February 2006

Those who have read my scribblings for a while will know that I’ve come down hard on one Kit Jarrell, who writes over at Euphoric Reality. Kit’s never done anything particularly nasty to me, and I bear her no personal ill will. But she is representative of the worst of political discourse as it is practiced by the right today: jingoistic, intolerant, bigoted, ready to advocate the mass murder of civilians (especially Islamic civilians) at the drop of a hat. And like most of her ilk, Kit cannot bring herself to address the actual arguments being made against the foreign and domestic policies of Our Sainted President.

Kit’s recent screed entitled Answering the Left About Liberty is a typical example of the sort of obfuscatory, dishonest rhetoric employed by the right in these times. Read the rest of this entry »

Larry Johnson:

…Al Qaeda and other terrorists did not learn from Jim Risen or the New York Times that the NSA (and others) were listening in on their various communications. They already knew that.

What we need to figure out is quite simple. Is every American, including a war time President, covered by the Constitution? Our answer to that question will determine if we can really remain a free society, ruled by law rather than strongmen.

Exactly. Read it all.

Abbas Raza makes some very important points about the current rage in the Islamic world over the Danish cartoons.

I have received quite a few emails from 3 Quarks readers asking me to explain what it is about Islam that makes it so intolerant and irrational. These are well-meaning individuals, hoping to figure out a way to avoid what many have come to see as the inevitable “clash of civilizations”. How should they be engaging the Islamic world when it appears to them so incapable of reasoned debate and discussion? They mean no insult, but I still wonder if they wrote to their black friends during the Rodney King riots, asking them to explain why black people behave so irrationally? No, they didn’t. Why didn’t they? Because while they do not give sanction to criminal and violent acts of looting and vandalism, they can understand how a collection of historically oppressed people can be driven to irrational rage by repeated acts of injustice and caricature.

Please read it all.

The Anchoress blathers up some complete and utter horseshit:

I think this is an ugly precedent, and maybe for once, just once, some liberals might stop making excuses for inappropriate behavior and consider that perhaps weddings and funerals are off-limits for political posturing and positioning.

She’s speaking, of course, about the terrible terrible things that were said at Coretta Scott King’s funeral… political things! Gasp! Bring the smelling salts! Read the rest of this entry »

Jay at StoptheACLU.com notes a recent editorial:

Prior to her talk at Bridgewater College, scheduled for Thursday night, ACLU President Nadine Strossen questioned elements of the Bush administration’s surveillance program by posing an intriguing question.

“If Hillary Clinton were president, would they (conservatives) feel comfortable with (the electronic surveillance program)? I don’t think so,” Strossen said.

Jay responds:

[W]hether we can trust Congress not to leak this information is the real question, not some hypothetical question of whether or not we can trust an imaginary democrat President with the program.

Nope. Wrong. That’s not the question.

The real question is this: Can we trust George W. Bush to obey the laws of this country? As we already know, the answer to that one is a big fat NO!

Bush has broken the law. Ordinary citizens who break the law face consequences for their actions. Will such consequences apply to Emperor Dubya? If they do not, what does that tell us about the reality of the “rule of law” in this country?

Jimmy Carter is a genius. He made a point with laserlike precision during the funeral of Coretta Scott King:

The funeral took on political overtones as former President Carter said of the Kings: “It was difficult for them then personally with the civil liberties of both husband and wife violated as they became the target of secret government wiretaps.”

Poor gormless Jay over at Stop The ACLU has a hissy fit because someone dared to criticize Emperor Dubya’s policies:

Leave it to the liberals to use the funeral of a Civil Rights leader to preach their Bush hatred. It isn’t even shocking how low they will go now. Absolutely shameful how the race baiters have no respect for the dead, and used this as a political platform.

Uh, excuse me, Jay, but Dr. and Mrs. King were embroiled in political matters their entire lives. They worked with, battled against, and were reviled by politicians of every stripe. They pushed and prodded and demanded that this country do one thing above all else: Live by the principles it claims to stand for. One of those principals is that this is a country ruled by laws, not men. George W. Bush spits in the face of that principle, and if someone takes a moment to remind him of his transgressions during the funeral of a civil rights pioneer, all the better. It is the civil rights of all Americans, after all, that Bush has decided to violate by breaking the law.

UPDATE 02/08/06: The rightwing blognutosphere is going apeshit about this. Romeocat at Cathouse Chat has the vapors over Carter’s words, and tries throwing some slime to see if it sticks:

Oh, please, Mr. Kotter Carter. Can you be more irrelevant? You have a history of calling evil good, and good, evil. You endores tyrants and petty dictators in their pretend “elections,” and set yourself against true freedom and democracy.

Of course, Romeocat can’t argue against the fact that Carter has his facts right… so scurrilous and utterly unsupported ad hominem attacks are dragged out for a diversion. How very petty—and typical of this kind of “argument”. Wouldn’t want to actually discuss the use of illegal wiretaps by Our Sainted President, now, would we?

You gotta love the latest TV ad from MoveOn.org. "George W. Bush is breaking the law… We needed a special prosecutor then, we need a special prosecutor now." (via Crooks and Liars)

Just how much difference is there between Osama bin Laden, Jerry Falwell, and Pat Robertson? Not as much as you might think. Take the Falwell-Robertson-Bin Laden Quiz and find out how well you know all three.