Archive for September, 2006

Praise Jesus

Saturday, September 30th, 2006

Digital Brown Pajamas (ick!) shows us how to be a real Christian.

Daniel Pipes is something of a subscriber to what Rush Limbaugh calls “The Limbaugh Doctrine”–the idea that you can only achieve “peace” or “victory” in war after you have completely and utterly defeated your enemy:

Daniel “crack” Pipes and Rush Limbaugh subscribe to what was known in the second world war as a Carthaginian peace and is now known politely as ethnic cleansing. Or rather they are for watching someone else commit these vile deeds while they cheer from the sidelines.

Bernard Lewis spoke those memorable words to sum up the necessary goal of U.S. policy at a Hudson Institute conference two days ago. More fully, to quote a New York Sun news report, he said “the only real solution to defeating radical Islam is to bring freedom to the Middle East. Either ‘we free them or they destroy us’.”

I have the highest regard for Bernard Lewis, a great Middle East historian from whom I have been learning since I entered the field in 1969. (The very first book I read in Middle East history, not surprisingly, was his Arabs in History.) But I disagree that our goal is to free the Muslim world…[my emphasis]

I know that that has never been your goal. Shit, you’re opposed to freedom in the West. What with that Bush can torture whoever he wants shit, and the warrantless spying on Americans. And no more habeas corpus.

But I think the further point that he makes regarding what “complete victory” entails is absolutely indispensable to the argument about how to win the war on terror: It’s not just a disarmed opponent with a “democratic government” thrown on top that we should be after; it is also the defeat of the ideology in the minds of those fighting us that we must seek in order to achieve true “victory.” Otherwise, as Dr. Pipes points out, “freedom” just becomes an opportunity for the jihadist to prepare for future war. In this sense, I think the Left is somewhat correct when they say that we can’t “impose” freedom.

I know! Just look at how the IRA hasn’t decommissioned any of it’s weapons. Oh wait, bad example, they aren’t filthy Mohammedans. I’ve got it, how about how the Algerians are still bombing the French?

Dr. Pipes adduces 2 very sound reasons for his position:

  • There are plenty of born-free Muslims in the West who are Islamists. Take, for example, the four 7/7 bombers in London. Freedom did nothing for them.

It’s so easy to say crazy things: There are plenty of born-free Christians who are Christianist. Take for example Timothy McVeigh. Freedom did nothing for him.

  • The goal in war has to be to defeat one’s enemies, not liberate them. The invasion of Iraq, dubbed “Operation Iraqi Freedom,” suffered from this mistake. The same applies to the war on radical Islam, where we must cause our enemies to feel a sense of defeat. We must crush their will. After that bitter phase has been experienced, they are then eligible for freedom.

I thought the goal of the war in Iraq was to find WMD. Since there is none there, freedom was just a ruse to keep us there. Actually, that isn’t fair, we all know the truth is that the goals were to disrupt the flow of oil, increasing the price Bush’s buddies and former colleagues get for their oil. And to get re-elected by yelling “Oh no! Brown people!”

But since we agree that the war in Iraq is a lie, can we please agree to get the hell out?

So not only should we pursue a complete and utter military defeat of the enemy; we need to also press for an ideological victory in the mind and heart of the enemy.

I know, if they would just learn to give up their devil religion and turn to our slavery endorsing, genocide demanding, pro stoning to death of non-virgins (and plenty of others) religious tract, then everything will be OK.

For the Christian, that can only mean that in addition to the necessary physical war we’re engaged in, we should at the same time ask God to cause the Gospel to be victorious in the hearts of those who hate us. That alone is true “peace.”

Yes, Jesus is totally pro oil wars. And he’s desperate for simulated drowning, mock executions, and raping children. If only the Holy Ghost would touch their hearts and give them God’s grace, we could stop torturing them (not work safe, but if you want work safe, you’re probably on the wrong fucking blog). If the Sermon on the Mount taught us anything it’s that Jesus wants us to beat the shit out of people and threaten them with dogs.


Saturday, September 30th, 2006

Oh hell yes!

What do you mean by “they”? Do you personally know anyone in our military? [Not "the" military, but "our" military.] And, if you are unwilling even to consider volunteering for military service, are you not forsaking their “ultimate sacrifice” yourself?

What we do have is a shortage of leaders back home with the fortitude and willingness to let our armed forces complete the awesome job they are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Geoff, I’m sorry, I don’t understand what you mean here. The American people have chosen our governing party to run our country, giving it control of both Houses of Congress as well as the White House. President Bush has vetoed one bill (not on our topic). Which leaders, exactly, are you talking about? Please be specific.

We very much agree with you on one thing: We do have a shortage of leaders who want to lead, and who will urge real Americans eligible to serve who support the war, such as Geoff Smock, to Be A Man! Enlist!

That Explains it!

Friday, September 29th, 2006

I feel a hair responsible for The Young Conservative’s hurt feelings. I’m not just bragging; I mention it in a post and email the General and soon enough, it’s up on OYE. Here’s him complaining about being held accountable for his words and (in)actions.

Has our national political discourse really become so poisoned and so irrational that when we disagree with each other we pour upon the other a cacophony of personal and ad hominem attacks instead of actually stating our disagreements in a civil interchange of reasoned argumentation? Don’t get me wrong, the recent barrage of base expletives was quite amusing, in the same way that watching the guests of the Jerry Springer show act in the same manner is. But the entertainment value of the behavior of those who took issue with me is far outweighed by the appalling commentary such behavior provides on the churlish nature of our national political dialogue.

Well, I’m glad to see you are amused by expletives you elephant shit for brains. But our discourse was poisoned by your party calling tripple amputees unpatriotic. It was made irrational by saying John Kerry’s wounds don’t count. Yesterday torture was made legal, and the worst thing that happened to you is that a few people said some mean things.
Also, I know you’re still in school, but more English classes will teach you to transition from I’m amused by this to please don’t do it.

If you disagree with an opinion that I express, or believe that I have no standing to express that opinion, then say so in a respectful and mature manner. Provide a counter-argument to my own, and I will be happy to respond in like manner. As a politically active young man, I relish any opportunity to discuss issues of national importance with those who agree with me as well as with those who do not agree with me.

In 80 comments 3 people said “fuck” or some other variation. Someone called you a “pussy.” Some said you were a “chickenshit.” Is that really offensive? I mean shit on a stick, you have to have lived a pretty sheltered life for about 90% of those comments to even be offensive.

Though we may not agree, and may disagree vigorously, we don’t have to be disagreeable or acrimonious towards each other. No matter how disparate our views and beliefs may be, we’re all Americans and we all want what is best for our great country. That is something all of us forget far too often when we debate each other nowadays.

Oh bullshit. Civility has lead to American torture chambers. To the legalization of waterboarding. To a nascent genocide in Iraq. Fuck civility. Fuck it up the asshole with a glowstick.

To respond to the “chickenhawk” label that has been thrown around so cavalierly, it is a banal tactic and attempt to stifle any discussion or debate. Instead of responding to the points and merits of my piece, my detractors simply called me a “chickenhawk” in language frosted in profanities and insults, with the clear purpose of intimidating me into silence. It was pathetic.

I agree, you’re not a chickenhawk, you’re a yellow elephant.

Getting back to your piece, the point was that “we” have to win the war and something about how “we” were making sacrifices. So given that, it seems reasonable to ask what sacrifices you had made. The answer was none, and instead of admit that, you’re just writing this long assed piece of bullshit.

To simply respond to an able-bodied civilian’s hawkish comments by calling him a “chickenhawk” is as intellectually bankrupt as a conservative responding to a liberal’s strong criticism of America with the vacuous phrase, “Love it or leave it!” It isn’t an argument. It doesn’t even pretend to be an argument. It doesn’t even deserve to be on a bumper sticker.

I’m not sure if this was supposed to be a paragraph here, but I’m making it one to point out that there are OYE bumper stickers.

The “chickenhawk” rationale is also appallingly juvenile. It harkens me back to the days when a classmate and I disagreed over whether our second-grade teacher, Mrs. Hebert, was a good teacher. He said she wasn’t, having just been told to pull a card by her for talking while she was. I argued that she was, pointing out that she helped us whenever we were struggling with an activity—activities she always made educational and interesting. His response: “Well if you like her so much why don’t you marry her?”

I wasn’t there, but I bet that he actually said, “if you love her so much why don’t you marry her?” Or more precisely you’re making it up. Oh, and I believe it’s harks, although I’m sure someone will tell me why I’m wrong in the comments.

If an able-bodied civilian can’t support the war—or think we should persevere until we do win—without going to fight and serve in that war himself, then neither can he support police attempts to bring down crime and defeat street gangs and organized crime without joining the local P.D. He can’t say that this country should be doing more to help the Gulf Coast rebuild following Hurricane Katrina unless he himself grabs his hammer and travels down there to help rebuild. He can’t say more needs to be done by the international community to stem the AIDS epidemic in Africa unless he drops everything and goes over there as a relief worker either.

Something, let’s call it Spidey sense, tells me that you haven’t done much to help any of those causes either. I mean, the Red Cross can always use more Katrina money. But more to the point, the local police force isn’t facing a recruiting shortfall. The army has been for years. I doubt they’re stop-lossing the Tacoma Police, or the PLU campus police. As one of those rude posters said, “Hey there, just finished up my second tour in Iraq. It is my last. The Army, because of manning issues, was forced to stop-loss me. The majority of my platoon was stop-lossed. We are due to leave the Army within the next 90 days. Will you be the one to take up the arms we lay down?”

There are very few people in a better position to serve than pro war 19 year olds.

Such is, in my view, Swiss cheese logic, and I respectfully disagree with those who subscribe to it. One need not be one of the brave and heroic men and women fighting and winning the war over there to believe that they should be given the opportunity and the time to win it, or that the ultimate sacrifice thousands of Americans have given should not be forsaken.

Here’s a tip from someone who’s taken some English classes as an undergrad: When you say “in my view” the teachers will think you’re just padding the essay.

Sadly, and more to the point, we aren’t winning. We’re catalyzing a genocide and making the country a training ground for people who want to kill Americans. And we’re in the process of being driven out like the French were driven out of Viet Nam.

There are many ways to serve your country, serving in the military is only one (though it is without a doubt the most noble of them). We do not have a shortage of highly-trained and highly-professional brave young men and women willing to serve in our military. What we do have is a shortage of leaders back home with the fortitude and willingness to let our armed forces complete the awesome job they are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan.

We do “have a shortage of highly-trained and highly-professional brave young men and women willing to serve in our military.” That’s why we have to stop-loss troops. That’s why the Army and National Guard have been having so much trouble recruiting. That’s why they’re taking grandmothers. Christ on the cross, do you ever read the paper?

For those who would like to know why I have not decided to enlist, I was a sophomore in high school when I made the commitment to myself to finish my education before I made a decision on which profession I would enter into. Whether that decision is to ultimately join America’s professional fighting forces, or go to law school, or study history, I told myself I would finish college before I began down a specific career path.

I’m guessing it won’t be the fighting forces.

The only development that could cause me to stray from this path is if there was a draft instituted. If called upon by my country I would gladly and enthusiastically serve without hesitation. But finishing my education is very important to me, and I hope doing so will give me the tools necessary to serve my country in the future, in whatever capacity that may be.

So you’d rather go to Iraq than some fuck me up the ass prison. That’s a start.

And is studying history really serving your country?

For those who take issue with the opinions I have expressed and the decision that I have made, especially those veterans who expressed themselves here, I respect your position and where you are coming from. My only regret in all of this is that your positions were not expressed in a civil or respectful manner. I hope they will be in the future. If that is too much to ask, the Jerry Springer Show is always looking for guests.

That’s right, vets saying things like “will the American people stand for a draft if it does not inclulde the bush twins?” or, “How do you expect to be able to fight terrorism?” are just like toothless hillbillies who wants to marry their goat. Way to support the troops.


Thursday, September 28th, 2006

I was feeling a little bit bad for calling Don retarded in this week’s podcast until I read this where he feels like promoting his own party chair calling Sound Politics’ bullshit on absentee voting. Also, down to 3 exclamation marks is how many they are able to unstupid you at reporter school.

Hilarious is in the Eyes of the Beholder

Thursday, September 28th, 2006

But Sharkansky’s sense of humor is a bit skewed.

Because that’s where her supporters live

The Darcy Burner campaign sent out this hilarious e-mail:

With just 43 days left until Election Day we need your help more than ever. That is just 43 days left to make sure that every voter in the 8th Congressional District has heard Darcy Burner’s message … We have a huge need for volunteers to make phone calls and knock on doors to ensure that voters have heard Darcy’s message, but we do also have work to be done in our Bellevue offices. We also have volunteer opportunities in the Seattle area.

Yes, imagine that someone in Seattle who cares about the 8th district race. I’m a bit confused as to when Green Lake left the city and was re-districted into the 8th. Or is it only bad for Democrats to act in those races? I’m so confused.

It turns out those opportunities are to staff phone banks at NARAL (Pioneer Square) and at another location in SODO.

So it’s not even a Burner event? Wow, that makes it even more funny. Darcy is promoting phone banking by a group that’s endorsed her and that’s teh funny! Seriously, I didn’t realize that NARAL had to have offices in Bellevue. I had assumed that this being after the 19th century that telephones had been invented. Sorry.

I mean, having made calls for both NARAL and individual candidates, I’d say that phone banking on Darcy’s behalf is probably going to be more effective. People don’t particularly like being told how to vote in partisan races by 3rd party groups.
PS, could you also add my Act Blue page as long as you’re promoting Democratic causes?

I guess Darcy has an easier time getting phone bank volunteers in Seattle than in her own district.

I bet NARAL does. Also, I’m on the same list, so here’s from the top of her email today:

  • By the Numbers
  • Doors knocked on: 41,351
    Phone calls made: 104,526

Thems impressive numbers for an upstart campaign. That it was all done by the campaign in the district only adds to that. But keep telling yourself that she has no support in the district. And keep telling Reichert’s supporters not to worry. And please tell them not to give money or time.

Respectful = Fuckwad

Wednesday, September 27th, 2006

When we last saw Patrick from Respectfully Republican, he was praising the man who made this possible. Anyhoo, now he’s talking up the environmental record of Dave Reichert. It’s kinda’ like praising a sack of shit for being biodegradable.

David Postman points to a story in today’s Times on Dave Reichert’s “shades of green“. Reichert has gone back and forth on many energy and environment issues–most notably ANWR and fuel efficiency standards.

Yes, he voted for environmental legislation when the vote was wrapped up and against it when it was close. Christ, even he’s admitted that shit.

While doing some more research on Reichert’s record on these particular issues, I found a website called the Reichert Report which purports to be a news source on Reichert’s environmental agenda. That site has a running list of his votes on several related bills.

Christ on the cross fuckwad, he votes how the Republican leadership tells him to; he’s admitted it. I can’t stress this enough.

Moreover, there is this op-ed Reichert penned for the Times back in Febuary, urging his fellow citizens to get more active in their National Park System. Here is a money quote:

I know, I’ve said “fuckwad” twice already, but the phrase “money quote” from people who are ostensibly trying to elevate the discourse has always rubbed me the wrong way. So way to compare an op-ed to porn.

Here in Washington, we are fortunate to live and work next to several of the country’s crown-jewel parks. As someone who has lived in the Pacific Northwest for almost my entire life, I have a great appreciation for and interest in protecting our nation’s public lands. It is crucial that we conserve our natural resources for our children and grandchildren to experience. That is why I have co-sponsored legislation such as the Wild Sky Wilderness Act and the National Park Centennial Act, both of which fulfill the objective of conservation.

On second thought, I’d rather have the porn. And yes, I’m saying porn a lot here in hopes of having some accidental web traffic. Also, XXX. Oh, and lesbians; you can’t forget lesbians.

As the Times article from today points out, Reichert has the highest rating from the League of Conservation Voters for any Republican on the West Coast–though he ranks lowest in the Western Washington delegation. At the very least, it’s fair to say he’s progressive on both energy and the environment. Plus, as Postman points out, he has the backing of local biodiesel pointman, Martin Tobias!

Yes! Being the worst person on an issue of the 9 from Western Washington sure makes you a leader on it. And doesn’t that stat pretty much promise that Darcy Burner will be better? And the most environmental Republican on the West Coast is kind of like being the least racist Klansman. Not quite as bad as Pombo and Musgrave on environmental isn’t shit.

Wait a minute, is that Dave with Sen. Patty Murray?!? *GASP*

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: interobang. Also, yes, sometimes politicos do joint events. I know that’s shocking enough to warrent astricks. Also, do you know anybody else who shovels dirt in a suit and tie?

More recognition from the local presscorps, please!

Presscorpsistwowords,fuckwad! And you’ve mentioned many nice things that the press corps has said about him despite what is at best a mixed bag and at worst whatever the Republican leadership tells him to do.


Wednesday, September 27th, 2006

According to Sharkansky

They asked me not to post their names. I confirmed the details with Bobbie Egan from King County Elections

Made Up People?

Tuesday, September 26th, 2006

It sure seems that a lot of people not willing to go on the record say the exact things that Sharkansky would say. I’m not sure if “one voter” from precinct 34-1104 is real. Or if his reader who emailed him from the same precinct actually exists (they’d be different people because one is a poll voter and one is an absentee). But if these were real people, you’d think that he’d ask them to go on the record. It’s more powerful and we don’t have to rely on the word of a bullshitter. So I’ve emailed him that I don’t actually trust him and that I’ll be trying to figure out who they are on my own (although, I doubt I’ll actually be able to figure it out).

And even if Sharkansky is telling the truth, he doesn’t exactly show us the lengths he went to to verify their stories. As everybody knows, on the Internet, nobody knows you’re a dog.


Tuesday, September 26th, 2006

Holy fuck, Patrick at Respectfully Republican can’t write worth shit.

SEN-WA: McGavick’s Back!!!

WA-SEN: And his Front!!

A few quick notes in the U.S. Senate race between Mike McGavick and Maria Cantwell:

1) Via Eric at Sound Politics, McGavick’s back in the polls–see the latest numbers at RealClearPolitics–Rasmussen on 9/20: McGavick 42, Cantwell 48, a 6% spread! If you’re into horse race politics, keep an eye on the cool table at RCP that shows a running average of the polls. Watch for McGavick to surge closer as he reaches out to more voters with his positive, issues-centered, message. If you haven’t watched his new TV ad “Change”, take a look here.

What that ad lacked in substance it more than made up for in implicit Republican bashing and the quickest “I’m such and such, and I approved this” that I’ve ever heard. If you hate the Republican Congress, vote for a Republican! Good thinking. Also, he lies about Social Security being in crisis. It’s the only program the Republican congress hasn’t been able to get its hands on and it’s the only program swimming in black ink. Obviously, that’s where we should focus our corrective energy!

2) Joel Connelly is turning into a McGavick booster–err–unquiet critic of Maria CantDebateWell. See: It’s Up To the Voters, Not the Pundits, and Cantwell Snubs McGavick On Debates. As Joel details, Cantwell is playing right into the mold of the typical standoffish pol by not agreeing to more debates. *Gasp* God forbid we get a candid and spontaneous look at the candidates! Apparently Maria is only comfortable when coached by her pricey consultants and delivering their scripted statements. Earth to Maria: your aloofness bleeds through that steely smile of yours when you resist debating your opponent. Keep it up!

You’ll have two debates. I would like to see more; I’d also like to see a better format than we’re usually given. The number usually doesn’t matter all that much because it’s usually a soundbite contest between the candidates on various issues and so 2 or 20 they aren’t going to be “a candid and spontaneous look at the candidates!”

Also, I hope you’ll be issuing the same charge to Dave Reichert.

3) Guess who’s coming to town to campaign for McGavick!?!?!? Well first, I should note that McGavick has run an exciting campaign in many ways, but one thing I absolutely love about his approach is bringing in such classy and interesting politicos to help him campaign, from McCain to Newt to the First Lady!!! Now, McGavick will host former New York City Mayor, and possible 2008 presidential contender…Rudy Giuliani!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dear Patrick;

Interobangs will save you some time in the future.

Love and Kisses,


PS. Yes you can use too many exclamation points, and more to the point, you did.

I’ll do my best to attend the event, and get a full report for you all. If you can’t tell by all those exclamation points, I’m a big Rudy fan!!!

I know!!!! he was pro-torture before it was even made hip by this president. And who could forget the way he gave us Bernie Kerik?!?!?! The way he backed president Bush’s EPA up on it’s OK to breathe without a respirator in lower Manhattan. The disunity he sewed throughout the city. The way he announced his divorce to the media before he announced it to his wife. Class act that one.

And did you just call Newt Gingrich classy? Holy fuck on toast! It seems that classy people either have messy divorces or kill their exes with a car!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
In fairness, I figured the reason for all the exclamation marks was because you were a stupid fuckwit who can’t write worth a damn. So thanks for clearing that up.

Read the Whole Thing?

Sunday, September 24th, 2006

Sharkansky has this piece of crap up:

Signs that your newspaper suffers from liberal bias (I)

One sign of liberal media bias is when articles routinely brand conservative policy institutes as “conservative” or “Republican” while omitting the partisan and philosophical leanings of liberal advocacy groups.

And one sign of conservative bias is that they regularly talk to those policy institutes no matter how batshit crazy they are.

For example, the Washington Policy Center, which calls itself a “non-partisan free-market” think tank, recently released a report on the King County Transit Now tax proposal. The Seattle Times characterized the WPC thusly:

… a conservative think tank says in a new report … The report was written by Michael Ennis [who] previously was an assistant to former state Sen. Dino Rossi, former U.S. Sen. Slade Gorton and state Rep. Jan Shabro, all Republicans.

Maybe that’s because they are a conservative think tank run by Republicans that put out a report written by Republicans about a conservative notion that transit is bad.

Compare and contrast with recent Times articles quoting “Justice at Stake” for on the State Supreme Court races. It’s hard to argue with a straight face that Justice at Stake is anything but a liberal, Democrat-leaning advocacy group. Its “partners” are trial lawyer associations and other liberal Democrat constituency groups. It is funded by left-wing non-profits, including George Soros Open Society Institute, and its executive director, Bert Brandenburg, worked on the Clinton’s 1992 campaign and was Attorney General Janet Reno’s spokesman. Yet Justice at Stake’s liberal Democrat leanings are never mentioned when it is quoted by the Seattle Times. It is portrayed only as a neutral advocate for fair courts. September 14:

Justice at Stake, a Washington, D.C., group pushing to keep politics and special interests out of court races.

Gosh, I for one hope they don’t in a couple paragraphs describe them as one of a group of, “[l]abor, environmental and other groups supporting the incumbents say the challengers would do the bidding of special interests.” I mean that would undercut your whole argument wouldn’t it?

Even worse, May 23:

Campaign spending in Supreme Court races has risen sharply in most of the 38 states that elect justices, according to a report by Justice at Stake, a Washington D.C.-based nonpartisan group

As non-partisan as its sponsors George Soros and the Association of Trial Lawyers of America.

Presumably it’s called a nonpartisan group because its board is mostly academics and judges while the writers of the WPC report were all Republicans. I mean shit, if their report was so fucking bipartisan, they would have probably found some Democrat somewhere to work with.