Right Wing Nut House

My Zsu Zsu is really a remarkable woman. Gorgeous, strong, motherly, and a stand up comedian all rolled into one.

Yesterday, I also discovered that she is certifiable. As what, I’m not sure. Perhaps you can tell me after reading the following.

Sue works the third shift so when she walks in the door at 7:00 AM, I’m always hard at work, blogging away. Yesterday after coming into my office, greeting me in her usual effusive fashion, she disappeared into the living room where I heard her moving around opening boxes and other stuff.

I usually take a break around 8:30 so we can sit and talk for a while before she goes to sleep so you can imagine my surprise when I walked out into the living and saw a clear plastic rectangular shaped box with a black top sitting on the bookcase.

“What is it?” I asked.

“What’s what?” she returned innocently.

I don’t know how well you might know your lover but I know my Zsu Zsu and that look on her face, the lack of eye contact, the slight “I’ve got a secret” smile immediately had my antenna going up. She’s gone off and done something unpredictable again, I thought. I was right.

“That box on the bookcase. What is it?”

“That’s Suzie our Salamander.”

“Our who?”

“Oh, Ricky…”

Anytime your woman uses her little nickname for you it’s supposed to be so endearing you forget you’re mad at her and just stand there as your heart melts like a slice of Velveeta over an open grill. And it almost worked. That is, until I saw the cats.

The youngster Snowball was sitting on the entertainment center already eyeing the little rodent - er, reptile with a hungry eye. Sitting stock still and watching the unsuspecting creature with that laser like cat uber concentration that must of frightened the hell out of our ancestors when meeting up with her distant saber tooth cousins, you could almost see the wheels turning in that remarkable mammalian brain. Fifty million years of evolution, all to have the capacity to formulate a single, serviceable thought:

“Lunch.”

And Aramas was on the coffee table, gathering his back legs preparing to leap onto the bookcase in order to get his dibs in for this movable feast. Now Ari is an old man and not the leaper he once was (although like many of us, he doesn’t recognize his limits and keeps missing what he’s aiming for). I was sure if the old boy tried to make that jump, he’d probably knock the box off the bookcase and not only would Zsu Zsu lose her Salamander to the cats but we’d have this crappy sawdust all over the floor.

“NO!” I firmly told Aramas. He gave me one of those baleful looks cats use when they glance at you as if to say “Are you kidding? Leave me alone, human.” Meanwhile, he jumped down and began to look for an alternate route to his meal.

This is when I turned to Sue and tried to explain. I told her that cat’s are, by nature, curious and that sooner or later, they would find a way to get the little gecko.

“It’s a Salamander,” she sniffed. “I caught it outside in the parking lot after work. It’s mine.”

I asked her what good the damn thing was. At least cats have the virtue of being interesting, even when they’re doing nothing. This thing was ugly, slimy, and had a brain the size of a mouse turd. It was barely aware that it was alive.

I was watching Little Miss Lizard while saying this when, almost too fast for the human eye to follow, the little alligator lunged forward and snagged a cricket in its mouth. One gulp and it was gone.

“Kewl,” I said.

“So I can keep it?” my darling asked like a little girl. (Even if I had said no she would have kept the damn thin anyway).

“It wasn’t a question of me allowing you to keep it,” I said. “What are we going to do about the cats?”

We had temporarily taken our eyes off of Snowball and Aramas (my old girl Ebony is much to ancient and dignified a beast to have any interest in a Salamander) so when we looked, we saw both cats on the bookcase, one on either side of the box. And Aramas was already testing to see if he could get his paw through the hard plastic that was separating him from his repast. The stupid lizard clearly saw Aramas but appeared oblivious to the danger.

“DOWN!” we both screamed at once. Startled, they disappeared faster than you can say “bath time.”

Gently, I tried to tell Sue that eventually, the cats would figure out the only way in to the Salamander’s lair would be either through the top of the case or simply by knocking the whole box on to the floor. Both solutions would mean one dead gecko and a huge mess to clean up.

I could see she was disappointed so I thought I’d cheer her up:

“Honey, don’t worry. You would have gotten bored with this thing after a week or two.”

“Not true,” she said. “How do you know?”

“Sweetheart, the damn thing doesn’t do anything. It just sits there and lies like a rock in the water waiting for food to jump into its mouth. You might have gotten a turtle or something,” I grumbled.

“Well I like her and I’m keeping her.”

I knew that tone of voice. That’s her “I will brook no more argument and if you want some anytime soon, you’ll let me have my way.”

So now we have a Salamander named Suzie whose life expectancy is probably measured in days if not hours. We placed the lizard’s home on top of our planter where we have trained the cats not to go. But given the temptation (and knowing the beasts the way I do) all the conditioning in the world is not going to save the dumbass lizard from ending up as cat fricassee.

I just damn well better be sure I don’t say “I told ya so” when it all goes south.

I have once again opened the blog to comments.

All comments are moderated. The rules are simple; insult me or other commenters, you’re out. Non germane comments will be deleted. If you want to spout conspiracy theories, go visit the Ron Paul website.

Read what I write. Not just the first couple of paragraphs. If it is obvious that you haven’t read my post and comment anyway, your comment will be deleted.

No hijacking the thread to go off topic. Off topic comments will be deleted.

In short, everyone is on a short leash.

The driver of the yellow Mercedes Benz truck in Beirut that awful day 24 years ago knew precisely where to go. According to intelligence reports, two members of what was then the underground terrorist organization known as Hizbullah had mapped the layout of the Marine barracks so that the suicide bomber could carry out his mission to maximum effect. He knew the Marines pulling sentry duty had pocketed their ammo clips thanks to some ridiculous rules of engagement. And he was aware that there were no barriers protecting the structure so that his truck laden with 12,000 pounds of explosives would only have to crash through ordinary wood and plaster in order to be positioned perfectly so that detonation would have catastrophic effects on the building.

The truck had apparently been prepared with the help of Syrians and Iranians in the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon where several Revolutionary Guard units had been stationed under Syrian protection. An NSA intercept revealed at a trial that convicted the Islamic Republic of Iran of being behind the attack, stated that a message sent from Iranian intelligence headquarters in Tehran toAli-Akbar Mohtashemi, the Iranian ambassador in Damascus and directed the Iranian ambassador to get in touch with Islamic Amal which has since been identified as the military arm of Hizbullah at the time, and instruct him to “take spectacular action” against the Marines.

When the bomb detonated, it may have been the largest non-nuclear explosion in history up to that time (we used the “Daisy Cutter” in Afghanistan which weighs 15,000 lbs). The entire barracks building was lifted off its foundation and when it came down, it collapsed in a heap of cinder blocks, plaster, and dust. A few seconds after the blast, another suicide truck bomber crashed into the French military headquarters detonating a similar device. All told, 241 Americans lost their lives in the blast. Another 58 French paratroopers died in the other attack that day. It was the worst day for the Marines since the battle of Iwo Jima and the worst day for the US military since the first day of the Tet Offensive in Viet Nam.

While it is not a rock solid certainty that Hizbullah, acting on direct orders from Iran, was behind the attacks, the preponderance of evidence certainly points that way. At the time, Hizbullah was in its initial stages of formation, being trained by Revolutionary Guard units who had infiltrated Lebanon through Syria. At first, Hizbullah was not an independent actor in Lebanon, receiving its orders directly from Khomenei’s Iran. The US had just given Sadaam Hussein more than two billion dollars in aid to fight Iran and the thinking is that Khomenei wanted to get back at the US for our support of Iraq. When US forces pulled out the following February, it was simply gravy from the Iranian point of view.

So for 24 years, we have been in an undeclared war with Hizbullah and, by extension, Iran. Or, at least Iran has been at war with us. We have pretended that no such conflict exists under successive US presidents, Republican and Democratic, liberal and conservative. Occasionally, history intervenes and tries to rouse us out of this stupor but so far, to no avail. In 1984, Hizbullah attacked our embassy, killing 5 Americans. In 1985, TWA flight 847 was hijacked by Hizbullah and a Navy diver was savagely beaten to death. They kidnapped and murdered CIA officer William Buckley and Colonel William Higgins, a Marine serving with the UN at the time. (They were kind enough to forward videos of the murders to our government). They fired on oil tankers in the Persian Gulf. They have operated around the world, killing Jews wherever there’s a soft enough target to hit.

To this day, Hizbullah is beholden to Iran, getting all of its funding and weapons as well as its training through the Revolutionary Guards. They receive an estimated $250 million a year - by far and away the largest recipient of Iranian foreign aid. Their fighters are trained in Iran, indoctrinated in Iran, and are more loyal to the “Islamic Revolution” than they are to Lebanon.

And yet, there are those who are serious when they proclaim they don’t want us to “start” a war with Iran.

This is worse than madness. It is deliberate, self deluded suicide not to recognize Iran as deadly enemy of the United States. Bombing and invading is not the answer, although as the last option available, it may come to that. But we should have absolutely no qualms about attempting to undermine the government of Iran and work for regime change - peacefully if at all possible. But ultimately, the only peaceful solution would be if the Iranian people themselves overthrew the corrupt and messianic mullahs who currently run that country.

It was 24 years ago today that Hizbullah, acting under what is believed to be the direct orders of Iran, made their largest and most successful attack against America. Their masters in Tehran have since been challenging us at every turn, testing our resolve and going so far as to assist our enemies in Iraq. The question now isn’t if a showdown will occur but when.

I don’t know if violence can be avoided. I know we must try to do so because the consequences of war with Iran for the entire world would be profoundly dangerous and destabilizing. But the threat Iran poses is intolerable and must be dealt with - one way or another.

UPDATE 10/25:

Reader Mike emails with a correction:

The “Grand Slam” bomb of WWII, weighing 22,000 lbs and dropped from a British Lancaster bomber, was larger.

And for that matter, accidental ammunition explosions of WWI and WWII, in Halifax N.S., Texas, the Bay Area and IIRC, Eniwetok Atoll, each involved several thousand tons of munitions.

I should have mentioned above that the statement about the barracks bomb being the largest explosion ever up to that time was actually from a quote by the trial judge in the suit against the Iranians.

Obviously, he didn’t know what he was talking about - any more than I did.

Thanks to Mike for the correction.

One of the interesting things about maintaining a blog is that ultimately, it devolves into a conversation with yourself about what you think regarding a variety of subjects. Some liken blogs to “thinking out loud” and that may be true to an extent. But there is a difference between writing and thinking - a very large difference.

I believe, as Sir Francis Bacon did, that “Reading maketh a full man, conference, a ready man, and writing, an exact man.” Writing forces you to condense your thinking, to slough off extraneous concepts not germane to the subject until you are left with the very essence of your thoughts, allowing an examination and ultimately, a judgement regarding their efficacy relating to your own worldview and ideological principles.

In this way, blogs allow both the writer and the reader to trace the growth of ideas and concepts - buttressing some, discarding others, and amending still more while trying to stay true to a coherent set of principles - a set of core beliefs that would require considerably more than atmospheric changes or transient events to alter.

No human mind is capable of being entirely consistent. We are not, after all, machines. Emotions are constantly in play as we wrestle with our consciences while seeking to remain faithful to our own intellectual self-image. Blogs are extremely useful in this regard because they allow the writer to hold up a mirror and examine their reflection over a long period of time. How has our thinking changed? Where have we taken a different road? Are our principles still intact, our beliefs still valid?

I hope you will forgive this rather lengthy digression into esoterica but to me, this is the interesting part of the journey to self-discovery; trying to ascertain how we think as well as discovering what we think is why writing makes us “exact” in our efforts to know ourselves better.

I bring all this up because I have written extensively over the last three years about the nature of modern conservatism and how it is slowly becoming irrelevant to large segments of the American electorate - largely as a result of the unrealistic and indeed, fanciful adherence by conservative politicians, pundits, and even some intellectuals to ideas and principles that have become as outmoded in their own way as Marxism.

Generalizing the problem, many conservatives are mired in a Reaganesque fantasyland where the mantra “small government, low taxes, less regulation, and strong national defense” is repeated ad infinitum as if saying it loud enough and often enough makes it true - despite the fact that except for a strong national defense, the rest of these “principles” are as outdated as central planning and a command economy.

The essence of the problem is that both liberals and conservatives today see government as almost a living thing to be hated or loved depending on one’s point of view. Government is not alive, although it is close to existing as a force of nature so large and nearly uncontrollable it has become. Instead, government should be seen as a utility to be organized as best as can be humanely done so that it becomes a servant of the people and not their master.

Believing that we can roll back the size of government and make it “small” is a pipe dream and, along with the idea that we can demand government do a million things and not raise the taxes to pay for them as well as ask government to protect us from impersonal corporations who seek to destroy competition, exploit workers, endanger our environment, foist their dangerous products on us, and generally wreak havoc on our lives and families without someone looking over their shoulder is absurd.

The idea that the market will fix dangerous working conditions for miners or force companies to end exploitive work rules and policies in service industries is just not tenable in a 21st century industrialized democracy. Neither will the market clean up toxic waste, sensibly protect the environment, establish minimum standards for drinking water and breathable air, or ensure that some of the remaining green places left in the United States can be enjoyed by our grandchildren.

These are not luxuries that we can afford to privatize or do without. They are as vital to our survival as the new Air Force fighter being developed. The question that should occupy conservatives is not whether we should have strict standards for drinking water but rather how do we reconcile conservative principles with the needs of the people in a modern society?

For conservatism to survive and even thrive, a new paradigm must be realized that recognizes we live in a different world than the one inhabited by our ancestors and that many of the old verities we cherished are just no longer relevant to what America has become. For better or worse, the United States is changing - something it has always done and always will do. Without altering most of the core principles of conservatism, it should be possible to change with it, supplying common sense alternatives to liberal panaceas for everything from health care to concerns over climate change.

Obviously, there is no lack of ideas in this regard if you read the policy prescriptions appearing on the pages of Heritage, AEI, Cato, or other places where academics and policy wonks gather to supply these alternatives. But there seems to be a disconnect between the thinkers and the doers - politicians, pundits, and activists. Having read most of the Republican candidates stands on issues, outside of Fred Thompson’s detailed critique of entitlements and his ideas on a muscular kind of federalism, there isn’t much in the way of deep thoughts being generated in this campaign so far. In fact, there appears to be little in the way of original thinking at all; just a rehash or recycling of projects and programs that wouldn’t stand a chance of passage in Congress.

Now I am not saying that conservatives should compromise their principles to gain success in the legislature nor am I saying those principles should be abandoned in order to gain electoral victory. But there is a difference between having a vital conservative movement that shapes and informs government and one that has no relevancy whatsoever to modern America.

This is where my thinking has taken me these last three years - a recognition that conservatism needs to have its best and brightest strike out and find new ways of defining what it means to be a conservative in 21st century America. Obviously, my poor efforts here on this blog amount to little except some relatively unformed, nebulous thoughts on what I see as a need for this change. I make no claim to being an intellectual or even that thoughtful. But where else can you pour your brains out and examine the contents but a blog? That is what I’m doing here and I hope you take it for what it’s worth; the musings of a concerned conservative who is unhappy with the state of the right as it stands now.

Michael Tomasky at the Guardian got me thinking in this direction this morning:

That is, Americans have now experienced a conservative government failing them. But what lesson will they take? That conservatism itself is exhausted and without answers to the problems that confront American and the world today? Or will they conclude that the problem hasn’t been conservatism per se, just Bush, and that a conservatism that is competent and comparatively honest will suit them just fine?

Conservatives and the Republican presidential candidates hope and argue that it’s the latter. They largely endorse and in some cases vow to expand on the Bush administration’s policies - Mitt Romney’s infamous promise to “double” the size of the detention camp at Guantánamo Bay, notably. Like Bush, they vow that tax cuts, deregulation and smaller government will solve every domestic problem. Where they try to distinguish themselves from Bush is on competence. Romney talks up his corporate success, Rudy Giuliani his prowess as mayor of New York.

Is it the messenger or the message that’s at fault?

Just asking…

In the old days when watching television involved trying to decide what sitcom to watch on which of the only three networks the entertainment Gods saw fit to make available to us mortals, “channel surfing” meant heaving yourself up from the easy chair, walking over to the TV and manually twisting a knob that changed the station.

A “knob.” How quaint. The knob actually had the numbers 1-13 of which perhaps 5 channels actually featured a network. And one of those stations - PBS - wasn’t really considered TV anyway. No laugh track, nobody was ever gunned down, and nothing ever blew up. What was it good for, anyway?

Then came the TV remote control and life as we know it on earth was altered irrevocably. At first, men were able to drive their wives to homicide by switching back and forth between three channels - an admittedly futile and annoying practice since one was apt to confuse the plot lines of the shows you were trying to watch. Hence, it became difficult to remember if Dick Van Dyke was really going to be able to rescue Sgt. Saunders and Little John from the Germans while Marshall Dillon and FBI Inspector Erskine tried to arrest Johnny Yuma for crimes against good acting.

We have no such problems today thanks to the 200 plus cable and satellite stations available to any American of modest means. And with this explosion of choices, the TV remote has assumed the status of domestic icon, a talisman of power that allows the possessor a window on the universe or at least the ability to find out what the temperature is outside your window.

Such power is intoxicating. But it can also condemn the user, like the Headless Horseman from Sleepy Hollow, to go off on a futile quest in search of something important that can never be found - the perfect television show where even the commercials are riveting entertainment. Unfettered channel surfing is as much an expression of hope as it is a way to alleviate boredom.

Thus, last night, I found myself in a monumental quandary. There was the GOP debate from Florida on Fox News where the grown up candidates were being asked questions by grown up journalists that actually elicited responses that voters might use to make up their minds about a candidate’s presidential qualifications and not demonstrate whether our future president might emote well when asked silly questions about how they are “feeling.”

Then there was Sunday Night Football on NBC with the Steelers going up against the Broncos at Mile High Stadium - classic match-up with classic announcers in Al and John. The fact that there are few things in life more enjoyable than watching NFL Football in Hi-Def was also an attraction.

Finally, to make my conundrum complete, there was the 7th game of the ALCS featuring the Indians - who haven’t won a World Series since 1948 - and the Red Sox who have made a wonderful habit in recent years of coming back from the dead and going on to victory.

For an hour and a half while the debate was occurring, I was clicking like a madman. Both ballgames ended up being as good as advertised (the Red Sox pulled away late to win 11-2) so I missed huge chunks of the GOP debate. This I didn’t mind because the football game was so good, it almost made me forget how badly my beloved Bears have been playing this year (despite an incredibly desperate, 97 yard TD drive with less than two minutes and no timeouts against the Eagles that saved their season temporarily).

However, thanks to old fashioned VCR technology, I was able to tape the debate and watch most of what I missed live. In this, I was not disappointed because the debate was perhaps the most animated, most interesting discussion compared to any of the previous GOP get togethers.

I thought that once again, Rudy Giuliani was sharp, on point, and at times, inspiring. However, he had trouble defending himself from some of the attacks launched against him by Romney and Thompson. There really isn’t any getting around the fact that when Mayor of New York City, Rudy acted at times in a decidedly unconservative manner. How much this truly hurts him I just don’t know. My issues with Rudy revolve around his experience and temperament not his lack of conservative credentials. But for some, I’m sure, his liberal apostasy will keep them from voting for him.

Romney was surprisingly subdued although smooth and very well prepared as usual. He actually had a hair or two out of place which almost made him look human. Why he is wasting his time attacking John McCain is beyond me. Their catfight elicited the liveliest exchanges of the night but Romney’s target should be Giuliani. Besides that, he said nothing memorable and got bogged down a couple of times in minutiae. Not his best performance.

McCain also seemed a little off although he delivered the best line of the night talking about the $1 million earmark Hillary delivered for the Woodstock Museum. He noted that the concert was probably a “a cultural and pharmaceutical event” but that he couldn’t attend because he was “tied up at the time” - a reference to his horrific experience as a POW. That crack garnered a standing ovation and applause from the other candidates.

But McCain seemed a little flat when defending some of his positions and didn’t have the energy the other candidates brought to the debate. A disappointing performance.

The Huckaboob was his ‘ole self, grinnin’ like a possum and reeling off southern aphorisms one after another. I suppose we’re going to have to put up with him for a while longer since he’s closing fast in Iowa and might shock the world and finish 1st or 2nd. He doesn’t have a prayer in the general election if he were to win the nomination so if the GOP wants to commit suicide, the Huckathing is their man.

Hunter,Tancredo and Paul could have stayed home. I think Paul even did more damage to himself by his reaction to the booing in the audience. It was the first venue where his Paulbots seemed to be drowned out by the rest of the audience and it appeared to disconcert him. If possible, he was even more shrill and nonsensical than usual. If people were actually going to give him a serious look last night, I would think they would have to come away disappointed.

But if there was a winner last night, it had to be Fred Thompson - not because of his outstanding performance but because once again, he exceeded expectations. I thought he was rather subdued and tired looking in that first debate but this time, he looked much better (make-up?) and sounded much more alive and forceful. He was animated in his debate with Giuliani over tort reform and I think he scored quite well with his federalism answer to Rudy’s charge. He also took a nice chunk out of Rudy with his pointing out the former Mayor’s inconsistency with regard to sanctuary cities. Rudy’s answer was vague and unconvincing. In short, Fred scored against Rudy while establishing himself as the leading conservative in the field. Not a bad night for someone already being written off by the inside the beltway crowd.

Note to the political parties: Please do not schedule your debates opposite NFL Football ever again. My thumb eventually became sore switching back and forth between the two great American games and I would hate to have to give up watching either one just to prevent carpel tunnel syndrome.

For Christian activists to actually call their yearly confab the “Value Voters Summit” takes a considerable amount of chutzpah.

Whose values? And doesn’t everyone vote for the candidate that best reflects their own values?

The truth is, we’re not talking about “values” as much as we’re talking about “issues:” abortion, gay marriage, and Lord knows what else that bubbles up as a result of the Christian right’s cockeyed view of American politics. And, of course, even beyond which “issues” define a “values voter” is the importance an individual politician attaches to those issues.

But values? Is there anyone who seriously argues that Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney’s “values” are superior to Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton’s? Don’t tell me that Hillary is any more or less honest than any of them. Ditto Romney. These people are politicians which by definition, places honesty far back in line as far as “Truths I live by.”

But to say that generally speaking, all American politicians share the same values should be a given. It should also be self evident that American voters share these values as well. These shared values make us a sovereign nation, a community of like minded citizens who are in general agreement regarding what is “right” and what is “wrong.”

Abortion and gay marriage? These issues are defined for each of us not a matter of values but of faith. Or the lack thereof. Rationalists argue a different point when life begins than many Christians. And while I’ve read secular arguments for not allowing gay marriage (unconvincing to me, anyway), allowing gay couples the same rights and privileges as married heterosexual couple via a civil union is nearly impossible to speak against when using “values” as a yardstick. One might argue as a matter of faith that homosexuals should be denied equal protections under the law (with some very specific exceptions). But don’t try and foist that idea as a “value” shared by the American people on the rest of us.

Hence, my beef with this “Values Voter Summit.” The issues that the Christian right want prominently addressed by Republican politicians are hardly on the radar of importance to the rest of us. Talk of a third party being formed simply because the GOP presidential candidate doesn’t have the same kind of commitment to the issues these Christian activists say are important only proves how totally skewed the agenda of the Republican party has become. It is a form of blackmail for candidates like Giuliani and Romney who governed in places where the activists were weak and therefore, they felt no pressure when they advocated their personal beliefs regarding abortion or gay marriage and did not try toeing some invisible party line.

I have my own problems with both Giuliani and Romney having nothing to do with their stance on abortion or gay marriage so I’m not making a partisan argument here. The idea that the “values voters” who met this weekend in Washington are saying their “values” are superior to those of others or even that they are more sharply defined does a disservice to the rest of us who share most of the same values as the Christian activists but try not to judge people who might disagree that one “issue” or another represents a moral judgement of what is right or wrong.

In the end, that is what is being foisted on the Republican party; not values but a rigid ideology disguised as religious faith that seeks to punish apostasy and push to the fore issues that are just not important to the rest of America.

The question isn’t whether this dynamic is going to change or not. The question is will it change fast enough to save the party. A couple of more disasters like 2006 won’t make a difference if the party refuses to learn the lessons that caused the defeats in the first place. And if it doesn’t learn, it is not beyond imagining that the Grand Old Party - once a powerhouse national organization that dominated so much of the country - would become a small, regional party confined to the south and a few border states; a rump of its former self.

The power of the religious right in party affairs has never been so great and it may take something of a civil war between the evangelicals and secular conservatives to hash this out. So be it.

We might as well get started right after the disaster that’s shaping up for the GOP in 2008.

We used to chalk incidents like the Stark smear up to “Bush Derangement Syndrome” which actually began as something of a tongue in cheek reference to the sometimes unhinged nature of left wing criticism of the President.

But I think it’s time to come up with some nomenclature that’s a little more accurate - and we don’t even have to invent any clever phrases to describe it.

How about “Morally Depraved?” Or perhaps “Ethically Challenged?” Maybe “Mindless Gorgons” would be the best descriptive.

And for those on the left who so obviously didn’t have a clue what constituted a “smear” when “defending” poor little Graeme Frost who never had an unkind word directed his way by any conservative blogger, pundit, writer, or commentator at any time ever nor in any way, shape or form, allow me to present Exhibit A of what a “smear” actually is:

“Are you going to tell us lies like you’re telling us today? Is that how you’re going to fund the war? You don’t have money to fund the war on children. But you’re going to spend it to blow up innocent people if he can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the President’s amusement.”

“President Bush’s statements about children’s health shouldn’t be taken any more seriously than his lies about the War in Iraq. The truth is that that Bush just likes to blow things up – in Iraq, in the United States, and in Congress.”

A “smear” is “an unsubstantiated charge” according to Websters. What possible substantiation could there be to the charge that Bush gets “amusement” from soldier’s dying? Or that the President likes to “blow things up” in Iraq?

There is none, of course. But on the left, this is what passes for proper discourse. Starks comments have received gushing approbation from a variety of sources. A sample:

The Democratic Daily:

Rep. Pete Stark stood on the floor of the House during the SCHIP and spoke the truth to power. Now the Republicans are feigning outrage over Stark’s comments and demanding an apology.

The American Street

I owe Pete Stark a thankyewverymuch. He’s not mental. He’s just mad as hell, for every good reason.

He knows the bully’s a serial murderer who can’t even fight his own fights, a guy who’d turn his back on hurricane victims, relent when forced to, promise to fix things then rig it so all his bully friends can fleece the victims and profit from their misery. He knows he’s a coward, a chump, a lowlife who kicks puppies for fun.

Go ahead, keep pushing the kids, tens of millions of kids.

But you better call your Mama first, dickhead, to make sure her schedule’s open to change your pissy pants.

I’m impressed with both the reasoned rhetoric and intellectual heft of this post. I just hope the blogger didn’t stay up too long past his bedtime to finish it.

Skippy:

would you spineless wussicrats grow a freakin’ backbone and concentrate on the real points; the real isses and not this distraction. take your wussy eyeballs off the shiny objects and deal with the real issues. this administration is hellbent on destroying this country and they don’t freakin’ care as long as their buddies are profiteering.

the man installed as monarch…ugh, president, has no clothes; has no plan for iraq; has no plan for healthcare; has no plan for disasters hitting the country; has no plan for aiding the poor; has no plan for alternative energy; has no plan for the homeless; has no plan for transporation; has no plan for the credit disaster; has no plan to invest in the future of this country by investing in the human capital of the country’s citizens (schip, etc.).

pete stark’s been paying attention, he’s mad as hell about the real things, and so am i. mad about the things that really matter to human lives and not some “falsified” outrage.

What really matters to human lives is human freedom. All else flows from that. Lefties have that concept ass-backwards. Enslave people, make them dependent and you will make them free.

Beyond that, aren’t these the same folks who were “outraged” about something Rush Limbaugh said regarding anti-war soldiers? Using Skippy’s logic, the left is guilty of exactly the same thing he is accusing Republicans of doing here - obfuscating the argument over the Iraq war by concentrating on a side issue.

But that’s different. Why? Because they say it is and that’s the end of that argument.

Carpetbagger Report

For years, Republicans worked to create the opposite reputation. They’re tough. This is the macho “daddy party.” They don’t care about “political correctness” and wussies who cry over words that rub people the wrong way. This is a crowd that calls it like they see it, and doesn’t look bad or apologize.

And yet, they’ve now spent the better part of a year trembling over mild rebukes from liberals. If Democrats were smart, they’d look at this as an opportunity to rebrand the GOP as pathetic cry-babies who can barely go a week without throwing a hissy fit over one manufactured outrage or another. Alas, it doesn’t look like Dems are smart at all — the House leadership is already distancing itself from Stark.

It’s obvious that Benen doesn’t read Think Progress very often. On almost a daily basis, that website takes something some conservative says completely out of context and, judging by the number of lefties who reguarly link to them, create an artificial blogswarm over something totally innocuous. I may be wrong but they may have been the first lefty website to accuse conservatives of “smearing” 12 year old Graeme Frost - despite the fact no had said or written a word against the kid.

Perhaps Benen should clean up his own house before he craps in someone else’s.

It isn’t that it’s unseemly to cheer on the smearing of the President of the United States on the floor of the House. It’s the total cluelessness as to why it’s important. Rules, traditions, manners, proper decorum - these things are irrelevant to the left. “Speaking truth to power” and using any means necessary to achieve one’s goals is.

Harry Reid trudged to the well of the Senate to make an unusual speech this afternoon. The trouble was, he was just coming from the restroom and somehow, a long strip of toilet paper had become attached to his shoe. Every time he walked, the TP would jerk and then float on the air making it appear that Harry was trailing some weird, white snake that seemed to be trying to devour his rear end.

Astonishingly, none of Harry’s Democratic colleagues could see the hilarious sight. Neither could any of the netroots, although some of them may have actually seen the TP on Rush Limbaugh.

But Harry’s Republican colleagues saw the TP and just couldn’t stop laughing at him:

MORE THAN 40 OF MY SENATE COLLEAGUES AND I CO-SIGNED A LETTER TO THE CHAIRMAN OF CLEAR CHANNEL, MARK MAY, TELLING HIM THAT WE WANTED HIM TO CONFER WITH RUSH LIMBAUGH REGARDING THE } STATEMENTS HE MADE. (”Phony soldiers” comment).

I’VE SINCE SPOKEN TO MARK MAY ABOUT THIS. MARK MAY, IN FACT, CALLED ME REGARDING THIS LETTER. THIS WEEK, RUSH LIMBAUGH PUT THE ORIGINAL COPY OF THAT LETTER UP FOR AUCTION ON E-BAY. MR. PRESIDENT, WE DIDN’T HAVE TIME, OR WE COULD HAVE GOTTEN EVERY SENATOR TO SIGN THAT LETTER. BUT HE PUT THE LETTER UP FOR AUCTION ON E-BAY AND I THINK VERY, VERY CONSTRUCTIVELY, LEFT THE PROCEEDS OF THAT IT GO TO THE MARINE CORPS LAW ENFORCEMENTS FOUNDATION. THAT PROVIDES SCHOLARSHIP ASSISTANCE TO MARINES AND FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL WHOSE PARENTS FALL IN THE LINE OF DUTY.

WHAT COULD BE A MORE WORTHWHILE CAUSE? I THINK IT’S REALLY GOOD THAT THIS MONEY ON E-BAY IS GOING TO BE RAISED FOR THIS PURPOSE. WHEN I SPOKE TO MARK MAYIC HE AND I THOUGHT THIS PROBABLY WOULDN’T MAKE MUCH MONEY, A LETTER WRITTEN BY DEMOCRATIC SENATORS COMPLAINING ABOUT SOMETHING. THIS MORNING, THE BID IS MORE THAN $2 MILLION FOR THIS. WE HAVE WATCHED IT DURING THE WEEK. IT KEEPS GOING UP-AND-UP AND UP. THERE’S ONLY A LITTLE BIT OF TIME LEFT ON IT. BUT IT CERTAINLY IS GOING TO BE MORE THAN $2 MILLION. NEVER DID WE THINK THAT THIS LETTER WOULD BRING MONEY OF THIS NATURE. AND, FOR THE CAUSE, MADAM PRESIDENT, IT IS EXTREMELY GOOD.

The whole world is laughing at Harry and he hasn’t a clue, has he? Has there ever been a Senate Majority Leader more oblivious?

It gets better:

BUT WITHOUT QUALIFICATION MARK MAY, THE OWNER OF THE NETWORK THAT HAS RUSH LIMBAUGH AND RUSH LIMBAUGH SHOULD KNOW THAT THIS LETTER THAT THEY’RE AUCTIONING IS GOING TO BE SOMETHING THAT RAISES MONEY FOR A WORTHWHILE CAUSE.

I DON’T KNOW WHAT WE COULD DO MORE IMPORTANT THAN HELPING TO ENSURE THAT CHILDREN OF OUR FALLEN SOLDIERS AND POLICE OFFICERS WHO HAVE FALLEN IN THE LINE OF DUTY HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THEIR CHILDREN TO HAVE A GOOD EDUCATION. THINK OF THIS, MORE THAN $2 MILLION — THAT WILL REALLY HELP.

THAT’S, AGAIN, AN UNDERSTATEMENT. THERE’S ONLY A LITTLE BIT OF TIME LEFT SO I WOULD ASK THOSE THAT ARE WANTING TO DO MORE, THAT THEY CAN GO TO HARRY REID LETTER AND IT WILL COME UP ON E-BAY. I ENCOURAGE ANYONE INTERESTED WITH THE MEANS TO CONSIDER CONTRIBUTING TO THIS WORTHWHILE CAUSE.

I STRONGLY BELIEVE WHEN WE CAN PUT OUR DIFFERENCES ASIDE, EVEN HARRY REID AND RUSH LIMBAUGH, WE SHOULD DO THAT AND TRY TO ACCOMPLISH GOOD THINGS FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

Harry Reid trying to take credit for Limbaugh’s brilliant riposte? Some things are simply beyond irony, beyond sarcasm, and enter the realm of sublime idiocy. Reid has no clue that he is being funny, that the joke is on him.

And that’s not all. The netroots are laughably saying “apology accepted:”

Following a heated debate as to whether Rush should be permitted to speak in such a manner, the Senate of the United States sent Rush’s boss a letter condemning the remarks.

Now, in an apparent attempt to atone for his dispicable lack of judgment, Rush has offered the sale of the actual document on a popular website. It appears as though it will sell for a lot of money, and the proceeds are said to be headed for a good cause.

Again, unintentional humor from the truly clueless.

And by the way…How’s that campaign to get Rush off Armed Forces Radio coming? Or destroy his career? Or lay him low? Or get him off the air?

Seems to me I recall many of the netroots saying “This is it!” This would be the end of Rush Limbaugh. While Limbaugh could probably use a good thwacking I can guarantee it will never come from liberals. Especially when they prove themselves to be so ignorant, so oblivious to how Limbaugh plays them.

You can take the TP off your shoe now Harry.

The votes are in from this week’s Watchers Council and the winner in the Council category is “Murtha: Underhanded and Overlawyered” by Big Lizards. Finishing second was yours truly for my post “THE ENORMOUS DAMAGE DONE TO OUR SPACE PROGRAM BY “THE SPACE RACE.”

Finishing on top in the non Council category was “Battleground Che” by Publius Pundit.

If you’d like to participate in the weekly Watchers Council vote go here and follow directions.

By elvenstar522
Citizens of Chicago salute their overseers and slavemasters - the City government - and breathlessly await the arrival of their beloved Gauleiter, Richard Daley.

Resent the Nazi analogy, my Chicago friends? Too bad. If the shoe fits, goosestep in it:

Chicago Park District commissioners approved a smoking ban Wednesday for the city’s beaches and park-run playgrounds.

The ban takes effect immediately. If caught smoking within 15 feet of a beach or a playground, smokers can be fined up to $500.

Park officials made their plans for the ban public Tuesday, saying the restriction would not only protect children from second-hand smoke but also keep beaches free of cigarette butts. The nicotine-containing cigarette butts can be ingested by children, are eaten by wildlife and can leach into the water, according to the Alliance for the Great Lakes, which does beach cleanups that sift out thousands of discarded cigarette butts every year.

Parks Supt. Tim Mitchell said Wednesday he’s received a few complaints from smokers.

“To these people, I’m very sorry,” he said. “For me, it’s about the children.”

No, Mr. Superintendent you lying weasel. It’s not “about the children.” If it were “about the children” YOU WOULD BAN SMOKING AND MAKE IT ILLEGAL TO SELL AND USE CIGARETTES!

And just to carry the Nazi analogy one step further, guess how this law is going to be enforced?

The penalty for violating the ban is a $500 fine.

Enforcement relies on citizens to turn smokers in to police.

I wonder if the Citizen Enforcers are going to be wearing brown shirts when patrolling the beaches and parks looking for smoking scofflaws?

And as long as you’re doing it “for the children,” maybe we should involve the little tykes and get them to become government informants. Nothing like getting the kiddies started early, that’s what I say. By the time they’re grown-ups, they’ll be used to turning in their fellow citizens for a variety of crimes.

This is not about protecting children, or wildlife, or the water supply. The towering hypocrisy it takes to make that argument with a straight face makes me sick to my stomach. This is about government trying to regulate behavior - to control the personal lives of others. Why? Because they can, that’s why.

The fact that you might wholeheartedly agree with the efforts to control the personal behavior of others when it comes to smoking only shows you are as ignorant as you are a threat to liberty. Ignorant because these same busybodies who are running around telling people how to live their lives have their sights set on “curing” obesity now.

And there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that before long, they will be digging in to your personal choices about what to eat - all “for the children” of course. They will be hectoring you about your snack habits, your choice of soft drink, perhaps even ban a few of your favorite food items. Think I’m kidding? You obviously haven’t been paying attention. Regulating fat content is only the beginning. Before long, you’re going to try and put your foot down, saying “Enough!” but it will be too late. The momentum is all on their side plus, “it’s for the children” is usually enough to close off the argument then and there.

To those who can’t see the threat to freedom these bans entail - bans not really related to public health or environmental concerns but to the idea that government has the capability to ride roughshod over individual rights whenever it sees fit - I pity you. You will go on, thinking yourself smugly superior to those second class citizens who smoke, cheering on your government as they strip them of their liberty bit by bit - all the while totally oblivious to the threat to your freedoms growing on the horizon.

A tipping point is approaching - a point of no return where these behavioral Nazis will have accumulated so much power and influence that all of us will be at their mercy. Whatever they deem inappropriate or unhealthy or even just undesirable, they will go after with a vengeance. The smoking bans are just whetting their appetites. And I hate to think what will happen when they start feasting on you.