I’m open to suggestions as to which method of suicide I should use.

Robert Greenwald’s campaign to impeach Gonzales, sign the petition.

If you hate Tim and Eric, and if you REALLY hate Saul of the Molemen, get ready knuckle draggers… you’re gonna want to commit genocide over this shit:


Just have to make sure this is in my own personal echo chamber, from Hunter over at DailyKos:

There’s only so long you can go being scared out of your wits, and then it gets old, and a routine becomes established. It gets a bit harder to be scared. It gets a lot harder to be scared on cue, certainly, in accordance with whatever we’re supposed to be most afraid of for one particular speech, or one particular campaign stop. And, at long last, you want the people who are in charge of scaring you — er, sorry, “protecting” you — to begin treating things at least with the same seriousness as you are.

I think that’s maybe the beginnings of the post-post-9/11 world that Wolcott is pondering, a one in which the same old political ploys are perhaps taken, finally, to be as offensive as they actually are. It’s not a question of complacency, but simple sturdiness: we will not be afraid of every shadow, we will deal with each day as it comes and try to fight against terrorism with something a bit more substantial than mindless arm-waving. The American population knows the score, and wants grownups in charge — not people that are still, after five and a half years, running around telling us that in spite of their five and a half years of effort, if we only give them more support, and violate a few more laws, and invade a few more countries, it will all work out great.

Collectively, we need to start thinking about what the post-post-9/11 world looks like, a world where terrorism will certainly still exist. It can either be a world of arm-waving fear, or a world of informed resolve, and I think I have a strong preference which of those two things I’d rather hoist the American flag over.

My anxiety and terror after 9/11 led me to the blogs to start learning about what the fuck was going on. My subsequent anger over what Bush was saying and doing in response to it, including Iraq of course, led me to supporting Howard Dean in 2004. His and eventually Kerry’s loss envigorated me all the more to set things right, and with 2006 we finally regained some footing. I think this country’s definitely going to be headed towards a progressive upswing after the nightmare we have collectively witnessed. And it’s not even finished yet. No matter what, it’s safe to say that W. has secured himself a legacy alright, and I don’t even have to type it for you to know what I’m talking about.

Giuliani == Cheney

Boy oh boy do I hope that Giuliani becomes the Republican nominee in 2008. Why? Because he’s now made it abundantly clear with his rhetoric that he’d be nothing but a younger, crueler and more incompetent version of Dick Cheney. And anyone who’s paid the slightest bit of attention to the polls should know that he’s scraping even further down in the bottom of the barrel than Bush.

I think Democrats would be wise to start pointing out the similarities to Cheney and Giuliani sooner rather than later, as the entrenched myth of Giuliani’s competence as an executive officer is much more formidable than that of Cheney as an assessor of intelligence. The myth of Cheney has been adequately demolished by the Iraq war, but Rudy’s remains somewhat in tact for a large portion of the politically disengaged. In the most recent issue of The Washington Monthly’s Scoop Rachel Morris does a superb job of illuminating these two men’s similarities by way of Ron Suskind’s book The One Percent Doctrine, and by reminding us of Cheney’s rhetoric leading up to the 2004 election:

Giuliani’s speech was about as pure an expression of the Dick Cheney worldview as you’re likely to find outside the inner recesses of the vice president’s psychological bunker.

For instance: “If any Republican is elected president … we will remain on offense and will anticipate what [the terrorists] will do and try to stop them before they do it,” Giuliani said. Later, he added: “Never, ever again will this country ever be on defense waiting for [terrorists] to attack us if I have anything to say about it.”

This is precisely the logic that Cheney has deployed ever since 9/11, with catastrophic results for the country. In his book, The One-Percent Doctrine, Ron Suskind describes a meeting in which Cheney succinctly set out his new doctrine: “If there’s a one-percent chance that Pakistani scientists are helping al Qaeda build or develop a nuclear weapon, we have to treat it as a certainty in terms of our response … It’s not about our analysis, or finding a preponderance of evidence. It’s about our response.” In a 2002 speech, Cheney pronounced that, “the risks of inaction are far greater than the risk of action.

More than anything, this is what Giuliani must be associated with than–much more so than his cross-dressing or his so-called liberal views. It will do more to remind the American people that a Giuliani administration would in essence be more four more years of Dick Cheney running the show. This recent American Prospect article does an excellent job of looking past these superficial and semi-sensational aspects of Giuliani’s campaign and reminding us what a sadistic prick the man has been and will continue to be.


Tom Delay:

I think Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are getting very very close to treason…For the Majority Leader of the United States Senate in a time of war, with soldiers dying on the ground, announcing that we have lost the war, is very close to treasonous. I looked it up while we were driving over here, the definition of treason, it’s the betrayal of trust. I have never in my adult life, nor in my understanding of history, seen something so blatantly outrageous…I am blown away by this attitude of the Democrats. To me it’s just a hatred of Bush…The American people are gonna eventually be fed up with this.

How detached from reality do you have to be to not understand that 60% of the public are sick of Bush, hence the reason Democrats are in charge and emboldened to stand up to Bush’s war? How antithetical to the principles of a functional democracy is it to call those who disagree with the president treasonous? It’s like they’re on a mission lately to drive voters away from the GOP for at least one generation, but quite likely to completely obliterate the republican party forever.