it is that has been manipulating his image we cannot know. I presume it is the Americans, as his face was a valuable commodity. In propaganda terms, he was the focal point for our hatred, a way to manipulate us into supporting our own terrorism.

Right.  Bin Laden has been dead for a decade, and now the Kenyon in chief pulls his corpse out to manipulate us with alien brain control.   I'm not going to link his BS, but then there is likely not a person reading this who doesn't know where to find it.  What Mark is saying is this.  Osama has been kept as a boogey man to manipulate the ideas of the public, and that knowledge was shared between the Bush administration and the Obama administration.

When Obama was elected, I thought perhaps they would “kill” Osama, indicating that there really had been regime change here. When they did not kill him, when Obama signaled to the world that there had been no change by leaving Gates at at the Pentagon, I knew that we were in for four more years.

So, Dumbya willingly shared this info for ... why? Oh yeah, to keep power in the hands of ... who again?  Gates?  Get real.  This info would have been far better used by McCain.  Let's track on back to our good friend Occam, who posited that when faced by contrary alternatives, the one most likely to be true is probably the one to choose.  Osama's death would have far better served the legacy of Bush than it would the control of Obama, unless one really is committed to idea of our Illuminati overlords.  Bush handed Obama the ultimate trump card (all pun intended) and Obama squandered it for no reason anyone can really see.  Or, as Occam would have it, Osama bin Laden was still alive and our Commander in Chief just terminated his terrorist ass.  I know which of those is more likely, and it sure ain't the former.

Still, MarkT is not without his sycophants supporters.  Ladybug writes:

Why today? Because tornados messed up the sync with the 2012 2nd-term roll-out? Or is something else happening we shouldn’t see? No body, no evidence, no witnesses, but a blockbuster movie for sure.

Hmm, so true.  So prescient.  So full of shit.

There is no body, but there is DNA.  There is no evidence, except that there are pictures which may not be released to 'her' sorry ass.  There are, of course, the reports from Navy seal unit 6, but we aren't likely to be privvy to those either.  But, considering that the Pakistani government cooperated, they already have been released to them.  Eventually you will get your terror porn, ladybug.  No witnesses?   How about the well known Pakistani twitterer who tweeted the raid in real time, without any knowledge of what was actually happening?  Surely a government plant.  Tinfoil, dear.  Wrap it about your cranium and then the chemtrails won't get you ...

 

Just So Folks Are Clear

Things may not be how you think they are:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(via Ezra Klein, of course)

Let Him Rave On That Men Shall Know Him Mad

One of the world's greatest Snarktopians, driftglass, is doing a series that will make me bust my gut laughing.  It might only be because The Ten Commandments is one of my favorite movies, but ...

The Ten Lessons of Rahmses.

Read It

Just read it.