A Chicken Is Not Pillage

Whack The Troll

Yeah, it's kinda like that.

St. Pat Was All About The War

One of my coworkers hinted today that something nasty happened at the St. Patrick's day parade in Denver.  So, after work, I dids me a Google and guess what?  It wasn't Denver, but rather Colorado Springs.  Having read the stories, I'd just like to say that I adore living in a country where a permit buys you a beating from over-zealous dipsticks who don't want *you* to carry a gun ('cause that might threaten their ability to administer the righteous smack-down).

Most days, I really do respect and admire law-enforcement personnel.  But I'm certain that the reader will understand how able-bodied men whipping up on septuagenarians just might sour my attitude a little.  Now if the Crips were fielding a float in the parade, I might understand a little paranoia on the part of a cop.  But a bunch of old folk accompanying a Bookmobile?

Now, I do well admit that the parade rules state that people couldn't march for social causes.  That would be the anti-fag clause, no doubt.  The organizers didn't want no assless chaps on display.  I git that.  But a group of folk displaying peace symbols, on a holiday celebrating a Catholic Saint canonized for bringing peace to Ireland*?  Yeah, that's a dangerous bunch of motherfuckers right there, ain't it?  Why didn't somebody in authority simply ask them not to carry the protest signs?  Would that have been too difficult?  Or was it simply just too enjoyable to use a nightstick on the hip of an overweight 65 year old woman?  Fun is where you find it, I guess.

Folks, this violence in the name of maintaining order has got to stop.  In Iraq, and here at home.  It's got to end or it will be the death of us all.  Violence is the tool and mother of chaos.  It does not birth order.  It never has, it never will.  Violence can keep you alive, but it will never 'make you safe'.  And the funny thing about brutality is that there's always someone who's better at it than you are.  The only real hope we have is companionship, unity, the group.  When cops start beating down grandmothers, it's time to say "Watch it, little man.  We are bigger than you."  Wanting peace is not an invite to predators, so why on Earth do we think it so?  I really wonder exactly what those CS cops were protecting and serving ...

*  I know that Patrick of Ireland was no pacifist, and much violence was perpetrated in his name.  But that ain't why we get drunk every March 17th, is it?

Goodness Gracious Me!

"Anger as an emotion is not a pretty thing.  I hope that Wulfgar gets over this, but I doubt that he has the capacity to do so."

Steve, seriously. quit butt-snorkling.  The Internets ain't that pretty.   They never have been, and never will be.

And Dave, I've written published poetry before.  That really doesn't stop me from being offended when my elected leaders do really bad things to my country.  Nor really should it.  Libertarian cowardice or not, you aren't that important.

Please, I know I send you hits.  I know that you rely on others for substance.  I don't give give a shit what you are a recovering 'from'.  But would you please, for the love of God, quit being such an asshole ?

Guess I've Been PwNed

I would like to publicly apologize to Dave Budge.  After all, I blew wind without accepting the due weight of his mighty argument.  Dave said:

If we lose (in Iraq) we will not engage for decades in matters of genocide or stopping international aggression in the third world. We will not, for a generation, be inclined to help in situations that resemble even our 50,000 ft attack above Kosavo. We will have despots the world over seeing us a paper tigers. We will have a world where we don’t even have the muscularity to protect international markets.

Shorter and more to the point:  If we lose, the neighbors won't respect us and we won't be able to show our face in public for at least ... years.  I am so deeply shamed for mocking such an adult and forthright stance as that.  'Course, if we really are as powerful as we think we are, and so not a paper tiger, then this little fracas in Iraq wouldn't matter much anyway, would it?

But I'm not certain that I deserved quite the thrashing that Dave handed out today, so allow me to retort.

Not that I thought there wasn’t some merit to some of the things either Rob or I had said, but because there are no substantive facts to argue in his thesis.

Now that I deserved.  After all, it is common knowledge that those who believe the Iraq occupation to be a complete clusterfuck of foreign policy and ruinous money pit must offer the proof of such things.  I didn't do that.  My bad.  I didn't show that we are now more internationally feared than al Queda.  I didn't show that the staggering debt of our continuing occupation might bankrupt the country.  I didn't prove that Iraq is in a civil war between the Shia'ai and the Sunni, with our soldiers caught in the middle.  I didn't prove that any day now, the Iraqis will come forth with flowers and praise.  Google doesn't work to show any of this stuff; I must do it if I want to even imagine these things as real.  These things must be shown to Dave or I must admit that my post lacks 'substance'.  I so admit.

I won’t rehash my position on whether or not we should have gone to war.

In Dave's defense, that's very easy to say, considering that he refuses to have one.  I might have implied that he hasn't thought the whole thing through, in my previous post.  If that's the case, then I am sorry.  Obviously, he has thought it through and accepted the most rational response possible:  don't ask, don't tell.

I will make two points: A) There is no proof that it ensured failure and, B) failure is a possibility - which I think a closer reading of the last sentence of my first paragraph allows.

Again with the request to prove the obvious, and the deep hope that denies consideration that any proof be necessary.  I will defend myself this much, Dave.  I didn't posit that failure is possible.  My thesis held that failure should be past tense.  Funny, I think I even posited that your post failed to grasp that as a possibility.  Maybe I imagined that ... yet here you do so again.

As to the question of “how” (to win in Iraq) one has to wonder if Rob assumes this position for all difficult problems for which there is no answer yet.

I am sorry.  I should be more transparent to idiots.  Allow me to assuage Dave's discomfort at my failure to root for the home team after the game is already lost.  I will put forth three possible scenarios for us to 'win' in Iraq.  I would offer up links to 'experts' who share these views, but Dave has already covered his ass poopooed the idea of dueling experts.  Hopefully, he will still find these ideas educational.

1)  We stay the course, send in *MORE* troops and force the sectarian fighting out of Baghdad.   That's a great idea, really.  When Baghdad is secure, kinda like Kandahar, we declare victory and come home.  Yay us.  We look like the badasses Dave wants us to appear and aren't we great!  Screw the rest of the country.  We win, 'cause we forced peace.  (Oww.  My brain hurt writing that sentence.)  Of course, the rest of the country would be a blood bath, but we are just too cool for school, just like in Afghanistan.

2)  We deport all the Sunni, and hand the country over to the Shi'ites.  Mission accomplished!  Except that they would like Iran more than us, and that would be bad.  It's winning, but maybe not so much.  I think I'd better think it out again.

3)  We leave our troops in the line of fire until the death squads (American trained and the best in the biz ... Hoowah!)  gain the upper hand, and then make an oil deal with the winner.  This is the most likely of all scenarios, and really punctuates our commitment.   Other nations will fear our muscular potency ... Fuck Yeah!  It might bankrupt us, but we got oil ... Fuck Yeah!

So, Dave, do any of those options look attractive to you?  You spoke of consequence; it might be time to accept a few, right?

First, it is specious at best to claim that they don’t share our desires without delineating all of the desires that we may or may not have in common - peace being a highly unifying factor which Wulfgar seems to discount for some strange reason.

Kumbaya, babe.  I'm with ya'.

As I said in my post, there is a good chance that we will fail.

No, you really didn't.  And you really haven't accepted the simple idea that we already have failed.  I'd apologize for that, but there's little I need to apologize for.

I’m not, however, willing to concede at this point that we have. Again, this is but a difference of opinion and neither his nor mine have enough facts to find a conclusion with certitude until we know the outcome.

You aren't even willing to consider failure, much less concede it.  You call it a difference of opinion.  Fine.  Reality is identity based, I guess.  Expert opinion?  Offensive to Mr. Budge, and damn the gits who attempt to bring it to bear.  Statistics?  Meaningless unless they are brought unto his sight.  Research is for the lowly opponent.  Apparently I didn't present enough.  I must yet again castigate myself.  Sorry Dave.

Not only is there a wrong assumption about those of us who are not ready to say “quit” but the arrogance of his assertion that we are not adult enough to hold that opinion reflects his unbound judgementalism. I might be wrong, as I’ve said, and I have no problem being told that I might be wrong.

Dave, you're the only blogger I've ever known who willfully derides someone who agrees with you.  Get real, just a little.  Self-reflection doesn't suck as much as you think it does.

To assert, however, that I lack maturity because of this opinion is yet another logical fallacy. I’m wrong because I’m immature? I might be wrong because my argument is weak but my maturity has no bearing on my logic from the standpoint reason.

I'm guilty of many things, but claiming immaturity on the part of someone who worries what others might think, and defends their actions because ... well, they're *OURS*?  Yeah, Id call that pretty junior high.  There is no Ad Hominem, here.  We have no special place in the world that gives us the righteous being to completely fuck up others, just because "we want"!  Your entire defense of winning was based on just such a pathetic assumption.  But I must, again, apologize.  Apparently I hurt your delicate feels.  Sorry.

I don’t doubt that Wulfgar is “getting tired” but as he insinuates, at least it seems that way to me, that he is somewhat less at perpetrating these offense than others, I would hope he would be rather speaking of himself.

Uh-oh!  Hypocrisy on Wulfgar!  Bad bad bad.  Finger pointing!

I never exonerated myself, did I, you prick?  I am tired of having to take out the garbage; and having 'persons' such as yourself think that they need to make me prove what I'm all about is really getting annoying.  Let's be plain and truthful, Dave.  You are the one who poked me with the stick.  Remember?  You did it willfully.  Terrific.  Aren't you special for having manipulated Wulfgar to point hits your way.  I really wish you had just told me to "piss off".  That would have shown that you actually had a pair, but I am ever so forced to apologize for your shortcomings as well.  Post this up:

You win the Internets, Dave Budge.

(To any of the stupidly sarcasm challenged who read this post:  I left it remarkably link free for a reason.  Do your own goddamned work, and look up the truth for yourself.)

That Not So Fine Line Between Nuance and Coherance

Fine Dave.  Just to amuse you, as you have nothing better to do, I'll play along.  After all, I've been itching to take your nuance to task all day.

Shorter Dave Budge:

Others are myopic because they don't see the consequences of losing.  The horror!  (Fear my vocabulary!)

Just so that I don't miss the subtlety of Dave's stance, allow me to characterize his position.  He is conflicted about our occupation in Iraq, as are many, but he feels we must win because it's going to be very bad for our foreign policy if we lose.  Mind you, he has no idea what winning is, except that somehow, Iraq morphs  into the stable democracy that we want it to be.  Is that a fair characterization?  (Consider the irony of that statement for half a second, and I'm certain that we've just crossed that coherence line that Dave was on about.  To put a very fine point on it, our desires mean fuck-all to another country's democratic will.)

Allow me to cast a spotlight on the hidden actor in this play.  What if, just suppose for a second, what if 'winning' isn't an option?  Come on, there's a bunch a' folk out there who've played chess, and having pulled a bold but stupid opening they were doomed to losing from the first or second move.  That's not nuance, or an emotional point of shame; it's just the simple facts of the case.  So, as Dave works through his angst regarding the war we must win, think for a moment about the idea that we have already lost.  To attack Iraq in the first place was the wrong thing to do.  It ensured our failure.  Isn't that a very real possibility?

Don't get me wrong.  Dave's not the only one following this line of 'proud warrior' bullshit, and completely ignoring the idea that we've already lost.   There's Steve, who feels that by God, Jesus and our soldier's valiant efforts, we can accomplish that which ... no one knows how to accomplish.  There's Geeguy, who accepts that we are in a mighty battle against evil.  There is a certain compelling nuance in all of their arguments, yet a complete dismissal that Iraq is a lost fight.  To that degree, they have all lost coherence.  Yeah and holy shit, I'd like to win.  But how?  Show me who to kill, and why I should kill them, and I will.  This isn't subtle.  It's in your face.  Save for one thing, Dave, Steve and Geeguy all have a great point.  The one thing they are all missing is a coherence when discussing reality as opposed to fantasy.

Geeguy links to Jules Crittendon (and what an asshat he is) writing a true fantasy of the State Of The Union address.  In his fever dream, George Bush admits defeat, and it's all our fault.  We fucked it up.  We have no stomach for winning.  Bush picked a fight with a non-enemy, and we are failing to take his back.  Sucks to be us, because we will now have to face the consequences of not supporting our incompetent Bully-In-Chief.  We're wienies who aren't willing to fight, when, God dammit all to hell, we ought to be willing to blow the fuck out of anyone who we want to.  Good God, aren't we just bastards who deserve that we will face consequence for the choices of our elected leaders!

Which brings me back to Dave.  There will be ramifications from our failure to achieve victory in Iraq.  Except that we did achieve victory, it just wasn't as sugary sweet as we thought it would be.  Take out a dictator?  Done.  Have free elections?  Done.  Get what we want?  There's no nuance to that, Dave.  There is only coherence, and to say that we have or will or can is just foolishly incoherent; we will not get what we want, because those people don't share our desires (save perhaps, for peace).  We set the conditions for a civil war.  Now, we are only spectators while others fight it out for control of 'our' destiny.  Prepare for the consequences, because they are coming and no hopeful will is going to alter that outcome.

Face the simple, UN-NUANCED truth.  We didn't poke the cyclops in the eye.  The Fire Giant punched us, so we diddled  the Cyclop's wife, and are now flailing around wondering exactly why his friends (and the Fire Giant's) are all pissed off.  We've already screwed the pooch here.  Notice the past tense, or is that too much nuance?

We can still be a force for good in international affairs.  Crittendon is (a fucking idiot) wrong.  So is that jackass Hanson.  The American people aren't as weak as they would have us believe that we are, and we *are* often willing to do the right thing.  Our current bunch of leaders did the wrong thing, and we're going to have to speak many 'mea culpas' in the future.  Too bad.  The fine line between nuance and coherence is drawn right about the same place dividing those who are adult enough to accept that we screwed up, and those who want  everything to be better if we can just save face (blow enough shit up).

The stakes of the outcome in Iraq are huge.

Yup, that much is very true.   Not very nuanced, is it.

For what it's worth, I'm not very likely to follow whatever ensues from this post until tomorrow.  I'm likely to ignore the liar from Connecticut (by way of Texas) and just play Doom 3 all evening.  To be honest, I'm getting pretty tired of the whole damned blog experience.  Too much ego, too much silly 'gotcha', and too damned little thought for others.  So have fun, Dave.  I hope this was the amusement you so desired. 

The Enemy of My Enemy

In a response to my last post, Craig, the man with whom I am duty bound to disagree about everything!, expressed reservations that voting for Democrats might help our current malaise in governance.  Being slightly lazy, I recognized the opportunity for a post, so here goes.  Craig wrote:

So, as small-government types, we're just supposed to cast our lot with the big-government types? Sounds like cutting off your nose to spite your face to me.

Dick Morris said it best the other night with regards to the whole Foley thing, and I'm paraphrasing here: It's not an R thing, it's not a D thing, it's a congress thing. People in power will always pull crap like this. Look around, and you'll find this thing going on in almost organization that has the two volatile ingredients: young people with stars in their eyes, and older people with power over them.

Now, considering that I urged a change to the Democrats in Congress in that post, it's pretty clear where Craig is coming from.  Why should he, a man that respects the stated values of what the Republicans could be, vote for those who don't agree with those values (Democrats)?  That's a damn fair question, so allow me to retort:

Craig, it has been said that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.  Over the last half century, the Republican party has turned that into a mantra for success, hence the focus on single issue voting.  In most cases, it's rarely or only circumstantially true, but in this case it is, and I have a pretty clear idea why.

The Democrats are seen through the filter of history as being the party of tax and spend, in the interests of expanding government.  The Republicans have tried to be the party of small government and values and security ... and have proven themselves failures on all counts.  Lies all around.  The Democrats appear to be liars, so people voted them out of power.  The Republicans obviously are liars, so people want to vote them out but fear the Democrats in control.  At this point, Dave Budge would have us raise our hands in despair and cry "Feh ... a pox on both their houses".  As pointless as I find that, I do somewhat agree with it as effective strategy.

See, Dave would have us reject the lies from both sides without considering the same lie that flows from both.  Both parties exist under the delusion that they are or are not in control.  A lot of our frustration, yours and mine Craig, is firmly grounded in the knowledge that they aren't in control ... we are, we the people.  So why on Earth aren't we exercising that control to put the lie to rest?  Many libertarians would have us look for an alternative party (not necessarily Dave; he tends to remain vague on who he would support, if not on what.)  The same problem remains, that the people serve a party, a collective will.

Not so very damn much.  Ultimately, the people will vote to serve their own needs and desires.  The constraints on those desires and provision for those needs is based solely on who we elect, not what.  That makes it near; that makes it personal.  Burns claims that he will provide, when in fact, he's screwed me over with a horrible debt and an erosion of my Constitutionally promised freedoms.  Tester says he can do better for me.  I don't know if he can, but if I waste time trying to wheedle out of him the admission that he will really screw me over, I tend to forget that Burns really is.

Here's my thing; I shouldn't give a crap whether Tester will or Burns is hosing me.  I should care about whether Tester will hose Burns.  I know, as established fact, that Burns is a screw-up in representing me.  He's forgotten something, however.  I'm a voter.  He works for me, not vice-versa.  My power is that I get to tell him to go home.  That's a pretty big power.

Now, we have a Congress that most of us don't trust and most of us don't like, all based on the idea that everyone of those assholes will lie to us and cheat us.  Screw 'em.  Their enemy ... my friend.  And when that friend proves himself faithless, I have another friend waiting in the wings.

Are the Democrats a solution to all problems, as Dave ridiculously seems to think I believe?  No.  But Tester solves one problem for me; Conrad Burns.  I don't agree with Tester on everything, but I know that he works for me.  And when he proves himself a feckless toady of special interest, I'll smack him down too.

We can say that the "system" is broken all we wish.  There are those ever eager to point out that we aren't getting all that we want and it's the other guy's fault.  Notice that they will always point to the broken system; liberal media, *LIES*, all politicians are corrupt, Faux News, lobbyists, money, whatever.  We'll blame everybody but ourselves.  But the one thing that we will agree on is that we've been outsmarted (except for libertarians who are *never* outsmarted).  The one thing that everybody seems to agree on is that the control lies elsewhere.  We want to believe that so badly that we reshape the founders into God-fearing Christians, even though most weren't.  We drool for it so much that we think we'll never vote for a party supported by Oliver Willis (admit it, wasn't that one of the dumbest damn things ever written?)  We really really have to believe that its the system and not us.

Bullshit.  We've abdicated our power and our responsibility.  It's time to take it back.  It isn't the system, it's us.  We have the control.  So, if we really believe that our elected officials are assholes, lets clarify who runs the show.  Joe Lieberman?  He's not a centrist icon; he's an arrogant prick who thinks he knows more than the electorate.  Gone.  Conrad Burns?  Look at that guy over there; he hasn't done a god damned thing.  We may look at the laundry list that we wish our officials to wash into beauty, but the power we have isn't to force them into our will.  The power we have is to play them into compliance.  The power we have is to get the folks who will serve us.

In this year, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.  I want my Congress back.  I want Habeas Corpus back.  I want a Congress where pages aren't sex objects for the rich and powerful, while others cover that disgusting lie.  I want representatives that recognize that the power belongs to us, not them.  You, Craig, pointed out that the powerful will always pull crap like that.  Not if they recognize where power comes from.  It truly comes from us.  The Republicans, by all admission, have neglected that.  It's time to punish them.  It's time to remind them who runs this show.  It's time to vote for Democrats.  And when they  serve themselves instead of us ... the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

In the comments to that last post, Jon, and how I adore him for his clarity, had a damned fine question to ask:

I watch the news and see other countries rioting in the streets when their politicians turn out to be dumb, corrupt perverts.

How come we never riot here? I think our Congress is like this because we make it seem as if we really don't care.

Yes, we do.  We let them get away with anything.  This stops now.  In simplest terms, we cast our lot with those we disagree with on one thing because we need them to agree on the thing:  This our country and we won't give it up without a fight.

They Hate Our Freedoms And Want To Destroy Them

And they've been ever so successful.  Congratulations, America.  You've grown up, now.  Grown into something that no one seems to want, and yet so many support.   Kind of like a banker or lawyer, only most of you can't afford to cover the stink with expensive cologne like they do.

To be honest, days like this just make me yearn for the sweet smell of Cordite aftershave, or that bracing splash of Hoppe's #9.

Do pay your respects on your way out.

Head Asplode

To the "person" who wrote the virus/trojans that my employees were clueless enough to download:

Man, I am impressed.  Setting a virtual ROM in which your mal-ware could run?  That was slick.  I am impressed.  I want to shake your hand, right before I knee-cap your pathetic ass.

A hint:  Eating icecream too fast.

Dropping an anvil on your cranium.

Dealing with the day I just had.

Head asplode.

Yellow Elephants

If you're expecting this post to be concerning the "chickenhawk" argument, then just skip on by.  Truthfully, I've never liked that line of thinking  and I've never used the argument.   (Sorry, Craig, but I think you misunderstand what the chickenhawk argument is about.  It isn't about authority, it's about hypocrisy.)   I don't expect people who bitch about crime to all become cops, and I don't expect those who cheer-lead for war to all strap on the boots.

What I do expect is that America be the Home of the Brave.  Lately, it seems to be anything but that.  Our elected leaders have called for a War On Terror, and many of my fellow citizens have been remiss in answering the call ... by siding with the enemy.  Oh yes, they'll tell you loudly and harshly how we should fight this war, and how those rascally elitist liberals are undercutting the effort by just not being afraid enough.  But read it again ... War On Terror.  The enemy is terror, so why are these fools so terrified?

But no, you might say; the enemy isn't 'terror', it's terrorists.  Okay, I'll give you that.  Then the war becomes something else.  Now that we have an object to struggle against (instead of a abstract concept or simple noun), then it becomes even clearer how so very many are siding with the enemy.  What we have us here is a war of domination, of instantiating our will over the will of the enemy.  If we were at war with the Chinese, and you offered aid and assistance to their aims, you would be a traitor; you would have sided with the enemy.  The domination desired by terrorists is obviously to terrorize the enemy, which, in case you're not paying attention, would be US.  How do you aid that will?  By being terrified.

No matter how I would try, I couldn't put it better than Bruce Schneier already has.  The money quote is this:

I'd like everyone to take a deep breath and listen for a minute.

The point of terrorism is to cause terror, sometimes to further a political goal and sometimes out of sheer hatred. The people terrorists kill are not the targets; they are collateral damage. And blowing up planes, trains, markets or buses is not the goal; those are just tactics. The real targets of terrorism are the rest of us: the billions of us who are not killed but are terrorized because of the killing. The real point of terrorism is not the act itself, but our reaction to the act.

And we're doing exactly what the terrorists want.

Repeat that to yourself a few hundred times.  "The real point of terrorism is not the act itself, but our reaction to the act."  Sadly, many (if not most) of the Republican party's staunchest supporters are exactly aiding and abetting the aims of the enemy.

I won't kid you, and wouldn't even if I could; this pisses me off.  That is precisely what upset me about the outrageous fecal matter vomited by DuToit in the post below.  It would be easy to think that I was responding to his level of hate for "evil" Democrats.  No.  What set me off was his level of fear.  He fears the illusion that those who have little control over this fight are more dangerous than those he clearly sees as incompetent to fight it.  He fears those things that threaten his stereotypes.  He fears the very strawmen that he himself built.

Personally, I wouldn't care one whit what he fears ... except that he fears me.  He possibly wouldn't, in a face to face show-down, but it's easier for him to fear me as part of a group, a class which must surely invoke terror and manipulate for control.  Those are the actions of the weak, the racist, the eliminationists, the terrified, and dare I say it ... prey.  Those are the actions that aid and abet the enemy.

What is sadder even still, is that he's not alone.  He runs with an entire online cadre of fearful terror-enablers who want you quivering-scared well beyond the rational threat; they want you afraid of your fellow countrymen.  They want you afraid of words, handy labels they can slap on any who might disagree with their terror.  "Liberals", Democrats", Cut-and Runners" ... in other words, people who realize that we're wasting time and money when we should be taking care of our kids, our economy, ourselves.  And these shivering fear junkies run with a well-heeled pundit class, and all are fed fresh terror-mush by the party of spook, now with extra !BOO!.  Of course, that would be the party in control, the party of incompetence, the Republican party.

I wouldn't give that half a thought, if it weren't so truly ingrained in their strategy.  Their recent actions prove that it is.  And who do they want you frightened of now?  What are they going to assist the terrorists with today?  Bloggers.  Liberal bloggers.  Ya' know, I'm not sure which is more enragingly pathetic, the effort to do so, or the quivering toddlers who actually buy into this crap.  Yes, Markos is the face of evil.  And taking pathetic to a whole new level, they want you to fear anyone that has anything to do with Markos.  They won't tell you why.  Read the page.  They don't want you to think about it ... they want you afraid of anyone who disagrees with them that they will keep you safe in your terror state.  They want you afraid of those who aren't afraid.

I'd love to be able to laugh at this stuff, but sometimes it just ain't funny to me.  Fear is a normal human reaction, one which we ignore at our own peril.  But terror is a tool, and rarely do those upon whom it is used actually realize that they are the nail on the receiving end of the hammer's blow.  They see themselves as holding things together against tempestuous forces, when in fact, they only hold a seam of their master's choosing.  With people like DuToit and Malkin and the AssMissile running the show, I fear for my country.  It's no longer the home of the Brave; its the home of the obediently faux-tough.

So, to get to the real point of this post, this is what I want to know:  You people like Kim DuToit, and Eric Coobs, and the Conrad Burns and John Sinruds and all the other tough guys'n'gals out there who think that 'liberals' are traitors/evil/an abomination, when are you actually gonna grow a pair and do somethin' about it?  Most of you freely admit that you've drawn your battle-lines in the straw left over from the fear-objects you make.  So why not do something about it?  You've taken up words to help the enemy, and gosh we're all so afraid now.  What's stopping you from taking the next step?  (Democrats, liberals) We're evil, right?  So stop us.  Quit cowering and prove how morally righteous you are.  The enemy says "BE TERRIFIED" and you are.  So pick up your arms and fight the side you've chosen.  Quit fricking bloviating and actually prove that you care about what your stances defend.

OR ... you can shut the **** up for once and realize that many of us want the same thing you do;  we want to win.  Most of us in this country disagree with the way the incompetent boobs in our government have prosecuted this war, and our governance.  So, instead of being afraid, how about we change things a little, give the Democratic new-blood a chance, and if they piss on us, we can piss on them right back.  All it takes is a little bit of courage.  Do you, any of you, have that?

No, I didn't think so.

Schneier ends:

The surest defense against terrorism is to refuse to be terrorized. Our job is to recognize that terrorism is just one of the risks we face, and not a particularly common one at that. And our job is to fight those politicians who use fear as an excuse to take away our liberties and promote security theater that wastes money and doesn't make us any safer.

Terror is a drug, and there's a whole lot of addicts in this country right now.

Pisses Me Off ...

This post will likely be NSFW.

This is the shit that really pisses me off.  Kim DuTwat seems to think that the people in control are stupid, but that the alternative is evil.  That's right, Democrats are the party of flame-eyed horror, seeking to munch your souls for breakfast.  What a fuckhead.  Let's us take a look at his stupidity and laugh, shall we?  This is the Democratic party, according to an ignorant asshole:

• high taxes  (How does one expect to pay for drunken Republicant spending?  I think we've all seen the truth now.  Your kids (yours, Kim) are going to  foot the bill for your stupidity.)
• the death tax  (So what!?!  Denny Rehberg passes ill gotten booty to his kids, and the state shouldn't get a cut?  Grow up, dipstick!  You're poor enough to be begging for funds from your readers and you think that Paris Hilton deserves a tax break such that your son-and-heir should pay it?  For an intelligent man, you are a total dumbfuck!)
• alternative minimum tax  (Not so fast, Cochise.  This had as much support from Republicants, as it did from the party of SATAN!!!  Whose fucking side are you on?)
• more taxes (unspecified)  (Oh yeah, that's persuasive ...  The problem is spending.  Your boys borrow.  I hope your children end up hating you as they pay the debt you so want to leave them.  You want lower taxes?  Quit voting for the fuckers who spend the goddamned money before its ever collected.  Comprede, shithead?)
• gun control  (Ooohh, I'm scared!  Yes, I will admit that more Democrats are in favor of gun control that Republicants, but I live in the West.  I actually realize that there are Democrats who *don't* favor gun control.  How's about we grow brain and realize that "the party of evil" rhetoric is just stupid support of fear-mongering on your part.  Oh, I'm sorry that you want to appeal to pussies ... I won't intrude in your back-handed wussification of the American citizen...)
• criminal pampering  (Prove it.  What, exactly, is the Democratic party platform that codifies this?  Whoops.  That's right, your fear-mongering.  Perhaps I shouldn't stand in the way of your convincing the weak to agree with you.)
• anti-scary-looking guns (No shit, Sherlock.  Everyone who is anti-gun has the same agenda because it is politically palatable.  It's still stupid law, but yet several Republicants would vote for such to this very day.  In his debates against Kerry, Bush said he would support such legislation of congress had put such across his desk.  Face the facts, fucker, politicians will support stupidity if that gets them votes, regardless of party.)
• national health care (aka. “single payer") system  (And this bad ... why?)
• terrorist appeasement  (Reagan pulled our troops out of Lebanon because of a terrorist attack.  Who is appeasing whom, again?)
• anti-military  (Prove that shit.)
• burdensome regulation  (Oh my GOD!  Doing the right thing is hard, so very hard!  Doing the right thing is a badness and this is all hard work.  WHAAAAA!  Burdensome? Are you fucking lazy?
• anti-big business  (Prove it.)
• anti-small business  (Like Procter and Gamble, which still gets small business funding?  Are you just stupid?)
• anti-global business  (Hey, Bush was all about free trade, and yet one of his first actions was an attempt to limit soft-lumber imports from Canada.  Face it ... your party sucks at the whole free-trade thing.  They're terrified of competition.)
• pro-China (Our biggest global trading partner,  Oh, please, let's piss them off and not send our economy into a tailspin.  Like many Democrats, I don't like being beholden to China, but your boys have helped make that slavery a reality.  Well done, asshole.)
• pro-United Nations  (Innuendo won't help you here.  What's bad about this?)
• pro-Castro  (Pro-Cuba.  Hello, dumbfuck.  See above concerning China ...)
• the “living Constitution”  (As many of our founding fathers intended.  Good God you fuckers are stupid.  Times change.  That's why they left us a living document.)
• the welfare state  (As someone who begs for bucks, give it a rest.  Some people can't make a living.  They want the government to help them up, as you desire your readers to help you up.  You expect others to pay you for your bullshit and cry weeping tears because  those really in need cry the same.  We're all better off when people are provided for.  Just because they don't go out and blast shit doesn't mean they are less deserving than you.  Or, here's a thought.  We can give welfare Mom's guns and let them shoot such for video.  Shooting on a government dime.dot.com.  I'm liking the idea .  I'll bet we can get a few who can out-shoot your ass.)
• Bill/Hillary Clinton  (Get over the Clenus.  You'll never suck it, so why bring it up?)
• Kos  (Again, be afraid!  You are such a terrified weasel!)
• Cindy Sheehan (See above)
• liberal judges  (What a pussy you are!)
• academia (Education ... BAD!)
• metrosexuals  (Get over your gay tendencies ... please!  This is not a political issue, it's just your feelings of desire for well dressed men.  You can combat that by being a loving husband, but apparently you wish to focus on men you find ... strangely attractive.  It's sad to be you ... really, Kim.)
• Greenpeace  (The environment sucks.  Hoowah!)
• “we support our troops who kill their officers”  (Now you've just gone off the deep end.  Most Democrats don't support such an idea, buty I'm sure you'll tell us how they do.  Bring it, shithead, I'm waiting ...)
• voting fraud  (Please, just stop with the crap.  I can post far more evidence of voter manipultion by Republicants than you can by Democrats.  You know this.  So why bring it up?)
• France  (Fucking A, you really are stupid.)
• labor unions  (See above)
• the “Bend Over” School of Diplomacy (see “France” above)  (You do so fantasize about the buttsex, don't you Kim?)