Julia Grey: The Ranticore

What Have We Learned Today, Boys and Girls?

Sun, 15 May 2005 03:15:05 GMT

One major lesson Bush has taught the international community with his Iraqi adventure is: "never disarm."

Because if you do you'll end up like Saddam, who hoped that if he followed the dictates of the UN and stripped himself of his WMD he would be allowed to stay in power. And then when we decided we wanted to depose him anyway, he didn't have any weapons to afford him leverage. If he'd actually HAD a nuclear capability (like Iran and N. Korea) and credibly threatened to use it, let's face it, we would have had to leave him alone!

Other countries watching Saddam's experience understand what happened, and it sure as hell didn't make us any safer. In fact, it dramatically increased the likelihood of international nuclear proliferation.

Not to mention that Bush's machinations and his patently illegal invasion add fuel to Osama's arguments that the US is an evil, imperialistic nation that lies, cheats and steals to get what it wants. The Great Satan, indeed.

You know what? I want to live in the country of my childhood idealism again, when I could believe that if we weren't actually being the Good Guys everywhere at all times, we were still Good enough that we hadn't illegally invaded another country for reasons that the whole world knows to be utterly specious. Worse, we continue to brazen it out without a hint of apology, blithely pretending we're on a white horse even as we're standing in shit up to our shinbones.

And we'll get away with our disgusting hypocrisy for a while because we're the international Massa these days. Other countries have to approach us shufflin' and jivin', nodding and grinning... "Yassa, yassa, America, yassa, you da boss..." But notice the acid hatred burning behind their eyes. Remember what they learned from Saddam.

That fuckweed in the White House has not only done wrong in America's name, he's done it SHAMELESSLY. He has betrayed America's very soul.

I can only hope that we aren't requited as we deserve.

The Illustration

Wed, 06 Oct 2004 20:23:58 GMT

Oh, I forgot to add this:

the PhotoShop triumph of "Slinkerwink" referred to below.

What They're Saying About the Debate

Wed, 06 Oct 2004 20:07:28 GMT

Here are some comments I culled from Eschaton ("Atrios") and Daily Kos to summarize the ongoing hilarity/internet chatter about last night's Vice Presidential Debate between VP Dick Cheney and Senator John Edwards.

From ATRIOS:

This is from the site Cheney wanted to send viewers to (though he got it wrong, no surprise), factcheck.org.

Cheney Plugs FactCheck

Cheney got our domain name wrong -- calling us "FactCheck.com" -- and wrongly implied that we had rebutted allegations Edwards was making about what Cheney had done as chief executive officer of Halliburton.

In fact, we did post an article pointing out that Cheney hasn't profited personally while in office from Halliburton's Iraq contracts, as falsely implied by a Kerry TV ad. But Edwards was talking about Cheney's responsibility for earlier Halliburton troubles. And in fact, Edwards was mostly right.

JJF | Email | Homepage | 10.06.04 - 10:42 am | #

It's true... the MSNBC post-debate coverage was bizarre. Joe Scarborough ["Scarborough Country"] was trying to save his ass after that bout with honesty last week, but Tweets [Chris Matthews, host of "Hardball"] and Mrs. Greenspan [Andrea Mitchell]were out of control.

Even David Brooks on PBS complimented Edwards.

Hoops McCann | Email | Homepage | 10.06.04 - 10:44 am | #

I have a feeling that Matthews and the MSNBC crew (with the exception of R. Reagan) decided in advance that Cheney would be the clear winner, and simply hoped that the other pundits would agree. When he realized a little later that he was totally outside the mainstream, Matthews did a U-turn to save face. He's a twit with no credibility.

RP | Email | Homepage | 10.06.04 - 10:44 am | #

Here's the thing: Tweety is a closet case.

He is constantly and obviously aroused on camera by whatever he feels is raw manly power. The cameras immediately after the debate last night captured him in a state of -- I kid you not -- near-orgasm.

He always does this when Bush/Cheney do these over the top, Village People masculine caricatures. He creams his jeans at their manly prowess.

Jim J | Email | Homepage | 10.06.04 - 10:52 am | #

It was a knockout all right - but Cheney delivered the uppercut to himself.

Magnum | Email | Homepage | 10.06.04 - 11:11 am | #

I thought Cheney looked rather tired and somewhat disinterested, especially towards the end. At one point, he was talking about 9/11 and counter-terrorism while having his chin resting upon his clapsed hands. That was not good.

I thought Edwards did much better as he showed passion and that Kerry/Edwards really wanted to lead this country.

After seeing both Cheney and W, it appeared to me that their attitude is "we're all going to die if we aren't re-elected, but we would rather be doing something else."

smarty jones | Email | Homepage | 10.06.04 - 11:25 am | #

My letter to the editors:

Last night, we saw the Bush/Cheney administration condensed to 90 minutes. Not only did Dick Cheney lie about the big things -- for example, that he had never implied a connection between Saddam and 9/11, or that he and George Bush have never let up on Osama bin Laden, who remains free more than three years after murdering thousands of Americans. Even more telling, though, is that Cheney couldn't even tell the truth about the little things -- if he and John Edwards had ever met.

America deserves better.

MattB | Email | Homepage | 10.06.04 - 10:15 am | #

George Bailey 1, Mr. Potter 0.

sam simian | Email | Homepage | 10.06.04 - 10:19 am | #

FROM KOS:

[CHENEY: "Now, in my capacity as vice president, I am the president of Senate, the presiding officer. I'm up in the Senate most Tuesdays when they're in session. The first time I ever met you was when you walked on the stage tonight."]

This little lie

went to market. And this little lie stayed at home. And this little lie had roast beef. And this little lie had none. And this little lie went wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee all the way to home to the naval observatory. The end.

The lie about not meeting Edwards is perfect becuase it is so variable.

"You know Jim, it's not important that the VP lied about not meeting John Edwards. What's more worrying is that he's lying about matters of national security. I guess when he starts he just can't stop."

"You know Bob, George Washington could never tell a lie. How far we have fallen to have a Vice President who seems to tell nothing but lies."

"How can you trust a Vice President to be credible in his dealings with foreign leaders when he isn't even credible about his meetings with American senators?"

by mapantsula on Wed Oct 6th, 2004 at 01:25:33 EST

This lie really matters

Believe it or not, this is the first time in months of hitting my head against the wall that I've had an impact on the online church ladies. They think Bush won last week. They think Cheney "held Edwards accountable."

But when I gave them the link to the prayer breakfast photo, they gasped and called Cheney rude and remembered the funny look on Edwards' face when Cheney said he hadn't met him.

Apparently the fact that they met AT A PRAYER BREAKFAST and Cheney "forgot" it is meaningful on Planet Republicanbase.

Also, when you think about it, even if Edwards really had only showed up for a third of the votes or whatever, that's still hundreds of votes. They would have met. They did meet. A lot. We've just found photographic proof of two instances in the first 12 hours. And the frothy-mouthed baby masticator just thought it might be fun to make shit up for political gain. It looked nuclear for a moment, but in retrospect, their Sunday Punch comes across as cheap, clumsy and dishonest, and just the sort of "It's not the act itself, but the bad judgment that makes it an issue" thing that the press jumps all over, just like "Love Story" and "invented the internet" and all the piddly little molehill-into-mountain indignities they've kicked at us for the past decade.

Poland? Heck, Bush can't even remember the goddam ALAMO!
by AdmiralNaismith on Wed Oct 6th, 2004 at 08:45:14 EST

Selective data

Also, the data on the attendance record, like that "most liberal member of the senate" claim, focuses on a cherry-picked part of Edwards' senate term. It is true that in 2003-4 his attendance record has been very low, though typical for a presidential candidate.

Prior to his entry in the race, Edwards attendance record for the first four years of his term was 95%, one of the highest in the Senate. And Cheney was chairing the senate for at least two of those years.

That number is below in this thread. See the post titled "Attendance Record" by BatmanRKC.

by rppa on Wed Oct 6th, 2004 at 09:45:32 EST

I've been telling people that Cheney

was so rattled by Edwards strong opening that he forgot that they had met when Elizabeth Dole was sworn in; that he forgot that they had met at the national prayer breakfast;that he forgot that they had met on Meet the Press.

"Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
by molly bloom on Wed Oct 6th, 2004 at 08:47:50 EST

Or just maybe ..

he's been having "Senior Moments"

Lunch Lady
by Lunch Lady on Wed Oct 6th, 2004 at 10:00:40 EST

Maybe Better

...so Cheney can claim that it slipped his mind that me met Edwards at a couple useless ceremonial functions. Here's, I think, the more damning point: Cheney had never med Edwards because Cheney, in his capacity of Presiding Officer of the Senate refuses to meet with Democrats.

The attendence issue is immaterial in this sense - Cheney hadn't met with Edwards because Cheney refused to meet with Edwards out of nothing but pure partisanship.

-Fe Wm.

by Irond Will on Wed Oct 6th, 2004 at 09:15:23 EST

seriously.

it wasn't an offhand remark at all. it was rehearsed and was intended to be nuclear.

can't believe they didn't bother to fact-check it, though.

amateurs. shows what a bunch of power-mad lying little clowns they really are.

cheney's closing remarks: "if you don't vote for george bush, there'll be a biological weapon in your front yard by noontime tomorrow."

"One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors." -Plato
by sunzoo on Wed Oct 6th, 2004 at 01:26:02 EST

no, it wasn't off hand

and it was apparently effective, as Harball's panel reaction page on the debate leads off with airheadded Andrea Mitchell using Cheney's lie as proof of how Cheney "put edwards in his place", whatever the fuck that means.

So it was a lie with a purpose, which makes batting it back in his face all the more important.

by Lud on Wed Oct 6th, 2004 at 06:55:02 EST

re:Yes

The arrogance of Bushco gives me great hope for November 2, because it manifests in sloppy, lazy work and disastrous assumptions. I'm too lazy, in turn, to find the link, but I read a report on the first debate's Spin Alley in which Bush's aides were described as absolutely convinced that he would destroy Kerry, then utterly stunned that he came across as repetitive, petulant, and defensive.

Here we all were, speculating on the long discussions Rove and other aides were doubtless having about how much to medicate Bush: "But when we give him three of the blues and two of the reds, he slurs his words and his right eye closes." "I don't think we have a choice. He keeps saying that Zelbo's big mistake was not actually bringing a pistol with him."

But there's a real chance (I know, I know--it's hard to believe) that we were completely wrong. His aides thought they Kerry would be horrible and that Bush would trounce him. They apparently didn't bother to research Kerry's previous performance in debates. They apparently haven't noticed how their boss has become incapable of hiding his displeasure at any criticism. It apparently never occurred to them that Kerry is half a foot taller than Bush, a real advantage in presidential elections and one that would be exaggerated if their guy slouched and hugged his lectern like the porcelain throne on Saturday night. In their glee over winning those lights in front of Kerry, it apparently never occurred to them that he could learn to limit his answers to ninety seconds, but Bush couldn't learn to fill ninety seconds with anything but platitudes and non sequiturs.

After reading about their reactions to the first debate, I think they're more to blame for Bush's performance than he is. It would be one thing if that had betrayed any recognition that their guy had a history of exhibiting the very same traits that killed him Thursday. But they seemed truly shocked. And it's because they're true believers.

And of course, when you're a true believer, you don't let little things like facts or disinterested observations get in the way of what you already know.

Why is Bush going to lose? Because the same disdain for reality that led to Iraq, tax cuts, etc., is rife in his campaign.

My prediction: Kerry 405 - Bush 133
by deminva on Wed Oct 6th, 2004 at 09:10:03 EST

On BBC World Service

They're reading emails and text messages from debate watchers around the world. About an hour ago they were like, "Hey, uh.. can we hear from some supporters of Dick Cheney, please?"

Then, next report, they read a text message from a Cheney supporter, whining and complaining about how the other side was so desperate they had to go and waste time swarming online polls and contacting the media saying Edwards won, and how the GOP was too confident to bother doing that!

It was awesome.

All of Rove's forces and all of Rove's spin couldn't put Dubya together again.
by daria g on Wed Oct 6th, 2004 at 02:04:40 EST

The thing about Halliburton

Cheney was prepared to respond to the deferred payments he's goten from Halliburton, and, according to factcheck.org, he's taken great pains to divest all his interest in the company, including taking out an insurance policy against the deferred payments. However, John Edwards, didn't bring up the deferred salary. He was talking about the investigations into Halliburton fraud and his dealings with terrorist nations while CEO of Halliburton.

Cheney's response was to the wrong charge. I'm surprised this hasn't been picked up on more.

-- Let's go astroturfing! --
by fwiffo on Wed Oct 6th, 2004 at 09:14:06 EST

Not sure I can follow Slinkerwink's PhotoShop job

but here's my letter to the editor (intended for Iowa State University campus newspaper, 400 word limit and I got it to 390). If you like it, feel free to edit, cut, paste, repeat...

If there's one thing I've learned from the Bush/Cheney `04 Campaign, it's that if you repeat a lie (or shall I say an "intentionally misleading statement") often enough, with the aid of the conservative media echo chamber, people will begin to believe it. Vice President Dick Cheney has repeatedly, during interviews with the press and in campaign events across the country, emphasized an established, operational connection between al Qaida/the September 11 attacks and Saddam Hussein. The 9/11 Commission refuted it, and now Colin Powell and Donald Rumsfeld also refute the connection. But Cheney continues to say it or imply it.

Dick Cheney finally encountered someone with the courage to vigorously cross-examine him, Democratic Vice Presidential candidate John Edwards. Last night during the debates, Cheney actually had the gall to say, "The senator has got his facts wrong. I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11..." Oh my goodness, but that is a whopper. There were at least three more times by my count that Cheney said something completely disingenuous and/or politically divisive and John Edwards called him on it. When Cheney had a chance for a rebuttal, he demurred. Vice President Cheney, I find you guilty of telling lies and making serial distortions to the American people.

The Bush/Cheney administration's neo-conservative policies have been an absolute train wreck. From siphoning off troops from Afghanistan and the hunt for Osama bin Ladin to fight the wrong war at the wrong time in Iraq, to the rush to conflict when a fresh round of inspections was working, to blissful ignorance of the gathering threats in Iran and North Korea, this administration's actions have made America less safe. Granted we have taken out some of the top known leadership of al Qaida, but Bush/Cheney's reckless actions have stimulated the recruitment of new terrorists. Their go-it-alone cowboy mentality has alienated all but our strongest allies (and now Poland is pulling out, too!)

Oh, and that zinger about "The first time I [Dick Cheney] ever met you was when you walked on the stage tonight." Nice sound byte, but there are at least two documented times they've met (Liddy Dole's inauguration as Senator and at a Presidential prayer breakfast in February 2001). Apparently, Elizabeth Edwards pointed this out to Cheney on stage after the debate. Hey, Dick: liar, liar, pants on fire!

by leftwingnut on Wed Oct 6th, 2004 at 01:42:00 EST

you may be surprised

when a huge number of people say that Edwards' discussion of healthcare is the most important thing they got out of the debate.

by mcgrayc on Wed Oct 6th, 2004 at 01:59:06 EST

Not surprised at all.

The moment Edwards mentioned Canadian discount prescription drugs, I declared it the knockout moment. Go frame by frame and you can SEE Darth's pacemaker missing a beat. After that, Edwards got to retell the story of his upbringing, offer hope to America, and hug his children, while the FMBM grumbled about terrorism and looked like Bob Dole after too much to drink. He had to be incoherent. He'd been knoked out.

by AdmiralNaismith on Wed Oct 6th, 2004 at 09:00:03 EST

why is everybody ignoring the obvious?

My first and strongest impression of the debate was the old pale sneering bald grey haired guy vs. young healthy looking smiling dark haired guy? I am not talking in the shallow sense about Edwards being good looking, its more the healthy and happy vs. unhealthy and unhappy. People react better to healthy and happy. That's why GM,Pepsi and MCI use smiling good looking people on their ads.

by fnb on Wed Oct 6th, 2004 at 03:19:04 EST

Mumbly Grumbly

He even started off by wringing his hands like a villain in a cartoon!

GOP: All 9/11 All The Time
by wry twinger on Wed Oct 6th, 2004 at 08:58:20 EST

NO ENERGY QUESTIONS

Dick Cheney is Mr. Energy Task Force and yet she didn't ask a single question about future energy needs. This was a huge blunder on her part, especially since she wasted time by giving too many unnecessary rebuttals and by repeating questions. There were like two questions about malpractice and being a lawyer.

And what was that stupid question where they weren't supposed to mention their running mates' name? What is this, junior high? That was just dumb.

by existenz on Wed Oct 6th, 2004 at 03:21:58 EST

Lies about Iraq casualties

Cheney also said Iraqi security forces have "taken almost 50 percent of the casualties in operations in Iraq, which leaves the U.S. with 50 percent, not 90 percent." The United States does not keep track of Iraqi casualties, either civilian or in the security services. Recently, a senior U.S. official in Baghdad estimated that 750 Iraqi policemen have been killed but has no estimate of those wounded. The United States as of yesterday has had 1,061 deaths and 7,730 wounded.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10244-2004Oct5.html

I think if he counted all the pro-American Iraqi soldiers dead, the anti-American Iraqi soldiers dead, the Iraqi civilians dead, the dead Al-Aquaeda men, the dead Shiites/Iranians who crossed the border and got killed in Iraq he could easily prove that the Iraq war casualties were 90% non-US and 10% US! Wow! Coalition of the Dead!

by LibertyGuard on Wed Oct 6th, 2004 at 07:03:30 EST

NY Times Editorial on Edwards/Halliburton Debate

Here are excerpts from today's NY Times editorial on the VP debate between chimpy stand-in Dick Halliburton and John Edwards:

"Mr. Cheney, who won over many voters four years ago with his grandfatherly demeanor during a debate with Joseph Lieberman, seemed tired and angry. He was particularly dyspeptic when he responded to criticism of his relationship with Halliburton by claiming that Mr. Edwards had a bad attendance record in the Senate...

Mr. Edwards is normally known for his wide grin and boyish appearance, but he was serious and tough last night. If his main task was to show that he could stand up to the older and more experienced vice president, he did everything he needed to do, especially during the discussion of foreign policy - the area that is supposed to be his weak suit. Mr. Edwards was particularly on point when Mr. Cheney attacked John Kerry as a lawmaker who had consistently voted against military expenditures. Much of the arms spending Mr. Kerry voted against, Mr. Edwards noted, was for the same programs Mr. Cheney had fought to cut when he was secretary of defense."

Full editorial:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/06/opinion/06wed1.html?oref=login

by drplaud on Wed Oct 6th, 2004 at 07:12:04 EST

Fact Checking the Fact Checkers

Washington Post has a pretty well done fact check article. But one egregious error leaped out at me:

Glenn Kessler and Jim VandeHei say:

Edwards asserted that "millionaires sitting by their swimming pool . . . pay a lower tax rate than the men and women who are receiving paychecks for serving" in Iraq. President Bush last year cut the tax rate on dividends to 15 percent, whereas most soldiers would be in a 15 percent tax bracket -- and pay an effective rate much less after taking deductions for children and mortgages.

Two problems with this: one, it swallows the Republican sleight of hand that wants us to forget the heavily regressive payroll tax. According to experts, upwards of 80% of workers making less than $40,000 per year pay more in payroll taxes than they do in income taxes. Millionaires only pay payroll taxes on the first $80,000 of their income. And two, isn't it a little glib to the point of "let them eat cake" to suggest soldiers can take "deductions for children and mortgages" which most 18-23 year olds do not have?

I'm sure this is just the case that they were documenting so many Cheney lies that they felt they had to throw in some Edwards' staements for balance. The trouble is, Edwards is absolutely right on this one...

by KevStar on Wed Oct 6th, 2004 at 07:31:25 EST

And this is my big finish from the Kos threads because it's my "summary" thought, too:>

We're 2-0

Bush=petulant

Cheney=liar

Can't wait for Friday!

by Kerry will win on Wed Oct 6th, 2004 at 01:20:11 EST

House-Training Your Husband

Sun, 26 Sep 2004 14:53:42 GMT

In a blog entry brilliantly entitled "Women are From Shrewville, Men are from Idiotown" World O'Crap reads "Dr." Laura's new book Woman Power so we won't have to. Woman Power is billed as a workbook (yes, really, just like in third grade!) to accompany her best-selling, terminally insulting The Care and Feeding of Husbands. As WoC says, "that means it covers the same material as the previous tome, but it also gives you lots of blank pages."

One of the pages that might just as well have been blank is the following:

Within only two weeks of the publication of The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands, I received a letter from a six-foot-four, two-hundred-and-fifteen-pound police officer. It was painful to read, but I shared it on my radio program. The response to it from all across the United States and Canada was amazing. Why? This big, masculine, powerful, accomplished guy was turning into depressive mush because his wife never seemed to be proud of, or happy with, him.

Yes [WoC comments], his wife turned this big, strong, macho policeman to "depressive mush," and she alone bears responsiblity for his emotions and feelings. I mean, he says so, and Dr. Laura concurs.

Fortunately Dr. Laura has a quick fix, as she indicates at the end of the intro:

Just a look of the eye, the tone of a voice, the touch of a hand.

Simple. A few minutes each day . . . tops.

Some listeners were inspired by the policeman's story to read Dr. Laura's book.

David, a listener, wrote:

"I bought The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands because I wanted to read it myself just to see if I had unrealistic expectations of my wife of seventeen years.

Translation: "I bought the book because I heard it chastizes women for not having sex whenever their husbands want it, and I wanted my wife to know that Dr. Laura agreed with me that my wife was a bitch."

“It is unreal what simple creatures men really are. If I could just get that little bit of physical love from my wife, I would absolutely be her slave. I have told her this many times and it is just so much water off a duck’s back. I work sometimes twelve to fourteen hours a day to provide the income necessary for our family to live with some degree of comfort. And all I ask from my wife is fifteen minutes a couple of days a week (which I never get)."

David, maybe if sex took longer than fifteen minutes, your wife would want it more.

Men are starting to come out of the closet and admit that they are hurt and angry and don’t want to take it anymore. Tim, a reader, called my radio program asking me what he should do with his anger toward women, an anger crystallized by reading The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands!

Should anybody who is worried about the crumbling of society be recommending a book which causes men's anger against women to crystallize? ...

Anyway, Laura concludes the intro with that bit about how women can magically manipulate men with "Just a look of the eye, the tone of a voice, the touch of a hand. Simple. A few minutes each day . . . tops."

So, ladies, look at him with admiration, talk to him like you do the dog, and then give him a handjob. Quick, easy, and then he'll bring you that lemonade.

Much, much more here. Don't miss the cheese ball seduction. With grapes.

I was so disgusted with this dipwaddity that I got to pontificating (and blogwhoring... I'm so ashamed... ) in the comments at WoC, to wit:

Dr. Laura = [Maribel] Morgan or whatever her name was. You remember "The Total Woman," don't you? Laura's version is just warmed over with the "You Go, Goddess Grrrl" bit.

This advice boils down to How To Manipulate Men. She says, "Do these things in order to get what you want from your clueless hubby." Fake it! Act like you love him! He'll be so grateful, you'll get whatever you want from him!

Ugh.

It's the underlying attitude that's sick. Methodology. Quid Pro Quo. Tit for Tat. Looking at the OTHER person as your source of happiness, the sole dispenser of the things you must have. So you need to work it out of them, you need to MAKE them behave the way you want.

Sick, sick, sick.

You hit the nail on the head, WoC, with that guy whose anger increased when he read Laura's book. All he wants, he says, is a little sex. He deserves it because he works so hard. He's OWED sack time, dammit. Never mind why or how it happens. He thinks if she just lets him get his rocks off in her body on a regular basis, he'll be satisfied -- even happy!

But the more mature among us know that it doesn't work that way. When men get dutiful sex they complain that it's not ENTHUSIASTIC sex. Just "getting it" doesn't satisfy their deeper needs, which are for love and admiration -- or at least a confirmation of their masculinity/sexual power. A non-responsive woman, even if she were to let her body be used twice a day, every day, on demand, doesn't fill that emotional bill.

That's why Laura advises (fake) admiration, compliments, enthusiasm, non-stop verbal reassurance, and other methods of ego massage in order to manipulate a man. But the funny thing is that human beings are very sensitive creatures when it comes to things like that. Most men will begin to sense the falsity, no matter how good an actress a woman is.

And since human life tends to rebel, sooner or later, against such fundamental forms of fakery, a woman won't be able to keep up the quality of her pretense over time. She'll start to resent having to continually admire/compliment/give in. Acting is exhausting work, as anyone on Broadway will tell you. A few months later her show will deteriorate and she won't be nearly as good at convincing him he's a marvelous guy. He'll start to doubt himself again and demand more reassurance.

Bottom line is that "working" people from your power center (no matter what that power might be based on: economics, sex, hierarchy, whatever) is not the way to a happy life.

You don't get love by getting over.

Yes, too long and too serious for that venue (as Jonathank might say, "You're better when you're breezy"), but luckily others offered real entertainment in that thread. For example:

Anyway, Laura concludes the intro with that bit about how women can magically manipulate men with "Just a look of the eye, the tone of a voice, the touch of a hand. Simple. A few minutes each day . . . tops."

Why should we buy her book when we can get this information from any pet store bookshelf for half the price?

"Training a Difficult Dog", Rose Smith: Giving your dog a reward, even though you had to physically show him how to sit, is important. The dog feels as if he's done something to please you and will be more willing to cooperate as you continue your instruction. Don't forget to praise the dog whenever he follows through on your commands without your prompting him with your hand. However, keep your praise light and quick..."good dog" or "good boy" said in an uplifting tone. Don't continue any longer than 10 to 15 minutes. Like all "children" pets get tired and bored doing the same thing over and over. Set aside a certain time of the day for training each day and repeat the process until the dog will sit on command.

Mary • 9/19/04; 10:25:35 AM

Oh, and on the always hilarious subject of Dr. (of Gymnasium Science) Laura Schlessinger, you might remember the time she hinted that she might return to Christianity from Judaism because her fellow Jews weren't being very nice to her. Waaaah.

Projection for New American Conservatives

Sun, 12 Sep 2004 23:00:56 GMT

More on the neoconservative whining about how mean we're being to them when they dint do nuthin!, from the Rittenhouse Review:

The same people who in the past bragged about their influence over various presidential administrations who now all but claim there's no such thing as a "neoconservative movement," that it’s all a figment of the "liberal media's" imagination.

Hey, what about the Project for a New American Century (PNAC)*? Was that just in our imaginations, fellas? Was it something you lobbied Clinton on (like puppies who won't let go of a pant leg) just for the fun of it, all jokey-like? Then why did you get so pissed off at him when he wouldn't go for it?

I'm sure Clinton rues the day he decided against invading Iraq on your advice.

Not.

*PNAC (known in some circles as Pasty NeoCon Crackheads) created a master plan in the 90s for the conquest of Iraq and the subjection of the entire Middle East to 100 years of enhanced American power. They wanted the oil, they wanted Israel's enemies wiped out, they wanted American Empire: our destiny, they hold, is to not just to be one of the planet's LICs (Large and In Charge), but the Largest and the Only, the undisputed Champeeeen, Ruler of the World!

(Getting goosebumps yet?)

Furthermore, they say, we can't let Europe or Russia or any of those other ~~upstarts~~ growing powers get their pansy-ass socialist fingers in the pie because WE are the only good and brave and godly nation on earth. Everything America does is right, just by definition. Everything. And besides, those other people -- the ignorant black ones, the brown sand-kissing devil-worshippers, those billions of tricky yellow Chinamen -- they would just fuck it up. So it has to be us. It just has to.

USA! USA! USA!

Well, you might say, "That might not be such a bad idea. I like it. Big, Bad, Macho America, kickin' butt, forcing all those lesser countries and inconvenient people do exactly what we want them to do, when we want them to do it. Man, if only I could do that in MY life...."

But you digress.

Here's the kicker (as if you couldn't see it coming). While there can be enormous value in applying group brain power to promoting and projecting our country's power in the world (enlightened self-interest isn't just for breakfast anymore), the only way these PNAC "intellectuals" could think of to enhance and maintain America's strength and secure her future was via military takeover, i.e., bloodshed. Mass quantities of bloodshed. Enough bloodshed to fill millions of 55-gallon barrels and vast fleets of tanker trucks.

AND THEY PROPOSED STARTING WITH IRAQ.

It was to be the first in a string of conquests designed to bring the Middle East -- and thus the rest of the world -- under our thumbs. So PNAC used 9-11 to get started on their master plan. We had to use this opportunity to attack Iraq, they said, even before we were finished in Afghanistan. Whether there was really any "excuse" or not.

Yes, I'm serious. Yes, they really said that. For example, from Disinfopedia:

When James Woolsey, the former C.I.A. director and current Pentagon adviser, appeared on "Nightline" five days after 9/11 and suggested that America had to strike Iraq for sponsoring terrorism, Ted Koppel rebutted: "Nobody right now is suggesting that Iraq had anything to do with this. In fact, quite the contrary." Mr. Woolsey replied: "I don't think it matters. I don't think it matters." [6] (http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/060503I.shtml),[7] (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/04/opinion/04DOWD.html) (my emphasis)

So let's recap. A group of folks who are now serving in fantastically powerful positions in the Bush 2 Administration (many of them after doing the same in the realpolitik bowels of the Reagan and Bush 1 governments) created a plan to invade Iraq in the 1990s, and they tried very, very hard to sell it to Clinton. Who didn't buy it, and not because he was too distracted by the right-wing grabbing after his plenipotentiary penis.

Geo Whiz, on the other hand, was the perfect sucker. Not well-read or intellectually curious enough to realize that these people were out. of. their. fucking. minds, and all-too-eager to sign on the dotted line to demonstrate his "cowboy" muscle. "Feels great!" "Dead or Alive!" "Mission Accomplished!" Have you ever noticed that it's the guys who really don't have confidence in their masculinity who have to resort to swagger and strutting? Whose codpieces enter the room sixteen seconds before they do?

So anyway. Fast forward to today and many PNAC-ers are at the center of the FBI's investigation into back-door pipelining of Iranian intelligence to Israel. And now they're squealing "persecution!" "liberal plot!" "anti-semitism!" and "who, me?"

Today they want us to think they and their dreams of Iraqi glory never really existed.

I wonder why.

Mini-Carnival of the Wingnuts on World O Crap

Sat, 11 Sep 2004 17:45:57 GMT

Don't miss the theological threepio at World O'Crap today, including this quote from Tamara Wilhite trying to out-Malkin dear Michelle:

Anyone who chooses Islam is to be considered a threat to this country and put in confinement. Call it a concentration camp. Guantanomo Bay is more comfortable than Afghanistan, and I’m not suggesting we send them all to Cuba. Old Japanese interment camps work. Remember, extremism is a belief system. If Dad thinks he has a right to blow up Jews for the sake of Jihad, odds are that Junior does, too. Remember: Islamicists are equal opportunity suicide bombers these days. Mom has no qualms about sending her daughter off to school in a suicide bomber belt these days, either. Children tend to inherit the beliefs of their parents. And all children should be interred with the parents. All relatives of those in internment should be interred as well.

As was noted by one of the commenters on WOC, it's kinda creepy that she uses the term "interred" instead of "interned." Ms. Wilhite's strategy is obviously to get attention, à la Malkin and Coulter, but as WOC snorts, "she doesn't have the hair or the legs" to be the next nutjob wankababe.

Afterwards, there's a delicious little ramble through the mind of a Protestant dingbat who presumes to not only judge the filthy soul of John Kerry against that of the merely "flawed" Bush, but to pronounce (in his infinite, Pope-like wisdom) that John Kerry is extending his sins by daring to take Communion. Wank, wank, wank.

Then there's Frank Gaffney. WOC quotes him:

Using innuendo and a steady stream of (often recycled) press leaks, the names and reputations of a number of people — including several who are senior officials in the United States government at the moment — have been sullied.

There is no need to repeat their names here.

Gaffney's talking about the investigation of Pentagon neo-conservatives Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle et al., and members of Vice-President Cheney's office who may be involved in some very serious kinds of espionage.

Today [Gaffney continues], anti-Semitic witch-hunts can be dressed up as ideological conflicts between the Bush Administration's so-called "hardliners" and "moderates." The former are increasingly caricatured as "neo-conservatives." For many who use this ill-defined term, though, it serves as an unmistakable, pejorative code word for "Jews."

"Funny," WOC says, "Dick Cheney doesn't look Jewish." Never mind that many neo-conservatives use the term for themselves, it's pejorative. Trust me.

If the conduct of hostile bureaucrats and Democratic partisans, reprehensible as it is, can at least be easily understood, the behavior of the FBI is less comprehensible. It would be one thing if law enforcement were filing charges and presenting compelling evidence of wrongdoing — and clarity as to who engaged in it.

Oh, I see now. Prosecuting a spy ring is comprehensible, but investigating possible spy rings prior to filing charges against them is a sinister plot by hostile bureaucrats at the FBI.

Hyprocrisy, thy name is Wingnut. For them it was not only a perfectly legit but saintly cause to spend 70 million taxpayer dollars and provide the press with constant leaks and "innuendo" (read: stenographic dictation) regarding the terrifying, life-threatening, Republic-endangering horrors they were uncovering in Clinton's ancient land deal and sexual adventures. But to let anyone in the press know that there is a current ongoing investigation into ESPIONAGE, the actual compromise of national security is ... wait for it ... "anti-Semitic."

Because, you know, Robert Novak, the columnist who outed that CIA agent, is Jewish.

...uh....well...

He's actually Catholic now, but, hey, everybody knows he was BORN Jewish. So that's why he's ~~a material witness~~ being persecuted in this horrible ~~investigation~~ Democratic plot within the FBI.

Joke

Sun, 05 Sep 2004 05:00:00 GMT

A woman walked into a bridal shop one day and told the sales clerk that she was looking for a wedding gown for her fourth wedding.

"Well", replied the sales clerk, "exactly what type of dress are you looking for?"

The bride to be said:, "A long frilly white dress with a veil."

The sales clerk didn't know quite what to say but she finally said, "Frankly, madam, gowns of that nature are considered more appropriate for brides who are being married the first time-for those who are a bit more innocent, if you know what I mean?"

"Well" replied the customer, "I can assure you that I am as innocent as the rest of them. Believe it or not, despite all my marriages, I remain as innocent as any first time bride."

"You see, my first husband was so excited about our wedding he died as we were checking into our hotel.

"My second husband and I got into a terrible fight in the limo on our way to the reception and have not spoken since. We had that wedding annulled immediately."

"What about your third husband?" asked the sales clerk.

"Well" said the woman, "he was a Texas Republican and every night for four years he just sat on the edge of the bed and told me how good it was going to be."

Tee hee.

Meeting Money

Thu, 02 Sep 2004 00:55:13 GMT

Check out this great piece from Rayne Today, courtesy of Mark Hoback's online roundup mag, the Virtual Occoquan. Just a taste:

Bored? Go to the clubhouse pool and lounge around; play some tennis on the club's courts. When you're thirsty, look in the general direction of the bar and wave with an upward sweep of your hand for the help to bring you your usual.

Get back to the dear old shack in time to clean up and dress, greet the folks for cocktails followed by dinner at the club. Make a tee time for tomorrow morning with another friend from the community you run into over dinner.

And kvetch with family over after-dinner drinks about the damn idleness, the general pain-in-the-ass-ness of folks who will suck your family dry with taxes.

Archives: Mel-Low

Wed, 18 Aug 2004 07:20:24 GMT

March 12, 2003

Mel Gibson: International Man of Meshugena

From Is the Pope Catholic....Enough?, a NYT Magazine article on Mel Gibson and his anti-semitic Dad.

...Gibson has shown some of his father's flair for conspiracy scenarios. In a 1995 Playboy interview, he related a sketchy theory that various presidential assassinations and assassination attempts have been acts of retribution for economic reforms that challenged the powers-that-be. ''There's something to do with the Federal Reserve that Lincoln did, Kennedy did and Reagan tried,'' he said. ''I can't remember what it was. My dad told me about it. Everyone who did this particular thing that would have fixed the economy got undone. Anyway, I'll end up dead if I keep talking.'' [sigma]

"I can't remember what it was."

"My dad told me about it."

"Whatever it was, it woulda fixed the economy."

eye roll

Mel. Baby. Even if we were inclined to listen to Your Dad for our international economic facts, we'd be a bit put off by the knowledge that the Federal Reserve wasn't created until sometime in the 19-teens, so Lincoln couldn't have had anything to do with it.

Just stand over there and look pretty, will you?

Ranticore Archives: Frying Freedom

Wed, 18 Aug 2004 07:17:20 GMT

March 13, 2003

How to Make Idiots Look Good: A Lesson from the "Liberal" Media

Wednesday CNN's "American Morning" featured an interview with one of the dimbulbs responsible for renaming Belgian frites "freedom fries" in House dining rooms. Paula Zahn approached this ridiculous matter -- and the congresscritter in question -- with all the furrowed-brow gravitas of an interview with a Nobel Prize winner.

THAT is how policy is made and opinion is changed in this country. Take the silliest waste of governmental time in years and treat it seriously on morning TV, and wallah, an international embarrassment is transformed into a Significant Gesture of Support For Our Troops.

Update: Apparently Rep. Ginny Brown-White (R-FL) will introduce a bill today to allow for the disinterment of the remains of American soldiers buried in France and Belgium. A friend of mine remarked, "I guess it's no longer hallowed ground."

Ranticore Archives: Do what I say, not what I do

Wed, 18 Aug 2004 07:07:52 GMT

March 23, 2003

International Law? WHAT International Law?

Is anyone else as bemused as I am by George Bush's demands that the Iraqis comply with international law in regard to their treatment of the prisoners of war?

This is a man who has blithely thrown over a half-dozen international treaties because they didn't suit his agenda, and who has invaded a sovereign nation "pre-emptively" because he didn't like the guy running the place. Yet this same man can huffily demand that Iraq abide by the Geneva Convention, an instrument of international law.

What if -- as just one example of how the Convention could be bent to Iraq's purposes -- Iraq were to say as the Bush administration does in regard to the detainees at Guantanamo, that their American prisoners are not POWs, but "unlawful combatants" because they are parties to an illegal invasion of their country? Or they could say that the Convention's provisions against tactics of public humiliation or abuses of human dignity can be disregarded, just as the Bush administration has consistently disregarded them in their attempt to persuade the Camp X-Ray prisoners to talk. Or they could say, "Sorry, we never should have signed that convention in the first place, and it's getting in the way of what we want to do, so we're going to withdraw from it."

The whole point of international law is that it is based on a continuing, supposedly unbreakable agreement between sovereign nations, and thus the FIRST PRINCIPLE of international law is to preserve everyone's sovereignty -- a principle which the Bush administration is at this moment flagrantly violating.

At the same time, that sovereignty, that right to call the shots in one's own country, by definition does not apply internationally. International law does not allow nations -- no matter how powerful -- to pick and choose the circumstances in which they will comply. When and if a country does attempt to circumvent treaties and conventions to serve its own purposes, that country undermines the entire establishing principle of international law.

So here we are this afternoon, treated to the absurd, embarrassing spectacle of George Bush bleating about the Geneva Convention while he himself is today's most egregious violator of international law. Can you spell H.Y.P.O.C.R.I.S.Y., boys and girls?

Ranticore Archives: War Porn

Wed, 18 Aug 2004 07:06:11 GMT

March 25, 2003

"Harder! Faster! Ooooh Baby!" says Irma Iraq

The (UK) Guardian's Emma Brockes makes some good (if to me all too evident) points about "War Porn," but she takes way too long to get there (WHAT is that interminable quoted dialogue in aid of?), and has to go and quote women who aren't really speaking to her point at all, but vaguely stroking some very battered rice-bowls. Witness Krista Cowman: "Girls talk about their hopes and dreams and fears; boys communicate through the swapping of lists and football cards." Oh yeah? Fancy that. Yawwwwwn. (And the thing is, Brockes actually admits it's a cliché. Hello? Leave it out!)

But there are some gems amidst the straw(men).

The rolling news channels consume such vast amounts of material that, for practical reasons, it makes sense for them to deploy every scrap of trainspottery detail in the fight against oblivion - that exquisite moment when the news anchor realises just how far from the shores of meaningful speech he's drifted and fear shines in his eyes. Still, the undisguised enthusiasm with which, for example, Sky's Francis Tusa describes a particular sort of jet as a "little beastie", is not, one suspects, about practicality. Even without the Sun's explicit conflation of war and sex images (see Kelly Brook in a camouflage bikini and a series of topless women behind barbed wire entitled "weapons of mass seduction"), the connection isn't hard to make. War porn is everywhere and lots of people, men and women both, have found themselves responding to it.

and

This showbiz element of war is, to a limited extent, encouraged by the military. Witness the rabble-rousing speeches given to troops by their US commanders: "it's hammer time" and "resistance is futile," which is what the Borg, a race of cybernetic beings, say before they assimilate you in Star Trek.
"War films, that whole boys-own approach and language, is what they call the John Wayne syndrome," says Professor Joanna Bourke, historian at Birkbeck University in London and author of An Intimate History of Killing. "It is men in combat getting over their fear state by using the language and mythology of Hollywood."

It must be the editor in me...I always want to rewrite pieces like this down to the good bits and drop-kick the filler into next week.

(Meanwhile, I churn out filler like THIS all the day long. Hey, nobody's perfect.)

Ranticore Archives: Fake Photo

Wed, 18 Aug 2004 06:54:37 GMT

Thursday, March 27, 2003

Oh, fer....

CRYING OUT LOUD!

Does the phrase "will go to any lengths" occur to you when you see crap like this fake photo of Tom Daschle supposedly saluting the flag with his left hand over his heart?

Sigh.

This is the kind of stuff that circulates among the great Rightie unwashed. They don't question these blatant Piltdown Man scams because they WANT to believe them. It's like their religion. So they pass this garbage around like holy cards.

Limbaugh and his rightwing radio ilk started giving us our lessons in the efficacy of bald-faced agitprop falsehood long ago. Since then the Right has polished the technique to such a mesmerizing degree that they were able to paint tightass Boy Scout Al Gore as a pusillanimous liar and drunken lawbreaker George Bush as a shining knight of integrity.

It surpasseth understanding.

Ranticore Archives: Bland Blonde Propaganda

Wed, 18 Aug 2004 06:52:13 GMT

March 31, 2003

All we need to add is the Cyrillic script....

I finally screamed -- yes, OUT LOUD -- and snapped off CNN (or was it MSNBC?) this morning when they attempted to impose on me yet another interminable, manipulative, content-free "human interest" item featuring combatants' families/hometowns/mourning fellows/cleancut hospitalized grunts.

My little girl dog does not care for me squalling curses like a fire bell at that hour of the morning. It took her a minute to realize that I wasn't angry at her. But it was, at last, finally, definitively The Last Straw.

I am so entirely and thoroughly sick of that shit.

Listen up, newschannels: Not only does that kind of sappy, predictable garbage NOT interest me, humanly or otherwise, a steady diet of it is a very unique and subtle kind of horror. Watch Paula Zahn make the world ever safer for Bland Blonde Republican Television (Inc.) by chirpily interviewing another wife who has just, via the good graces of CNN's otherwise utterly wasted technology, chatted with her husband in the field.

"How is he feeling?" Zahn asks, with her own peculiar mixture of secret hope and dismal incuriosity. "How are you feeling?" The army of Lisa Beamer lookalikes replies:

FINE, PAULA. WE'RE ALL FINE OUT HERE IN AMERICALAND! OF COURSE WE'RE A LITTLE BIT WORRIED ABOUT OUR HANDSOME AND ARTICULATE BOYS OVER THERE IN EYE-RACK, BUT THEY HAVE A JOB TO DO AND THEY'RE TRAINED FOR IT AND BEFORE WE KNOW IT THEY'LL BE BACK!

How many times can the "news" networks pretend they are doing journalism by showing nice people saying the same nice/courageous/sad little things and smiling the same brave little smiles? The worst part of it is that the more we see of these inoffensive, boring, perfectly propagandizing people, the more likely it is that we will all go blackheartedly bonkers and start to make mocking MST3K-style remarks at each glimpse of their dewy fresh faces -- if we don't throw up first.

Do the media types not understand that this is the very definition of overkill? That it is in fact making these sweet, hurting, undoubtedly sincere people and their excruciatingly dull and earnest All-American boosterism into laughing stocks?

These featurettes are a tiresome, transparent, MERCENARY attempt by these "news" organizations to create and promote useful political icons, a heart-tugging shorthand of suburban imagery that combines noble beauty and earnest purpose, eerily like Soviet-era progpaganda posters: "Onward, Comrades! Toward the Triumph of Our Will!"

Ranticore Archives: CNN's Bill Schneider

Wed, 18 Aug 2004 06:46:35 GMT

March 27, 2003

Is it Saddam or is it Memorex?

Once again CNN's Bill Schneider (eye roll) pretends that there is some genuine uncertainty about whether the Iraqi television images of Saddam Hussein are him or a double.

Please.

Reality check, Bill: heads of state only use doubles for wide-angle appearances, when the cameras or observers are far enough away that a good overall resemblance will be good enough, or (very, very rarely) for real-life hand-shaking appearances if their audience has (1) not seen much of them on television or (2) never seen them in person before (people will tend to be disoriented enough by the difference between television and up-close and personal life that they will assume any disconnects they sense between the television leader and the one they are meeting are due to that factor).

But heads of state don't -- in fact, they cannot -- use doubles for relatively close-up television appearances in a country where the Fearless Leader is constantly shown on TV, where his voice and face are known better than we know George Bush's.

The human ability to recognize faces and voices is entirely too subtle to be fooled by doubles at that range unless are talking identical twins -- and even then, if one of the twins is known better, most people will recognize something "off" about the other, at least half-consciously. Not to mention that using a double would be a ridiculous chance for the Iraqis to take in these circumstances, when their goal is reassurance.

Yes, Saddam's recent TV appearances were taped, and likely taped well before the "decapitation strike." When he taped them is certainly a legitimate subject for speculation. But the idea that it's not Saddam in those statements, and that the Iraqi people would be fooled by a double at that range, makes anyone who floats it (yes, I'm talking to you, Schneider) look like a desperate CHUMP.

And in related news, the Guardian's Tim Dowling wonders if the man who spoke to the troops in Tampa yesterday is the real thing:

It has long been suspected that Mr Bush employs a string of lookalikes for difficult or dangerous speaking engagements, some of whom may have had their ears specially enlarged for the task.

(childish snicker)

Friday, April 4, 2003

Schneider does it again

I was watching CNN again this morning (why do I DO that to myself?) and Bill Schneider did his standard Slip A Knife In bit while featuring former CIA director James Woolsey's semi-notorious "World War IV" speech at a UCLA "teach in" sponsored by an on-campus Republican group on Wednesday. Here's the CNN report on the speech, the Schneider video itself is pay-per-view:

Former CIA Director James Woolsey said Wednesday the United States is engaged in World War IV [the Cold War being World War III], and that it could continue for years. ...
He said the new war is actually against three enemies: the religious rulers of Iran, the "fascists" of Iraq and Syria, and Islamic extremists like al Qaeda. ...
Singling out Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and the leaders of Saudi Arabia, he said, "We want you nervous. We want you to realize now, for the fourth time in a hundred years, this country and its allies are on the march and that we are on the side of those whom you -- the Mubaraks, the Saudi Royal family -- most fear: We're on the side of your own people."

While Schneider EVENTUALLY said that "some" are made a little nervous by Woolsey's militant triumphalism, he then effectively dismissed that concern by giving the right wing the last word. Before that he subtly helped to burnish the American public's illusion that Saddam Hussein was the man behind 9-11.

Schneider pointed out that Woolsey and a remarkably cohesive and long-standing network of neo-con "war party" types like Wolfowitz and Perle had tried to convince Bill Clinton to go to war against Iraq in 1997 (footage of Clinton talking on the phone). Schneider said that Clinton refused (neglecting to mention how much that refusal PO'd Woolsey and pals), but that 9-11 had taught us a valuable lesson: we had to go get Saddam Hussein.

Did you get that? It was brilliant propaganda, so beautifully subtle that most people wouldn't even notice it. It said: Clinton funked the war on terror because he didn't listen to the guys who are advising the current Bush and didn't topple Saddam Hussein in the late 90s, and as a result Saddam went on to destroy the World Trade Center. Implying, too, that the current war in Iraq, so naughtily delayed by the Clintonistas, was going to prevent further World Trade Center attacks.

Funny how Schneider would never in a million years mention that the Cheney-Wolfowitz-Perle-Woolsey cabal screamed bloody murder every time Bill Clinton twitched in the direction of Osama Bin Laden -- because it took attention away from the idea of conquering Iraq!

No, that is not Schneider's job. Schneider's job is to simplify complexity, ignore history and promote the neo-con cause, while soothing CNN veiwers into thinking he's a truthful man telling them truthful things.

Ranticore Archives: Nutbar Noonan

Wed, 18 Aug 2004 06:42:05 GMT

Sunday, April 6, 2003

Of Crap and Crazy Women

Okay, enough Decent Silence.

Michael Kelly is dead and that's a shame. I feel terrible for his family, but the truth is, the man was a vicious journalistic putz, only marginally less hysterical than Ann Coulter.

TBogg ("Faithful husband, soccer dad, basset owner, and Peggy Noonan stalker") quoted the aforesaid Loony Noony at length on Friday. Believe it or not Noonan believes Kelly should be buried at Arlington for his "heroism," a "heroism" which SWMBN thinks is typified by this remarkable example:

[Kelly] summed up his final judgment on Bill Clinton in a column a few years later, when he responded to another journalist's assertion that Bill Clinton was "unique." Yes, said Kelly. "What comes across as the most important source of Clinton's uniqueness as president is the nearly unbelievable degree of his essential unfitness to be president -- his profound immaturity, his pathological selfishness, his cynicism, above all his relentless corruption."

Kelly's death in Iraq doesn't change the fact that he made a living writing a lot of despicable shit. Anyone who thinks this kind of outrageous political rhetoric is "heroic," that it should, gaudellpus, qualify a man for BURIAL AT ARLINGTON CEMETERY, is not just loony (a term which conveys a certain silly charm), but seriously sick in the head.

Ranticore Archives: Santorum's Stump

Wed, 18 Aug 2004 06:20:32 GMT

April 24, 2003

A Looking-Glass Campaign

So is anyone really in doubt about what is going to happen in the 2004 Presidential Campaign?

No matter who runs against Bush, we're going to see another Looking-Glass Campaign, in both senses: "through the" and "anything we accuse you of will reflect what we are doing."

Count on it: surreal Red Queen ("Off with her head!") pundits will be playing croquet with flamingos and hedgehogs while the Democratic candidate stands in the Wonderland dock, accused of crimes against truth, justice and the American way.
[ed. note: Was I prescient, or what?]

If you need an example, look no further than Stanley Kurtz's defense of Rick Santorum's remarks on the sodomy case in National Review Online:

I am convinced that Sen. Santorum's recent remarks on homosexuality have been badly distorted by both the Democratic party and the mainstream press. The shameful public response to Sen. Santorum's statements is a sad and revealing example of liberal media bias at its worst.

eye roll

If this is the "worst" we can manage, we've got a lot of catching up to do to even begin to approach the routinely shameful distortions of the right wing press.

The chief charge against Santorum is that he has "equated" homosexuality with bigamy, polygamy, and incest.

No, the chief charge against Satorum is that he believes even private sexual behaviors should be regulated by the state, because any sex but heterosexual monogamous sex is Bad for Society.

That charge is a serious distortion of Santorum's point. In his most widely quoted (and excoriated) remark, Santorum says, "If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything."

Kurtz attempts to say that Santorum is ONLY making a nice, clean, intellectually elevated "slippery slope" argument here and is not, in fact, "equating" homosexuality, bigamy, adultery and incest. But he is, and not just as a rhetorical, guilt-by-association appeal to aversive emotion, but in a crucial logical sense that Kurtz himself notes later on:

In his statement, Santorum gives a number examples, all different, yet all cases in which he claims that the government has some legitimate interest in regulating sexuality.

And WHY might the state have a legitimate interest in regulating these various forms of sexual behavior? (Here Kurtz attempts to misdirect us down a primrose path in which he, er, "equates" liberals' expressions of disgust at Santorum's remarks with liberals' supposed wish to eliminate all Good Christians from government service, but let's not be distracted.)

The truth is, a whole series of non-marital or non-reproductive practices that have gained social approval over the last 30 years -- from birth control, to abortion, to premarital sex, to homosexuality -- have in fact helped to undermine the structure of the traditional family. That is true, whether or not you are religious, and whether or not you think that these developments have been positive or not.

Um, no, that is not necessarily true at all. I can see how birth control, abortion and premarital sex have undermined traditional marriage by making illicit sex more available (mainly because the natural consequences of heterosexual congress are more easily avoided), but I don't see how homosexuality has any impact on traditional heterosexual marriage at all. It's not as if millions of het men and women are going to "turn gay" in order to avail themselves of sex without the risk of pregnancy, is it?

But maybe Kurtz does think that homosexual behavior -- even private homosexual behavior -- constitutes some kind of homewrecking siren song to the heterosexual population. If he does, I am forced to wonder whether the sight of a Gay Pride parade or the comfy male couple next door awakes in HIM some unholy longing to abandon his marriage and skip off into the sunset with a mustachioed biker hunk. No? Then what is the risk you DO see, Stanley?

Never mind. Onward.

So when Santorum says that "all these things" (homosexuality, polygamy, etc.) tend to undermine the traditional family, he is absolutely right.

So, okay, according to Kurtz, Santorum is saying his laundry list of things all (supposedly) have the same "undermining" effects on society and families, but he is absolutely not "equating" them in any way. Oh no. Not at all.

What were we saying about dishonest discourse?

As I've noted elsewhere, even many gay thinkers believe that there is a tradeoff between social acceptance for homosexuality and the stability of the family. In his book, The Pleasure Principle, gay activist Michael Bronski makes exactly this point. Bronski happens to believe that the traditional family is oppressive and outdated, and so looks forward to the day when increased acceptance of homosexuality will help to put an end to traditional family patterns for everyone, heterosexuals and homosexuals alike. Agree or not, the tradeoff is real.

Notice the "nothing up my sleeve" misdirection toward the horrifying conservowhack specter of "The Gay Agenda" as delineated by one "activist" writer, whose argument is not quite what Kurtz makes it out to be. Are you surprised?

Nothing in this argument implies that homosexuality is "equivalent" to, say, incest. True, homosexuality, adultery, polygamy, and incest, insofar as they contravene traditional norms, all tend to destabilize the traditional family. They have that in common, but they are still by no means "equivalent."

Semantic flim-flam. The argument may not, strictly speaking, be saying that incest = homosexuality. They are obviously different things in several senses. But the argument does say that incest and homosexuality both threaten the traditional family, and the implication of Santorum's list is that the threat from all of them is equal. According to Kurtz, the reason Santorum listed them together is because they have that "in common." As I argue above, they do NOT in fact have that in common.

Legalized group marriage, for example, would be more damaging to the traditional family than gay marriage.

Stanley sees the difference in the levels of threat, but Santorum's statement makes no such distinction.

But gay marriage could nonetheless put us on the slippery slope to legalized polyamory. There is a relationship here, but by no means an equivalence. And nothing in Santorum's remarks implies otherwise.

Wrong. Santorum's remarks DO imply equivalence in terms of Danger To The Family, as Kurtz himself illustrates. In other words, the equivalence Santorum meant to express, but which Kurtz somehow can't see even as he expresses it himself, is that "all these things" are Bad because they "undermine the traditional family structure" or are "trade offs" to "family stability."

What I'd like to see now from the right and the Santorum defenders is a justification for the view that legal sanctions against "all these things" -- but most especially private homosexual behavior -- can in any way ensure the stability of the "traditional family structure."

Any takers?

Archives: Reconsidering the Chel-scene

Wed, 18 Aug 2004 06:12:10 GMT

May 6, 2003

Reconsidering the Chel-scene

From The Morning News, The Complicated Art of Chelsea, by Choire Sicha:

I had set out to convert Jacob to the love of art, and instead his easy disdain was converting me. I began to apologize for the expedition, the art, even myself. He shrugged, unharmed by the disregard of art, something he didn't even care for. Frantically I dragged him into the next gallery, then the next. Globby paintings of sunset (but why sunsets? who cares?), repetitive time-and-date-stamped snapshots of a naked man bathing in streams (I can't imagine why I'd care about someone's vacation nudism, unless there's a hard-on involved), and empty, crappily painted flowery canvasses of a gender-indeterminate couple on what appeared to be the set of Six Feet Under. I stood in the middle of the empty Mary Boone gallery, the most pristine money mill in the world, surrounded by a sold-out show of half-a-million dollar paintings. The impeccable staff were clicking their pens and answering their phones and I wanted to scream.

Had it always been so awful?

Well, yes, actually, it had.

Sicha's effort here is just one more easily-ignored critical piece that dares to whisper that the pricey "high concept" art scene is a parade of naked Emperors. Sure, there's the occasional velvet tabard or sharp-nosed ermine scarf, but it's 99% bare asses.

There's too much at stake, though: reputation, money, money based on reputation, reputation based on money (not to mention one's personal status in the Sophistication Bureaucracy). We have to ignore those little voices piping in the background:

"But all I see is dick!"

Ranticore Archives: Tax Cut Follies

Wed, 18 Aug 2004 06:08:59 GMT

May 6, 2003

The Monster Economic Rant

I was watching CNBC this morning as is my wont, and there ensued a discussion of Chuck Grassley's (R-Iowa) intention to introduce a bill that will extend the tax cut to $420 billion from the $350 billion deal that he made with the "moderates" (the extra $70 billion is going to be okay with Voivonich and Snowe, he assured us, because they signed on to the idea of adding "set asides" over and above the agreement cut-off).

The "Squawk Box" guest host, Gerald Hoey, asked Grassley what the "financial logic" was behind cutting down the President's $726 billion tax cut proposal to only $350 billion, since it was (he claimed) only the difference between .1% of the upcoming decade's GDP vs. .2%. Obviously, Hoey implied, $350 billion here or there was not going to make any difference at all, so they should have just passed the whole of Bush's proposed cut intact.

Yeah, well, that was apparently Hoey's logic. Which kind of made me laugh and kind of made me cry, all at the same time.

Mr. Grassley, Republican tool that he is, couldn't very well answer that the "financial logic" of reducing the tax cut was the same logic that caused most of the Democrats to vote against it: that we can't afford it in the first place. He did confess that if he hadn't agreed to that half measure, he couldn't have gotten any cut through the Senate at all.

Hoey, of course, was terribly anxious to play up the idea that it was political logic, not financial logic, that caused the compromise. (Ironic in the circumstances that Hoey's calculations of the impact of the cuts compared to GDP leave out or underestimate the year-to-year compounding costs of financing the rising debt. The net economic drag the financing "tax" would cause to the economy -- per Mr. Greenspan's congressional testimony last week -- apparently played no role in Hoey's figures).

I simply cannot get over what a mendacious bill of goods this whole tax cut scam is. Somehow, against all remnants of reason, Republicans have gotten Americans to swallow the most incredible pile of shit on the taxation issue. The wool they're pulling down over American eyes is, in and of itself, the triumph of political logic over economic logic. But, really, calling it logic of any kind is really a misnomer. It's just crazy.

The first thing the Pubs don't want you to know, that they have worked like blazes to obscure, is that taxation, per se, doesn't "take money out of the economy." That is a total, complete, utter, and fabulously vile CROCK. Can I say that again? Because I really want you to get it: when you pay taxes, the vast majority of the money goes right back into the American economy, into the pockets of your fellow citizens, and thus indirectly into YOURS as their spending circulates into cash registers and banks everywhere.

See, the most important engine of economic growth is not the volume of money in circulation, it's how FAST it circulates. That's why it is crucial to maintain consumer spending, because without brisk demand, the economy slows down. And compounding the challenge, we are in a bit of a bind right now with regard to production. Productivity is rising while employment is falling. Our orgy of capital spending (spending that businesses do to increase their ability to produce goods and services) in the 90s has created what economists call a crisis of overcapacity.

It's not that interest rates are not low enough to spur capital spending, it's that production has been outstripping the demand for goods and services. Demand is not high enough to justify increased production, so even when some interest rates are effectively NEGATIVE in relation to expected inflation, businesses are still not interested in borrowing money to finance any damn thing.

Spending will have to pick up and the excess capacity and inventories will have to be worked off (bought up or just plain destroyed) before most businesses will consider any significant increase in capital spending for production. And even then, increases in productivity have made it possible to do more with fewer employees and at lower marginal costs these days, which makes the need for new investment an even higher hill to climb. And those investments, when they do make them, might increase productivity even more, pushing a significant rise in employment ever further off, delaying the demand part of the cycle. (A friend of mine jokes that it might be better if businesses installed LESS efficient new machinery.)

Contrary to what the supply siders would have you believe, there is no shortage of capital in the global market. Interest rates are at virtual rock-bottom everywhere. That means the world is AWASH in money waiting to be invested, drowning in a sea of capital. What the world doesn't have is a good, consistent and growing level of spending, spending which would speed up money flows and induce businesses to say, "Hey, things are finally looking up out there, let's buy some new equipment."

So that's why there's been so much talk of "putting money in consumer's pockets" lately: so that consumers will be able to consume more, and thus encourage businesses to invest in additional capital. The Republicans pretend that cutting taxes is the ideal way to do that, but the kinds of tax cuts they want will contribute to a SLOWDOWN in the movement of money.

Adding a huge chunk of money to one millionaire's pocket does not increase spending nearly as much as adding smaller chunks to a million middle class pockets. There are only so many goods and services that one millionaire family can buy. Once he's bought six cars and three houses, he's going to want to put the rest of his money away in the bank (so to speak). He'll essentially "park" the vast majority of it. But as we noticed earlier, the bank isn't going to be doing much with that money because businesses aren't all that interested in borrowing it right now. So it'll cool its heels, sittin' on the dock of the bay, wastin' time.

As we discovered in the Roaring Twenties before the Great Depression, permitting money to concentrate too heavily in too few very rich hands means that the less affluent part of the population will not be able to buy the goods necessary to sustain a cycle of prosperity. Because of the lopsided structure of wealth in that era, rich people could buy the hot new consumer goods like motorcars and radios, but the vast majority of folk couldn't, so the higher income consumer market quickly became saturated. Inventories built up as factories continued to put out stuff nobody could buy, and then, inevitably, came the day of reckoning. THAT is why the problem of overcapacity is something of a potential nightmare.

But if that same huge chunk of money the Bushies want to give to a few millionaires was -- dare I say it?-- redistributed to millions of less rich and less satisfied consumers, they'd spend it, immediately, on pillows and pens and groceries and gasoline and button-down shirts. Precious little of it would end up in banks (although a lot of it would probably go to paying off credit cards and cars, freeing up more spending).

So even if you have to cut taxes (political logic being a demanding mistress), you need to cut middle and lower class taxes, putting the money into SPENDER'S pockets, not (as the Republicans keep bleating) INVESTOR'S pockets. Because when there are lots and lots of people out there spending money like mad, businesses will be encouraged to continue to make investments in more production, and those investments will pay off with sustainable rates of return that can be reinvested. Result? Economic growth.

But people -- the common millions -- have to have the ability to spend money FIRST. They have to have and keep jobs or they have to be on some other kind of steady, predictable income (like Social Security). Otherwise they won't spend, and everybody goes down with THAT ship.

This is one reason why the snowballing reductions in state and municipal government payrolls brought on by tax starvation is not good news at all, as the Pubs (with their wiggy fixation on making government so small "you could drown it in a bathtub") would have you believe. Unemployment -- of ANY kind -- simply reduces the ability of the populace to consume what business needs to produce (and not incidentally, hire people to produce it). So starving government operations in order to reduce taxes on the rich ends up merely robbing Peter to pay Paul...and Paul doesn't need the money!

He'll end up suffering in the long run, though, because if all the little people aren't spending money, the businesses he's invested in won't make nice profits and and won't be able to pay him his dividends. And they'll have to lay people off, and then fewer people will be able to afford to consume at optimum levels, and so on. What goes around comes around, you might say. Of such things are downward economic spirals made.

One final note: it's fascinating to me that the major avenue by which American tax money goes to foreigners (and then, with some truth, "out of the economy") is when it goes to foreign bond holders to pay interest on the national debt. Are we clear on that? One way we can virtually guarantee that some sizable amount of our tax money will leave the U.S. without circulating quickly back into domestic pockets and contributing directly to our economic growth is when we RACK UP DEBT.

So let's not, whattya say?

Ranticore Archives: Hairballs

Wed, 18 Aug 2004 05:55:42 GMT

May 15, 2003

Oooh! Hardballs!

It's fascinating to me how hilariously sick and twisted Chris Matthews's ~~Hairball~~ Hardball has gotten lately. It was always among the most incoherent and internally contradictory political shows on cable, but these days it's like listening to the surreal consciousness of a paranoid schizophrenic (all those cackling-overlapping-breathless voices, all those ominous half-finished sentences) with an undercurrent of homoerotic fixation on George Bush. Many of Matthews's guests sound like escapees from Onion articles. You think there's no way they can possibly be serious, yet there they are, flapping the good flap with utterly straight faces.

The blogosphere has been a-twitter lately about D List political mouth Michael Graham's May 7 appearance on Hardball and the ways in which he has attempted to excuse himself from what he said. Here's the relevant part of the official transcript:

MATTHEWS: ... Bob Ryan, he's a sports writer for the "Boston Globe," 30 year veteran. He apparently referred the other day in talking about the wife of Jason Kidd who plays for the New York Nets, or New Jersey Nets, whatever it is, that he said he said that she deserves to be smacked.
What do you think? I'm looking at the whole thing, "I got theories with this woman, this Joumana Kidd who wants to be a star, wants face time on camera. The great way to get face time is to bring the cute precocious kid. Oh, great. I'd like to smack her."
For that he got a suspension without pay for a month. What do you make of that, Katrina?

VANDEN HEUVEL: As a woman I find it offensive, cruel, ignorant about the problems of domestic abuse and violence. As an editor, it bothers me that a newspaper would suspend a columnist. I might just add, I think it's ironic the editor of the "Boston Globe" talked about his language being offensive and unacceptable because I would argue that a lot of the political talk shows on cable, including Michael Savage, if they were held to that standard of unacceptable and offensive, would be pronto on a lot of 30-day suspensions.

MATTHEWS: Well, I accept your standards. Michael Graham, what do you think?
GRAHAM: I'm not a woman or an editor. But as a human being, I found the line a joke. It was a joke. It was just an off the cuff comment. Anyone listening to Hillary Rodham in her speech last week about patriotism, that screaming, screeching fingernail, I wanted to bludgeon her with a tire iron. That's what I wanted to do.

A-List blogger Atrios gives good blogging on Graham's remarks, prompting Graham to keep digging his little hole with a claim that he had followed his tire iron "joke" with the words, "That's how I felt, but I would never DO it." Except -- whoops -- the transcript doesn't bear him out. Liar, liar pants on fire.

The next day Matthews invited G. Gordon Liddy on to do some of his signature demented patter on the subject of American women's motivation to vote for George W. Bush next year.

MATTHEWS: Well, I think we now know the Democratic Party talking points for this week. G. Gordon Liddy's a radio talk-show host and author of the book "When I Was a Kid, This Was a Free Country." Gordon, my buddy, thanks for joining us. I'm now giving you a shooting gallery of opportunity here.

G. GORDON LIDDY ... : Yes, you are.

MATTHEWS: What do you make of this broadside against the USS Abraham Lincoln and its chief visitor last week?
LIDDY: Well, I -- in the first place, I think it's envy. I mean, after all, Al Gore had to go get some woman to tell him how to be a man.

Liar, Liar, pants on fire.

And here comes George Bush. You know, he's in his flight suit, he's striding across the deck, and he's wearing his parachute harness, you know -- and I've worn those because I parachute -- and it makes the best of his manly characteristic. You go run those -- run that stuff again of him walking across there with the parachute. He has just won every woman's vote in the United States of America. You know, all those women who say size doesn't count -- they're all liars. Check that out.

Well, now we all know that size matters to YOU, Mr. Liddy.

MATTHEWS: And I've got to say why do the Democrats, as you say, want to keep advertising this guy's greatest moment?
LIDDY: Look, he's -- he's coming across as a -- well, as women would call in on my show saying, what a stud, you know, and then guy -- they're seeing him out there with his flight suit, and he's -- and they know he's an F-105 fighter jock. I mean it's just great. ...
MATTHEWS: I think that's a bonding that we're seeing right there. We're watching it now, Gordon. It's pretty impressive bonding between him and these guys. I mean they did win the war together, and he was their commander in chief. ...

"Bonding" -- is that code for something?

MATTHEWS: ... Let me ask you about your new book, "When I Was a Kid, This Was a Free Country." What do you mean by that?
LIDDY: OK. What I am deliberately aiming at is young people, and the way I start out is by telling them, look, when I was a kid, these were the things that I could do which would be thought extraordinary today.
You're just not -- for example, at age 12, with two or three buddies walking right down the main street of town, rifles, pistols, shotguns, going out in the woods, banging away.

MATTHEWS: Where did you grow up? In Tucson?
LIDDY: No. West Caldwell, New Jersey, 13 miles from the George Washington Bridge. ... You could go out on the Fourth of July and buy cannon crackers. You'd put it under a number 10 can, blow that sucker 60 feet right up in the air. We wanted to put our leaves out in the gutter and burn them, we put our leaves out in the gutter and burn them.

MATTHEWS: I remember that. That stuff was called (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
You used the put in a can and blow it up for fun, right?
LIDDY: All kinds of things we used to do, but -- but the point is -- let's say you fancied a particular European car, and you could afford it. In those days, nobody could because it was the depression. But suppose you could. You just buy it and drive it.
You didn't have to get the government's permission because it didn't have a (UNINTELLIGIBLE) on it to reduce emissions or something of that sort. You were free in those days.

Damn! How in the world did we come to this? Making people put emissions controls on their cars just because there were millions more of them out on the roads? Horrible! Horrible!

How can you tell Chris Matthews is a walkin' talkin' gum chewin' Republican? He can't stop thinking about Bill Clinton's ~~shorts~~ shortcomings in comparison to Bush's manly droolworthiness. Observe how he discussed Bush's carrier landing with the worshipful Peggy "Prie Dieu" Noonan the next night.

MATTHEWS: We have a visual while we're looking here. In Hollywood, they say how did you get the part. I fit the costume. You know, it's an old joke in Hollywood. I fit the costume...

(LAUGHTER)
NOONAN: Right.
MATTHEWS: ... because they have the -- this guy fits the costume, doesn't he?

NOONAN: Yes.

MATTHEWS: I mean Bill Clinton -- do you think they had jump-suits in Bill Clinton's size?

Here's clue, Chrissie: if they don't have them in Bill's size, they sure as hell don't have 'em in yours, either.

Or ... wait ... were you wondering whether they had a jumpsuit big enough to contain Clinton's big beautiful penis? Is that what you were REALLY wondering, Chrissie?

NOONAN: The key with Bush, however, is that, you know, he seems like one of these guys and one of these gals because he's just like them. He's a regular American male.

He's a regular American male. Gaaack. If that's true, gaudellpus.

NOONAN (continuing directly): He also...
I've got to tell you what I think -- can I tell what you I think the key to the great landing on the aircraft carrier was?

MATTHEWS: That's why you're here, Peggy.

Yes, Peggy, I invited you on so I could watch you slobber on George. It's how I get my kicks, giving these vicarious virtual blowjobs to my hero.

NOONAN: All right. This is what I think it was. It wasn't just it was showy, it was showbiz, it was "Top Gun," it was Tom Cruise's suit, it was all that wonderful stuff. It's that the American president not only put himself in harm's way going to see American troopers, but he showed them by coming in on that ship I trust you.

MATTHEWS: A little risk. Just a little bit of risk.
NOONAN: It wasn't just risk. It was trust. It was faith. You're going to take care of me. You're going to hit that second trap, the third trap, or the fourth. I'm safe in your hands. It was a compliment, you know. ... one of those ...

MATTHEWS: It's like knowing to bring...

NOONAN: ... indelible political moments.

MATTHEWS: ... a meg -- to bring a bullhorn to ground zero on September 14, not to bring a mic. It's that little difference. If he'd had a mic there, if he was like Wayne Newton with a mic or some show-business guy, he would have looked like a lounge act.

NOONAN: Barney Rubble.

MATTHEWS: Because he had that bullhorn, he was a guy like them.
We'll be talking more...
NOONAN: He was a guy with his arm around the...
MATTHEWS: ... about this accoutrements of...

NOONAN: ... other firemen.

"Other firemen"? As TBogg put it, "What? Is Bush now a fireman AND a steely-eyed rocket man? Since he's also supposed to be a cowboy, I guess he's hit the 6-year-old boy trifecta." Bwahahahahahaha!

If it wasn't for Chris's tenacious concentration on sexual fantasies of all varieties, one might take him for a six year old boy.

Ranticore Archives: Wait Til the Sun Shines, Nelly

Wed, 18 Aug 2004 05:45:41 GMT

Monday, May 26, 2003

Primo Ranting

Rayne said it all regarding Daily Kos's "theoretical" stumble on the Texas legislation forcing women into a 24-hour "waiting period" before they can have an abortion. Let's be frank. The legislation's ONLY purpose is to make legal abortions more difficult and costly (most Texas women have to travel long distances to one of the rare and far-flung providers in that huge and sorry-ass state, and this law tacks on an extra night).

The clueless Texasses apparently believe that if you make safe abortions less convenient, desperate women will just throw up their hands and decide not to have them. Puh-leeze. Don't think that there won't be some illegal coathanger practictioners stepping into this situation, preying on women who need a closer and less expensive option. The resulting deaths will be on these legislators' heads.

Even if you take the supposed rationale seriously (as Kos apparently did), it's still completely outrageous. The idea that women are so airheaded and cavalier that they must be forced to ponder a decision that involves their very FLESH AND BONES for another 24 hours, is of a fuckedupness that is almost beyond belief -- except that we're talking about right-wing "your-body-belongs-to-the-State" theocrats here, and nothing is beyond them.

UPDATE: I should probably point out that although I think Lysistrata is a hoot of an anti-war fantasy, I wouldn't sign on to Rayne's equally amusing recommendation that Texas women withhold sex until their legislature wises up. Not only does the suggestion (serious or not) that anyone should use sex as a reward or punishment curl my hair, it would mean no yummy in anybody's tummy until the grand opening of Satan's Skating Rink. Why should we deprive ourselves when there are so many other persuasive methods available?

wicked smile

Ranticore Archives: Speaking of Education....

Wed, 18 Aug 2004 05:30:29 GMT

Tuesday, May 27, 2003

Leave No Child Behind the Eight Ball?

Great education-related blogging all over the Internet these days.

The Daily Howler snatches down Chester Finn's performance on last Thursday night's The O'Reilly Factor. (I'm grateful that Somerby keeps an eye on that pungent pile. Even if I'm able to choke down a Hardball now and again, my gag reflex kicks in inexorably when I see O'Reilly "sincere" fox populi mug. Like most spineless liberals I don't like throwing up on my living room rug, so I don't watch him.)

Finn offered no ideas about how Florida's crummy schools could be improved. He simply said we should flunk the kids, and then the schools would be forced to get better. ...
Make no mistake -- crackpot logic rules our education debates. Last fall, for example, Yamil Berard of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram was discussing a new testing program in the Texas schools. This new program, the TAKS, would replace a familiar old testing program, the TAAS. Starting in 2003 with third graders, the new test would be used to determine promotion.

At one point, Berard explained why the TAAS had been dumped. Berard refers to Arlington school board member John McInnis:
BERARD: McInnis, like other trustees, are [sic] anxious about the TAKS, which this year will replace the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills. The TAAS is being scrapped after more than a decade because so many students were acing it. [Somerby's emphasis] But officials at some school districts say they are flying blind on the TAKS and have only had a peek at instruction guides and sample questions.
Good lord! According to Berard, the old testing program was being scrapped because so many students were passing it! But if a test was designed to measure preparation for the next grade, why in the world would a state be upset because too many children were passing? Multiply that logic a million times and you have America's public school debate. By the way, need we say that this switch in Texas tests was engineered by its former governor, George Bush?

Somerby also links to Winerip's article in the pinko NYT that outlines why promotion testing is not only potentially detrimental but essentially pointless in elementary schools. The big secret of elementary education today, notes Somerby, the crucial fact that the "fail 'em and they'll magically get better" types ignore, is that not all the students in any classroom are taught at the same level or in the same way.

Nor is it desirable that they should be. There is a wide range of ability and achievement among nine-year old children, and nothing schools could ever do could ever change that fact. In most schools, as in Leggett's, kids get their reading instruction with other kids who are on the same "reading level." (In a large school like Leggett's, with five teachers per grade, the kids may even change classrooms for reading.) Those 23 kids [who failed the promotion test] will get exactly, precisely the same instruction whether their classroom door says "3" or "4".

Jeanne D'Arc at Body and Soul is sweetly fair and nobly non-partisan in pointing out that the nation's current standardized testing mania is not entirely George Bush's fault, but she links to Julia's (jmhm) angry lament which tends to convince me that he's made things considerably worse:

HM's teacher this year is a disaster.
She seems to be a nice enough woman, a bit querulous, but nice enough, but her class is unruly and they're not learning and she has no control over them at all. It's not completely her fault, though.

This is the part where President Bush comes in.

See, no-one wants to teach fourth grade.
Fourth grade is when they've scheduled the big do-or-die test that elementary schools are assessed on. Given the importance of the test, and the increasing pressure to link teachers' raises and their jobs to "performance," senior teachers understandably don't want to teach fourth grade - understandably because you can be the greatest teacher in the world and you're still not going to be able to cram four years of cumulative learning into a fourth-grader who hasn't learned what they were supposed to in grades K-3 (particularly if amongst the things they haven't learned are Sitting Attentively in Class and Working and Playing Well with Others).
So, the senior teachers threatened to quit if they were asked to teach fourth grade, including the ones who actually had experience in teaching fourth grade. No one particularly seems to want two or three either. So, how do we resolve this?
If we want to hold on to our best teachers, we move them to fifth and sixth grade, and that's just what our school did. That's what a lot of schools are doing.

What does that mean? It means a few things.
- It means that the most senior teachers with the most experience are teaching children whose groundwork has already been laid by the least senior teachers
- It means that teachers who are used to teaching students in lower grades are now teaching children in upper grades - children who challenge all their hard-learned assumptions about how classes behave, how they process information, and how they respond.
- It means that children in lower grades are being taught by teachers who don't have experience in teaching lower grades, because they've been bumped out of their upper-grade classes by more senior teachers. (The most experienced teachers didn't traditionally gravitate to the children who were approaching puberty, for obvious reasons).
- It means that teachers who are used to riding herd on pre-pubescent children are carrying their disciplinary methods and expectations into classrooms of seven- and eight-year-olds.

- It means that HM's teacher is a disaster.

Pandagon discusses the peculiar "logic" behind Jeff Jacoby's recent claim that teachers' unions are the true evil in education because they are demanding smaller class sizes. The FIENDS!

Jacoby also hilariously compares teachers to auto workers, apparently unaware that the production of cars for private industry and the production of educated and productive citizens for the public good are somewhat different tasks. And in response to Jacoby's contention that the unions are too "self-interested" to promote good policy, "Squeaky Rat" notes

And if you asked the oil and gas industry to write an energy policy for you, I guess everyone would recognize the "self-serving" aims of the result, right?

Squeaky, Squeaky, you poor deluded animal. Don't you know that it is perfectly okay for private corporations to make "self-interested" contributions to policy decisions (or political campaigns, for that matter), but that it is downright criminal for a public employees' union to inject themselves into the debate over the public service its members are tasked to provide?

"Crackpot" doesn't begin to describe this stuff.

Ranticore Archives: Education Scam in Texas

Wed, 18 Aug 2004 04:54:59 GMT

Thursday, August 14, 2003

So Much For the "Texas Education Miracle"

Didn't anybody ever wonder how such amazing improvements could occur in such a short time?

Kevin Drum has a don't-miss blog entry on the NYT's story about the Houston school district's massive fudging of data to make their schools look like they were improving "miraculously," to the great political benefit of Texas's former governor, one Geo Whiz Bush. Didn't hurt Ron Paige (Secretary of Education), either.

Anyone who has spent any time at all in management knows that whenever you set up goals and the systems to measure them, you also spend a lot of time talking about how the goals can be met and whether the system can be gamed.
All managers talk about this. It's practically an obsession, in fact, because it's such common knowledge that measurement systems often flounder on the fact that there are ways to meet numeric goals without actually meeting the goals themselves: you can change definitions, you can refuse to accept low-performance students who might drag down your average, you can outright cheat, etc. As Ken Lay demonstrated, there are plenty of ways to make numbers look good even when the company is going down the tubes.
Any manager interested in genuine progress, therefore, monitors the numbers carefully and looks for signs that the system is being gamed. It defies reason that an experienced administrator like Rod Paige didn't recognize an enormous discrepency like this, and since all this happened while he was superintendent of the Houston school district it's hard to avoid the conclusion that either (a) he knew this was going on, or (b) he simply didn't care as long as the numbers made him look good.

Disgraceful.

The conversation at Calpundit was guided inevitably by the right wing commentors into the idea that you can run schools like you run a business. Make them numerically accountable and set them to compete with each other, and you'll get improved schools in no time flat (supposedly without having to spend any extra money, too...speaking of miracles...).

There's a problem here that the libertarian/conservative posters are not seeing. In private industry the only measure of success, the only thing you ultimately have to be accountable for -- and only to YOUR shareholders, at that -- is profit. Money in vs. money out.

The problem is that "public goods" like education cannot be measured with such a universally agreed and foolproof yardstick as whether or not income exceeds costs. Thus it is JUST possible that this universal testing tool might not be measuring "educational success" at all but some other (independent OR manipulable) variable. Like, oh, say...socioeconomic class or the limits of talents in a given population (shhhh!).

It continually fascinates me that the question of public education is one of those where the right seems to be absolutely convinced that "nurture" can always overcome "nature." The entire approach appears to hold that any given group of kids, if taught properly, can and should be able to match the academic achievements of any other group of kids, and if they don't, they are by definition not being taught properly.

I don't think that necessarily follows, do you?

And what was that murmuring we heard a while back about the LEFT'S silly insistence on equality of results?