ONE MORE THING

I can think of no better soldier to to to Iraq than Ms Coulter. It's easier than putting a bounty on her head.

Now see? THAT'S the kind of joke she would make.

HERE SHE COMES AGAIN...

When it comes to Ann Coulter, there are a couple ways to interpret her outbursts.

I think the one that's most accurate is this: imagine her meetings with her editor:

"OK Ann, what are you gonna do to sell this book?"

"Well I already did 9/11 widows. So hmm, how 'bout Jews? And here's the brilliant part: I'll say something that's patently offensive, but it'll also be something nearly every right-wing Christian actually believes."

"That's perfect Ann...just perfect. You'll earn your advance plus some."

Then there's the idea that she thinks she's funny. This one is certainly possible. She often seems to indicate that she's making jokes. I mean, there are people who think jokes about the disabled are guffaw-worthy too. And there are also folks who think saying the word "fag" is funny too. And the folks who think these things are funny, well they probably have all her books on their shelves. The problem is that she's not doing comedy. I don't know what it is, but it's just not comedy. It's not satire. It's outrageous, but it really doesn't even rise to the level of clever. It's just bombastic and loud. And while there is comedy that's bombastic and loud, I don't think she
I mean, do people really laugh at what she says?

For example, let's compare her statement about Representative John Murtha: "the reason soldiers invented fragging," " OK, I'll admit it's clever, but is it funny? It's too obviously and blatantly mean.

Now compare that to the guy who said that Coulter looks like a "kneecap with hair." That's clever and it's funny because it's true. Look at her... I know it's difficult, but look at her. She does indeed resemble a "kneecap with hair."

Then there's the least likely option; that she actually believes what she's saying. Well in that case, let's just say that she's the best evidence against intelligent design. If there is a designer and that designer is indeed intelligent, you can't convince me that such a power would design an Ann Coulter.

I gotta say, deep down inside, it really must suck to be her...

I think Prince said it best:

We dont give a damn
We just want to jam
Party up (party up, got to party up)
That army bag
Such a double drag
Party up (party up, got to, got to, got to party up)
(party) got to party down, baby
Revolutionary rock and roll
Goin uptown, baby,
How you gonna make me kill somebody
I dont even know?
They got the draft, uh, uh
I just laugh
Party up (party up, got to party up)
Fightin war is such a fuckin bore
Party up (party up, got to, got to, got to party up)

(party) uh, uh, got to party down, babe
Ooh, its all about whats in your mind
Goin uptown, baby,
I dont wanna die I just wanna have a bloody good time
Because of their half-baked mistakes
We get ice cream
No cake
All lies
No truth
Is it fair to kill the youth?
Party up
Party up

Revolutionary rock and roll

Party up - gotta party up
Party up - gotta party up {continues in background}
Youre gonna have to fight your own damn war
Cuz we dont wanna fight no more

Youre gonna have to fight your own damn war
Cuz we dont wanna fight no more



It's way past time to bring the boys and girls home.
It's way past time to stop calling them heroes to make us feel better about leaving them in a war that was illegal and immoral from the word go.

Of course, we could institute a draft, place several hundred thousand troops in Iraq for a decade or two and rebuild the country. The truth is, we owe Iraq that much. But that's not going to happen. Neither this nation nor any other nation can successfully fight a war unless the citizenry believe in it enough to make certain sacrifices. But that's the thing: no nation is truly willing to sacrifice its young for a political cause.

I've seen wars up close. I've seen mass graves, bombed cities, refugees. No, there's nothing heroic about war. In every case, they involve a young person killing another young person they have no real argument with. In every case, they result in blood and terror. And, in every case, the folks who started them did not have to fight them. And in the case of Iraq, the folks who started the war had never ever seen any battle in any war. It seemed so easy to them, and we let their delusions become our delusions.

And lemme get back to this heroism thing. We call these young people we send to fight heroes. There is a certain bravery in facing death like that. But as for heroism: if it's so damned virtuous to fight, then why aren't the young of every class in this country joining the army? If this heroism thing is so damned great, why aren't we all joining in? Calling people heroes is a cheap way out of accepting culpability for their deaths. We all let them go off to fight an ill-conceived, and poorly planned war against a country that was not threatening us.

Now of course the troops will tell you otherwise...that they're doing good work over there. How can we expect them to think anything but that? Do we expect them to get up every morning and face death without the hope that their efforts are good and just? No, that's way too much to ask.

If we really value them, bring them home now before they have to die for our President's ghastly and criminal war.

In Bertolt Brecht's play "Mother Courage and her Children" (a tale set against the 30 years war) the lead character makes the universally valid observation that whenever virtue is called for it means someone up top has screwed up. In the production I saw (Steppenwolf Theater a few years back) they replaced the word virtue with the word heroes.

Our "heroes" are in Iraq because the folks up top (few if any of whom have ever had to really fight for anything in their charmed rich lives) really screwed up. They should pay a price, but I'm pretty sure they won't. George W Bush will go back to Crawford and supervise his half-billion dollar library. Dick Cheney will get his blind trust Halliburton money and live his days in wealth. Condi Rice will return to academia, or go to the NFL.

I say that, if you think the war in Iraq is worth fighting, then sign up and go fight it. Or sign your children up to fight it. Otherwise, you have a moral obligation to bring our troops home, or at least to shut your mouths.

As I said, I've seen wars, and at the end of the day, they really are nothing but broken bodies usually left on the ground with eyes wide open, staring and mouths agape. In Iraq, we have hundreds of thousands of broken bodies...lives ended in their homes, with thousands more broken bodies shipped home in flag draped coffins.

We caused this mess. We aren't willing to fix it. We're part of the problem, not the solution.

God help us all.

WHO IS HOWARD BEALE?

I recently watched the movie Network again, and something occurred to me.

Bill O Reilly is Howard Beale.

In th:e movie, Faye Dunaway, playing the TV programmer hammering in on the zeitgeist of the time, says: "The American people are turning sullen. They've been clobbered on all sides by Vietnam, Watergate, the inflation, the depression; they've turned off, shot up, and they've f****d themselves limp, and nothing helps." So, this concept analysis report concludes, "The American people want somebody to articulate their rage for them." I've been telling you people since I took this job six months ago that I want angry shows. I don't want conventional programming on this network."

And, of course, the person who fulfills this role for the UBS network is a certifiably insane person. Someone who has himself grown sullen, narcissistic, and unable to actually control any part of his life, the least of which his emotions. But he tells some essential truths.

So the network programs Howard Beale's insanity and it draws a large audience.

Of course, because it's a movie, Howard Beale is destroyed by television making the point that television is the ultimate destructive force in our society.

Today, we have FOX News whose success can certainly be attributed to a certain popular rage...that of people's inability to control their economic position, their place in the world, their freedom from fears. It's the same fear articulated in Network, but back then the rage was quote, "counter-culture" and "anti-establishment"...terms that no longer have any cachet.
Anyway, look at FOX News' biggest star: He's a man who articulates that rage with a primal force. Now Bill O'Reilly's insanity is a bit more manageable than Howard Beale's. And, unlike Beale, O'Reilly is at least partly in on the ruse. O'Reilly also is able to communicate some essential truths, though he's not as good a writer as Paddy Chayefsky. Still, I have to figure that the Bill O'Reilly we see on the TV is a programmed version of Bill O'Reilly off the air. And that, my friends, points to a very rich, very paranoid, man full of misplaced resentments and narcissistic to a fault.

Either that or he's completely in on the joke, and it's all just a role he plays. But that doesn't sound right in this case. He's not that good an actor.

One thing that people seem to forget about FOX News is that it's not so much a political force as it is a media company. It certainly helps that the leaders of the corporation believe the politics it espouses, but I think that's partly a happy coincidence. FOX is just looking for an audience that will devote time to watching its programs (and the more devoted the audience, the better) and therefore buy the products it advertises.

But anyway, make Network your next Netflix selection; watch the scenes of Howard Beale going off, and then watch an episode of O'Reilly. You'll certainly see similarities.

Will it ever end?

VP Cheney at West Point:

"We're fighting a war over there because the enemy attacked us first," Cheney said. "These are men who glorify murder and suicide. Terrorists are defined entirely by their hatreds."

The terrorism fight now centers on Iraq, the vice president said, because that is where the enemy has massed. "The security of this nation depends on the outcome," Cheney said.

Dear God, how is it this guy hasn't spontaneously combusted.

It's like a feminist once said of Phyllis Schlafly: all you're left to do is jump and down and shout, "liar! liar! liar!

The lies and half-truths in those four sentences are myriad and have been rebutted so many times, that it's kinda pointless to waste the bytes to say anything.

But it is pretty crazy to think that in four sentences, he manages to B.S in some fashion about:

1.) the cause of the Iraq War.
2) the cause of 9/11
3) the cause of terrorism.
4) our national security

Not to mention he seems to forget that there are 20 million or so Iraqis who have to suffer over there.

These guys need to be impeached. It's that simple. There is no other way. The Democrats have to start fighting to stop this madness. Defund and demand impeachment. Even if you lose, the world wins.

Stop it now. Not tomorrow, not in September. Stop it now.

Demographics; Not Barone's strong suit.

Here on the ole' Opinion Journal page find Michael Barone's argument that the coasts are losing native born Americans to the fast growing cities of the south and west (DFW, Atlanta, Phoenix) and how this will create a GOP realignment.

Barone starts with facts that cannot be argued: these cities, along with Las Vegas, Houston and other hot sweaty places, are growing fast. And the "hip cities" as he calls them (NY, Chicago, LA, SF, etc) depend on immigrants for their growth as they lose "native born Americans" (meaning white upwardly mobile Americans).

OK, fine. But from there it gets a little dicey...

Barone seems to argue that because these fast growing metros have been hotbeds of GOP politics, then they must remain that way as they grow.

But that relies on a number of assumptions about the future, and many of them are dubious at best.

1) The folks who are leaving the "coastal cities' will move to Dallas or Phoenix and become Republicans. Well...not necessarily. In fact, it would appear that slowly but surely, Arizona, Nevada and Virginia are losing their bright red and heading toward purple status, perhaps on their way to blue status.

2) These fast growth cities will continue to grow and grow on into the future. Well, not quite. Remember: Cleveland, Buffalo, Detroit and PIttsburgh were the Atlantas of 100 years ago. They were undone by the weather (cold) and the changing nature of the economy (manufacturing no more). The fast-growing metros of today face traffic, pollution and, in some cases, water problems. And these problems aren't likely to get better anytime soon. And as these metros deal with these problems, their costs will rise. In 2050, it could be that Cleveland and Pittsburgh will look pretty good with their well developed infrastructure (highways built for growth that never came) and low costs. And, assuming that climate change is real (I know...I know, the Opinion Journal is one of the three or four places where one can still find people who swear it's not gonna happen), but anyway, Phoenix, Houston and Dallas might not be so attractive in a few decades. Remember: 40 years ago, Los Angeles was an economic boomtown with a very good highway infrastructure (yeah they had traffic jams, but nothin' compared to Atlanta today), and the weather that you couldn't beat. It was also affordable back then. It was the city of the future. Now, Atlanta is the city every other city wants to be when it grows up, except that the air there is toxic; the traffic is unbearable; the governments down there are pretty lost when it comes ot solving those problems.

3). Demographics are a great way to see where we've come to, less so to tell us where we're going. Back in 1965, people probably figured that tiny Phoenix would grow to be a large major metro, but the collapse of the Rust Belt wasn't apparent at that time. The metro area of Cleveland was still growing back then. Detroit still looked like a very strong metro. The old cities didn't look so good, but the suburbs were growing by leaps and bounds.

So Mr Barone may wish that demographics will help the GOP create a nationwide majority, but it ain't necessarily so. And let's face it: right now, the Iraq War is their albatross, and all the moving vans in the world aint gonna remove it from their tightly squeezed necks.

I LIKE SIMPLICITY

So I have this question for the Democrats: how, if Hillary Clinton is your candidate next year, can you create a simple easy to understand ad that targets the Republican candidate as representing the war in Iraq?
How, for example, could you quote Vice President Cheney's statement on March 16th, 2003:

"I think things have gotten so bad in Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. . . . I think it will go relatively quickly, . . . (in) weeks rather than months." -

How, if Senator Clinton is your candidate, can you portray the Republicans as the party of the war in Iraq? She may be good at triangulation, but this to me appears more a matter of strangulation. What's the simple message about the war as announced by Democratic Presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton?

Is there a simple answer to this question, or do the Democrats think next year's election will be won on issues other than Iraq?

DICK POLMAN'S GREAT ANALYSIS.

Check out his definitions of Gonzales excuses.

And while were at it, can we do for Gonzales what SPY magazine used to do for Henry Kissinger. They used to identify Henry the K as "socialite/war criminal".

Can we, from now on, call Alberto, "hack lawyer/Attorney General"? I should clarify...the second part of that identification should only last a few more days.

I mean, come on, he's saying: "I'm not evil and corrupt; no I'm just stupid."

"Attorney General Gonzales, your bus has arrived, may we throw you under it?"

THE OTHER 85 OR SO US ATTORNEYS

Wonder how they feel about the Bush White House after this week's revelations.

Think they're going to tow the line now? I gotta figure this is a bunch that doesn't like it when
politicians try to mess with their jobs. I gotta figure they're more likely to come down on the side of their fired colleagues rather than that of the Incompetent Hack Lawyer Named Gonzales...not to mention the Butt Kissing Hack Lawyer, and Supreme Court material, Harriet Miers.

HILLARY CLINTON'S HEAD IS ABOUT TO SPIN RIGHT OFF HER NECK

OK, Senator Clinton is toast in my mind. Asked on ABC about General Peter Pace's comment that homosexuality is immoral, Senator Finger To The Wind said:

"Well, I am going to leave that to others to conclude." A Clinton spokesman later said "obviously she doesn't agree" with Pace's comment and was trying to say it was the general's right to make up his own mind on the issue.


"leave that to others to conclude"? What the hell does that mean? You don't have an opinion?

No matter, it's unacceptable. I don't give a rat's behind what her spokesman said later. When asked, she hedged and tried to manage the act of holding her water with the left, while simultaneously keeping her lips pressed against some nasty right wing ass.

Senator: You're just going to have to take a stand sometime. It's called courage, and people generally respect it. Nobody respects the half-assed bullshit you crapped out on ABC. If you're always "trying to say something" chances are you're saying nothing. If you believe it's wrong, for God's sake, just say so.

A HACK LAWYER NAMED GONZALES.

Remember all that talk that the White House would never, ever, cross their heart and hope to die, use the Patriot Act for political or otherwise nefarious purposes? Well...

From The Washington Post, noting the statutory provisions mentioned here by D. Kyle Sampson, the -now former - COS for AG Alberto Gonzales were part of the Patriot Act reauthorization:

"I strongly recommend that as a matter of administration, we utilize the new statutory provisions that authorize the AG to make USA appointments," he wrote.

By avoiding Senate confirmation, Sampson added, "we can give far less deference to home state senators and thereby get 1.) our preferred person appointed and 2.) do it far faster and more efficiently at less political costs to the White House."

Dear God, how many of these corrupt manipulations must the country endure before these folks are made to pay for them? How long does the nation have to endure an Attorney General who is nothing more than a hack lawyer for the President? And not a very good hack lawyer at that.

And as for Mr Sampson, a true believer in the effort to bring religion into government: you just know that he asked God whether it was OK for him to use the Patriot Act for political purposes, and that God said, "Sure if it's to further the political goals that you and I share."

THE NEANDERTHAL ON THE JOINT CHIEFS.

So Peter Pace is as hateful and ignorant as the next guy:

Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Monday that he supports the Pentagon's "don't ask, don't tell" ban on gays serving in the military because homosexual acts "are immoral," akin to a member of the armed forces conducting an adulterous affair with the spouse of another service member.

Responding to a question about a Clinton-era policy that is coming under renewed scrutiny amid fears of future U.S. troop shortages, Pace said the Pentagon should not "condone" immoral behavior by allowing gay soldiers to serve openly. He said his views were based on his personal "upbringing," in which he was taught that certain types of conduct are immoral.

"I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts...," Pace said in a wide-ranging discussion with Tribune editors and reporters in Chicago. "I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is okay to be immoral in any way."

It's as someone once said about Phyllis Schlafly: "With her you're reduced to yelling 'liar! liar! liar!'"

It never ceases to amaze me when someone who's worldly and educated STILL is reduced to a 19th century view of people...people who have never done him any harm...people who gladly pay his salary...people who get up in the morning, go to work, love their friends and family, and don't cause harm to others. Yet still, this num-nuts is able to sit in front of a microphone and say that they're "immoral". And I'm sure by his "upbringing" he's talking about that 2000 year old tome, the bible. And I'm sure he believes every word of it is the literal truth...well except for those words about killing folks...and maybe those prescriptions about slaves and what kind of fabric to wear.

I gotta say that. to me, the spiritual axiom that describes his ilk is the one which would suggest that his problem with gay people is really a problem inside himself. General Pace: What are you trying to kill inside your own brain that allows to declare people who have NOT committed adultery, who have NOT broken any vows, who breathe and bleed just like you , and really just want to find someone to love, just like you, and - in many cases - raise beautiful and loving children just like you, what is it inside your brain that allows you to just whisk these human beings aside as "immoral"?

What are you trying to keep down inside of you? I can only imagine...ok, actually I gotta figure I know what it is, but it's up to you to admit it.


Oh and as for General Pace's actual ability to judge the world around him, let's go the tape please:


"{Donald Rumsfeld} leads in a way that the good Lord tells him is best for our country"

Yeah, you're the guy we wanna be listening to.

The thing that keeps me from just quitting this country is the knowledge that General Pace's ilk are on the wane. As more and more people get to know gay family-members, gay friends, gay co-workers, their bigotry wanes. I wonder how General Pace would react to his son being gay? Would he call him immoral and kick him out? Would he break contact with this immoral being? Would he try to change his son into something he's not? Would there be an ultimatum? Or would he finally accept that the son who trusted him with this part of himself is the same human being he'd loved up until that acknowledgement.

Only the most rigid bigots still hate gays after getting to know them. That's a spiritual axiom I can take to the bank.

Completely heterosexual

OK, forget lies about Iraq, forget lies about who outed Valerie Plame. And get ready for the laugh-out-loudest, uber-denial lie of all time. I mean, this one even beats an astronaut who drives for 12 hours wearing a diaper who never stops and says, "Hmm...maybe I oughta rethink this plan of mine."

The howler of the week is this lead from the AP:

"One of four ministers who oversaw three weeks of intensive counseling for the Rev. Ted Haggard said the disgraced minister emerged convinced that he is "completely heterosexual."

"Completely heterosexual."

On behalf of all gay men across the world, I say, "Thank God! Because we didn't want this mental clusterfuck on our team." And if he says the sight of a naked woman starts a "resurrection in his little 'Jesus'", who am I to argue?

Also, I gotta figure that three weeks with these four would turn anyone off to men, or to sex with human beings.

No not really. I'm starting a pool for anyone who wants to guess the day that Teddy picks up his phone and calls 1-800-MANLOVE or some such thing.

My guess? He makes it a couple of weeks just fine, but then one night when he's having "completely heterosexual" sex with his wife, he'll close his eyes and imagine a muscular chest, and that will be the end of that.

I mean, come on, take a look at this guy, listen to him talk. He's not gay, no, he's nellier than icing on a wedding cake.

No counseling in the world is going to make this guy straight.

That sound we all hear? It's God laughing his ass off.

If Bush Wants to Win...

...this is what he shoulda said:

My fellow Americans, I messed it up. Yes...I screwed it up worse than any oil company. And now I wanna fix it. I mean, really. We screwed up their country, so we gotta fix it. So here's what we're gonna do. We're gonna get 300,000 troops and take over Iraq. We're gonna close the borders. We're gonna take over every block in every city. We're gonna pay young Americans a boatload of bonus money and recruit them to go over there and stop this crap once and for all. And they'll be taking names and kicking ass.

For now, no more elections. We gotta build these people a society first. We're gonna build them a good and modern oil industry. We're gonna build them a decent infrastructure....schools, police stations...the works. This is no time to be building a benevolent government over there. We're gonna be their dictators for a while. But we'll give them safe streets, decent schools and hospitals.

We'll wipe the slate clean. Sunni, Shiite, Kurd, doesn't matter. Anyone who wants to work with us to build a dignified and safe Iraq is welcome. Anyone who wants to work against us will pay an ultimate price.

And that goes for Iran and Syria. Don't mess with Iraq. Stay out of it. Or, well let's just say that a sustained air campaign with planes up around 15-thousand feet won't take you down permanently, but it'll focus your attentions elsewhere. Just ask Milosevic...oh yeah...you can't.

It won't be pretty. It'll get worse before it gets better. It'll cost more money than you can imagine. But I guarantee that in a few years, Iraq will be the shining light of freedom and democracy that we set out to create four years ago.



That's what the President would have said if he REALLY wants to win. Anything short of this is a sham and a joke.