A Chicken Is Not Pillage

Spittle Flecked Freak Out

I had thought by now that Dave Budge would have learned to distrust anything coming from Don Surber, (patron saint of mongoloid drama queens).  But, Sadly, No! (heh!)

This time, old Don's got his bloomers in a wad because the NRA told him to bunch up, bend over and take his man medicine that bad men want bad things for him.  Don states,

Massachusetts legislators seek to remove toxic chemicals from ammo.

Just because I know that it bugs Dave that the funny folk are more salient than he, I must promote the phrase Sadly, No!.  That isn't what the proposed bills state at all.  Despite what Surber is willing to swallow from the NRA, what the proposed bills actually state is the Mass. government will, by all due law, investigate and promote alternatives to known toxic chemicals.  Don't believe me?  Do what Budge and Surber failed to do, and read the bloody things.  You'll notice, there isn't one thing in those proposals that would, as the NRA puts it,

virtually shut down all shooting ranges as well as ban the sale and use of lead ammunition for self-defense, hunting and target practice in Massachusetts. 

Could these things happen? It's possible.  But please notice that the fact checking and financial feasibility provisions are already built into the proposals.  In other words, bullets aren't likely to change because that change would adversely affect the manufacture and sale of the product.

It's not surprising that the NRA would chase this vaporous fear.  They have become fear mongering money grubbers manipulating the stupid for their benefit.  What is surprising is that Don Surber would be stupid enough to snag the chum and think it a banquet.  (Okay, it isn't that surprising.)  What is more surprising is that Dave Budge would follow the lead of the head lemming, Don Surber, without checking and/or balancing his input.   Dave must truly think the rest of us  stupid, or worse, he considers us more stupid than Don Surber.

I seem to remember a wise man asking the question:  who is more foolish, the Fool or the Fool who follows him.  It is almost painful controlling my laughter as I write ... you followed Don Surber, Dave ...

Even When He Claims To Be Right, He's Wrong.

Steve levels the "Gotcha" on Jay Stevens.

Jay Stevens of Left in the West thinks that he is vindicated by the Missoulian article about the Justice Department probe of Burns had been "chilled." When I saw the headline, I thought, could it be that I was wrong? But then I read the article and realized that it was the usual low quality of analysis that passes for "professional journalism" these days. The ruling that the article mentions relates to Rep. William Jefferson, D-LA who objected to the taking of documents from his office and home by the FBI. The Appeals Court ruled that under the Speech and Debate clause, those are protected and could not be seized.

And this Steve knew all along because of of his acute sense of law.  Only one problem.  He apparently didn't read the article well enough.

(Burns' Lawyer) Caccia did say that an article Friday in the Washington Post about the end of the Burns investigation summarized Justice's viewpoint on the matter. The article said that unlike others being prosecuted, Burns was not accused of accepting personal gifts from Abramoff.

It also noted that Justice lawyers said two weeks ago that an August decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit could impede remaining aspects of the Abramoff investigation.

It appears the headline (and Steve's delusion of poor analysis) didn't come from Jay, was only reported by the Missoulian, and really came from an article touted by Conrad Burns' own lawyer.  Jay, in asking his hypothetical question, was precisely accurate.  So, completely ignoring the question of exactly what Jay Steven's was supposed to be 'vindicated' of,  it seems that Steve's real disagreement isn't with Jay, or the Missoulian, but with his own reading comprehension.

But then, I think we all knew this was going to happen.

Magic Words

Maybe it's the season, but I believe in magic right now.  Just look at the people who wet themselves at the mere invocation of the name "George Soros".

Can I Has Likes?

Oh yeah, let's placate other peoples.  That's what the last 5 years of our foreign policy have been about ... no doubts.

*Snort*

Pull your head out of your ass, Budge.  You call the Congress' resolutions "meaningless" and then crawl out from under your greasy counter to claim a non-binding resolution as the "downward slide".  Woe!  Woe is Budge.  *Weep a tear*.  You know that the Gateway Pundit is full of crap, here.  Iraq is not one fucking thing like Morocco or Algiers.  The government of Iraq doesn't work ... period.  Biden wants some fix, and he may be right or wrong.  But only a shit-heal such as yourself would blame the Democrats for screwing the international situation up.   

You were told correct.  GW is destabilizing the entire world opinion, but you want to blame Congress.  Cool ... whatever.  And now I'm going to watch as the Budglet excuses the administration and calls us all idiots ... you know ... those of us who actually called Iraq a clusterfuck before we ever invaded.  Cause, ya' know, it's all about the now, and not about the "then" ... the then when it might have actually mattered!    All hail the Budge, master of 20-20 hindsight, while blaming it forward.

No wonder I always feel sick to my stomach ...

Never Misunderestimate

I really think that Atrios is wrong, here.

Perhaps someone else has made this observation, but it occurs to me that George Bush has completely undercut the Republican party's war on government, a key pillar of their brand. You can't spin a story about how the all powerful macho gov't, headed by commander codpiece, is going to take care of everything and keep you safe while simultaneously disparaging government in every other way. The narratives collide and become incoherent. So, yes, attacks on "socialized medicine" or whatever just don't resonate like they used to.

He's wrong in that such narratives don't have to 'resonate'.  They only have to confirm.  There's been no lack of writing about comparative values recently.  Steve, rather tritely, accepts the butt-ignorant thesis that 'liberals' dismiss truth for more important values (silly liberals).  Dave suggests that liberal values are the core values of fascism, when compared to American ideals of Freedom and heart-tugging bumper-stickers.  There's a rather common theme underlying it all.  That the other  (libruls, Democrats, hand-wringing socializing pussycats and anyone that thinks idiots actually exist beyond the dread left) are more extreme and dangerous than the Daddy state.  That's a given of identity politics, going right back to the confirmed thesis of "you are either with us, or with the terrorists" (not us).

People question values all the time.  They mull policy, to whatever degree they understand it.  They studiously consider moral and personal impact of change (bidden and not).  And they make decisions ... inside that box.  And as the right is so very fond of saying "actions have consequences".  Yes, they do, personal consequences if not public, and that's the meat of the dish.  When one decides to support policy A, they don't mull Hobbesian repercussions (though many in the blog-o-world  laughably might claim to.)  It would be shallow to argue that people even weigh consequence against self-interest.  People favor self-damaging policy all the fricking time (knowingly or unknowingly, though there's likely some pesky ego critter who will always assume that for you it's unknowing and themselves 'enlightened'.)    No, no no. The line in the sand is drawn much closer to the naked skin.  When we decide on such externalities it is invariably swayed by who that image makes us to ourselves.

I know many good folks who would argue that I just wrote "we decide based on who we are".  Nope, I didn't.  I wrote that we are what we decide, and subsequent decisions will either confirm or deny that.  Exhibit A:  there's a dude who writes, regarding the S-CHIP debate,

For the record, I’m against CHIP root and branch. That doesn’t mean that I’m against helping those in need. I would endorse a system of direct subsidies to those in need if it expanded competition and choice

Fair enough.  As logically inconsistent as all get out, but fair, I guess.  He is against policy that helps those in need, but he isn't against the value of helping those in need ... if it confirms his other ideals.  The import is fairly clear.  His claim focus is the gradation of differing values, but what is objectively at stake is what he desires to see as himself ... a guy who isn't against helping those in need, even though he quite clearly just wrote that he is.  CHIP quite clearly helps those in need, but it doesn't confirm his identity by subscribing to his "values", hence he's against CHIP (and helping those in need).  Kind of a paradox, isn't it?

A CHIP type program that favored this person's values would 'resonate' with him, I've no doubt.  But at that point, it isn't about doing what should or needs to be done.  It's about confirming the correctness of one's view of themselves.

Take a wider look.  The vast majority of Americans favor the S-CHIP.  No problem.  But as the exampled individual points out, they favor the S-CHIP as long as it doesn't violate their sense of identity.  It should only be used for the poor and needy ... as long as the word "needy" doesn't get threatening.  As long as people feel that they're not being taken advantage of, they will espouse the virtues of caring for the children.  Tsk.  It's not about the children.  It's about identity.  We all want what's right.  But more than that, we all want to see ourselves as wanting what's right ... even if we don't.

And that's why Atrios is wrong.  A message can resonate, but will only cause action if it confirms identity.  GW and the wacko-sphere don't need to send a resonant message.  They only need to scare people about who they are.

A well known pundit attacks a 12-year old and his family, and all that need to be shown is that they might be gaming the system better than most.  Yeah, MM and her gang of flying monkeys look like assholes, but ... Suddenly all these people who are *in favor* of helping the needy are concerned about the definition of "poor".

Another well known pundit calls Jews imperfect, and implies that they need to be converted to Christianity (no word on whether we need to kill their leaders first).  And that's just okay, as long as it 1) annoys libruls, and 2)  doesn't upset the love of Israel ... because we all love Israel, ya know, don't we?

Another well known pundit has a come-to-Jesus moment while dining at a Black restaurant  and *holy shit* it's positively civilized!  Some racists take offense, but we don't see color here, so lets sweep that under the rug for awhile.

There are those who argue that we must stay in Iraq or we will appear weak and questionable in our resolve.  And we won't look like the Mistress Dominatrix that has so many Washington pundits a-quiver.  Some of these folks seem to think that spending on a fool's errand is bad, but they support this crap anyway.   To not do so would be ... weak?  I haven't a clue.  But it is obviously about their self-image, and has nothing to do with death and destruction and more of the same.

Hehehe.  No.  The right wing smear machinery will not damage brand Republican.  Because Brand Republican has a lock on identity.  Follow the Democrats and be uncertain and fearful.  Follow the GOP and you are right about everything, even when you're wrong.  Reagan established that, and he couldn't have damaged the country more.  9/11 gave legitimacy to the idea that our identities could be challenged, and we must be on guard against that very thing.  With us (tiny little me) or against us (huge frightening you).  No message need resonate from such a group who believe this.  They have no need to trade in such.  They have something better.  They have fear.  They can confirm who you are against what frightens you.  Souls have been  sold for such comfort.

Too Delicious to Pass Up

Mr. Andy Hammond thinks me "upset" because he podcast a righteous and forthright paladin's defense of the noble Limbaugh thing.  "Upset" is not the word I would use.  ROTFLMAO is probably more appropriate.  And yet, having gird himself with the armor of cardboard, and drawn the butter-knife of dim, Andy comes to Rush's defense yet again.  This is just too funny.  You gotta' read it.

I post here, my response:

"Upset"? Not likely, little camper. Your podcast was the best laugh I've had in a couple of days.

Andy, the adults among us like to consider what we call "free-will". Now I'll forgive you for not considering the obvious (for a second) and just show that you haven't thought things through. Rush is claiming, quite clearly, that McGough is being manipulated by ... whom? He chose to do the ad for VoteVets. You get that, right?

But no, to Rush (and you) he was lied to and manipulated into "strapping those lies to his belt, sending him out into as many people as he can walk into". How exactly are we supposed to interpret that except as a direct analogue of a suicide bomber? Only one problem. McGough is a willing member of VoteVets, and chose to do the ad. So I offer you a choice, 'Andrew' was Rush calling him stupid or crazy?

No, you're right. Rush Butt-pimple doesn't want people looking at what McGough said at all. He wants us to dismiss him. He wants folks to focus on what McGough (feeble-minded as he is) was forced to do by VoteVets and (in one of your stupider claims) MoveOn. Let me boil this down to a level even a dunce like you can comprehend: an analogy, if it is to be taken seriously, means that two circumstances are the same. You write:

Sure, (Rush) uses the analogy of a suicide bomber

But then, idiotically, you write:

But (Rush) never calls him a suicide bomber

Go back to Sesame Street, Andy, and you will see that one of these things is not like the other even though they must be according to Rush, and you. Even McGough, poor slave to MoveOn (though they had not one thing to do with this), understands through his dim manipulated will (the world according to Andy) that Rush likened him to (called him) a suicide bomber, with the target of the explosive being the poor defenseless fat-ass Viagra lovin' baby-rapin' Oxy-demented clown Rush Limbaugh. After reading this in that light can you still wonder why I'm laughing at you?

And all I really wanted you to do is the one thing you avoid like the plague. Answer the question, Andy. Why are you defending Rush Limbaugh for saying something stupid? You could have shrugged it off. You could have said he was wrong and let it go. But no, the deeper he digs, the harder you work to sharpen the shovel. Why Andy? What does Rush Limbaugh mean to you that you will look ever more foolish to defend him?

Seriously, all I want is a simple answer.  Why defend Rush Limbaugh?  He could have simply apologized and let it die a media obtuse death.  He could have just said that he was taken out of context and moved on.  But, no.  Like Andy, Rush just had to defend himself and make it even worse.  I don't care so much about that.  What I do care about is simple:  why would an otherwise intelligent person drop to their knees and be idiotic in defense of a big fat idiot like Rush Limp-dick?

I Want A Cookie NOW, Mom!

The foot-stamping defenders of appropriate speech are at it again, demanding that the leftlibdemocomfascists do what the children want, when they want it done.  It's always fun to point out that what they are demanding is the same as always, that the lldcfs (read 'Democrats') aren't sacrificing one of our own to appease the god of rightful thinking (which would be the whiny little children's view of themselves.)  Here's a tip, kids:  if you want Murtha sacrificed to sate your outrage and hate ... do it yourselves, if you have the balls.

To put some context to this, I have an introduction to make.  Steve, meet Clif.  Clif, this is Steve.

Now Steve was all bemoanin' that us Democrats aren't hating Murtha to Steve's required level of desire, thinking that we're letting him hide behind his military service .  But then, we know that Steve ain't the sharpest of the knives in drawer.  That's why he focuses on something Murtha said that appears to be  the actual fact of the case, and has his temper tantrum about that.  He missed completely the story that CREW (you know, that left wing organization that so viciously slandered Conrad Burns) has placed Murtha on their Most Corrupt Congress-person's list.  I guess CREW didn't get the memo from MoveOn.org, did they Steve?

Of course Steve didn't notice it.  That would have meant he would be honor bound to acknowledge the 18 Republican congressmen on that list of 22.  Or perhaps, Steve would have had to acknowledge that the overwhelming majority of people who grant mythological power to military service are Republicants, such as himself.  Murtha isn't immune to attack from the left because of his military service.  He's only immune to cheap shots from lying chicken-hawks because of his military service.  And Steve, that's a problem for your side ... not mine.  Whine all you want for the cookie.  The only kids who will whine with you are those who want one to.  It shouldn't be at all surprising that we adults just don't want to give you one anymore.

Sweet Little Lies

Fred Kaplan points out what should be obvious to absolutely everybody:

President Bush's TV address tonight was the worst speech he's ever given on the war in Iraq, and that's saying a lot. Every premise, every proposal, nearly every substantive point was sheer fiction. The only question is whether he was being deceptive or delusional.

The biggest fiction was that because of the "success" of the surge, we can reduce U.S. troop levels in Iraq from 20 combat brigades to 15 by next July. Gen. David Petraeus has recommended this step, and President George W. Bush will order it so.

Let's be clear one more time about this claim: The surge of five extra combat brigades (bringing the total from 15 to 20) started in January. Their 15-month tours of duty will begin to expire next April. The Army and Marines have no combat units ready to replace them. The service chiefs refuse to extend the tours any further. The president refuses to mobilize the reserves any further. And so, the surge will be over by next July. This has been understood from the outset. It is the result of simple arithmetic, not of anyone's decision, much less some putative success.

The emphasis is mine.  It's simple math.  130,000 + 30,000 - 30,000 = 130,000.  There will be no troop withdrawal, save in the pettiest technical sense.   It's nothing more than a bone to call off the dogs (which, by the way, is how your elected Chief Executive appears to think of you.)  Here's a hint to Congress, however; if you really want the folks back home to pay attention, draw down the one thing that Bush didn't mention at all, but matters to every one of us.  We're spending $2,000,000,000 a week in Iraq.  That has surged somewhat, but it won't go down in July of next year.  It's just gonna keep bleeding away.  Return on Success?  Bullshit. You are Congress, and have been given the fiscal reigns of the nation.  Demand a Return on Investment, or get the hell out.  Even "libertarians" might understand that  reasoning (though experience with the locals has taught me not to expect it.)

A Special Kind Of Stupid

The Willful kind, to be exact.  We've all heard the old saw about a guy so dumb, he couldn't pour piss out his boot if the instructions were written on the heel?  When something is laid out all nice, neat and simple, it takes a real special kind of stupid to go flailing off in another direction entirely.  The willful kind.

Since Steve has already shown himself to be a 3rd dan blackbelt in the art of Obtuse, today's offering should come as no surprise.  Cribbing off another man so dumb he'd drown in the rain looking up to see where the water was coming from, Don Surber, Steve thinks he's found the holy 'gotcha' to all us anti-war leftists.  We are traitors because we agree with Osama bin Laden and want the same things  (notice that those are 2 distinct issues).  Feeling all pumped with his sarcastic coup in the bag, Steve boldly declares that he won't question our patriotism; that might hurt our feelings.

I'm not such a squeamish wuss, and I don't care if I hurt Steve's feelings by pointing out the obvious ... that he's an idiot, and the proof is in his own argument.  Since it's customary to look before pointing and laughing, let's just check this touch of comedy out.

Surber notices that many of the things that bin Laden said in his recent address are similar to many of the things having been said by prominent Democrats.  Coincidence?  No, couldn't be.  And it probably isn't.  Here's where Don and Steve go so terribly wrong.  They assume that these Democrats, indeed all Democrats, *agree* with Osama (it's still unseemly to refer to him as bin Laden because his father has disowned him, but that's a small matter.)   Oh the horror!  They make one of the most stupidly colossal leaps of logic imaginable:  because someone agrees with a monster on some things, that one must be a monster as well.  The stupid ... it burns!

Steve even goes so far as to pretend he knows logic.  He lays out the possibilities:

1. Both are right; 2. Both are wrong; and 3. One is right and the other wrong. But how can that be you ask? How can both be in agreement, but one be right, and one wrong?  (Uhhh Steve, if they've really said the same thing, it's not possible that one be right and one wrong, so why did you list this as a possibility, and separate it from your number 4?  Just askin ... W.)  Maybe there is a fourth category. Both are pursuing agendas that require cooperation with what would otherwise be an opponent.

Wait just a second here.  Even if we ignore that 1, 2 and 3 are possibilities, and 4 is a "category", what should be obvious is that number 4 doesn't stand as distinct, or in any way preclude, possibilities number 1, 2 or 3.  I smell a rat.

And indeed that is the case.  Steve assumes that number 3 is possible, actually he assumes that it is seen as the case at hand, and argues that his mythical number 4 somehow explains how the impossible is fact.  What he writes next is absolutely true:

It's not that I think that Democrats want to cooperate with bin Laden. Rather, I think that the Democrats seek to maximize their political holdings by going after Bush. And OBL recognizes that having this division is beneficial to him as well.

That appears problematic.  Steve is saying that Osama and the Democrats want the same thing, and we know that Osama is bad (hence 'wrong' ) ... so really the fact is that possibility number 2 is the correct one.  Osama and the Democrats are wrong because they have agendas that call for the same things.

Too bad for Master Eschenbacher that he confuses fact with agenda.   There is no fourth category or possibility.  The obvious truth to be had is number 1.  There are facts that Osama and the Democrats agree on.  I'm certain that Osama agrees with Steve that 2+2=4.  That doesn't mean that Steve has the same agenda as the terrorist, does it?  But knowing that 2+2=4 helps bin Laden and Steve, right?  So, I certainly wouldn't question Steve's patriotism, even though he agrees with what the terrorists want. 

No.  Osama and the anti-war Democrats do not have the same agenda, regardless of whether we recognize the same facts.  Part of our agenda is to find Osama's ass and kill him.  I doubt that's on the bin Laden to-do list.  Osama ain't in Iraq, and we can't find and kill him while we're blowing $2 billion a week avoiding the problem ... and making it worse.   Steve, ever the dim one at this, applies the all-knowing will, and conjures up his fantasy world where getting out of the clusterfuck in Iraq is what Osama wants and so we shouldn't do it.  To Steve, allowing the terrorists to manipulate and dictate our actions is the right thing to do.  Steve may sarcastically hold my feelings in esteem and not call me a traitor.  I'm not as stupid as he is, and I will flatly and certainly call his patriotism into question when he offers our country's sovereignty over to al Qaeda just because Steve wants to feel like he's resisting them (reaction is juvenile, Steve lad.  And in this case, it's the seriously wrong thing to do.  Grow up and choose your actions for once.)

There is one huge factual difference between the Democrats and Osama bin Laden.  Thanks to the incompetence and narrow-minded ball-shriveling partisan-power-grabbing terror on the part of Republicans ... Osama got away with it.

The Dumbest Thing You're Going To Read All Week

A very disturbed individual commits a murder.  This is the reaction from Montana's brightest new 'consultant':

I think it is fair to say that his person is very disturbed and needs serious help, but he is still a leftist.

I think it is fair to say that his person is very disturbed and needs serious help, but he is still an American.

I think it is fair to say that his person is very disturbed and needs serious help, but he is still wearing clothing.

I think it is fair to say that his person is very disturbed and needs serious help, but he is still a coincidence in the chaos of matter and time.

I think it is fair to say that his person is very disturbed and needs serious help, but he is still a primate.

And the only coincidence that really matters:

I think it is fair to say that his person is very disturbed and needs serious help, but he is still bug-fuck crazy.