So now ...

We're anti-Semites. At least according to the Bullshit Moose:

Do those of us who oppose Joe Lieberman because he represents a failed policy, because he has stabbed fellow Democrats in the back. According to Marshall Wittmann it's because of Anti-Semitism.

...

The View on the Ground

I've crawled out from underneath my rock long enough to post some quotes from a few interesting blogs you might wish to check out for further perspective on the latest Mid-East crisis.

Slices of life in Middle East Blogistania:

First, from Back to Iraq 3.0 (who has been in Lebanon these past few months):

"Bombs and Politics
BEIRUT — Why, oh, why do people with access to really big bombs continue to think they can change people's loyalties by dropping those big bombs on their homes and families?

Israel's strategy in Lebanon is pretty clear now: Make the pain of "supporting" or "harboring" Hizbullah so great that the Lebanese will deal with the group. That was also the idea behind the attack on Gaza and Hamas as well as the so-called Bush Doctrine - the U.S. will make no distinction between the terrorists and those who harbor them. It's also the hot air for the trial balloon often floated in D.C. regarding regime change in Iran: Bomb the mullahs and watch the pro-American youth embrace the Pax Americana!

Except- it almost never works. I mean, George Bush was considered barely qualified to make coffee at the White House in August 2001. (Remember that?) And then, boom, 9/11 hit and he's suddenly the best wartime leader since Churchill. Was there a rethinking of American policy on the part of the masses and a call for changing those policies? Or even, dare I say it, removing the Bush Administration from office because the consequences of having a nincompoop in office had grown too painful? Hell, no! Americans rallied around the flag and the leader. In fact, the only incident that I can think of that involved bombs leading to the victims blaming their leaders and punishing them was - Madrid.

So why do Washington and Tel Aviv think Arabs would react any different? (Maybe a bit of cultural chauvinism?) Did the Iraqis turn on Saddam Hussein through 13 years of sanctions? No. Did the Palestinians turn on Fatah after the start of the 2001 intifada? That's a negative. The Gazans this year? Nope. Will the Lebanese turn on Hizbullah? Not likely, and certainly not in the short term.

Another reason the "bomb 'em and they'll love us" strategy won't work here is that Hizbullah is not the PLO. An historical digression, if you'll allow me: Israel invaded Lebanon in 1978 and 1982 in two attempts to dislodge the PLO from Lebanon, where it was using the country launch attacks on the Jewish state. The Palestinians had developed a state-within-a-state in the south, which was often called "Fatah-land." (Sound familiar?) In 1983, Israel finally pushed the PLO out and Yasser Arafat and his followers fled to Tunisia. Still, the Lebanese war dragged on for another seven years as various militias - some supported by Israel, others by Syria and Iran - before finally ending in 1990 from exhaustion. Lebanon was shattered and Israel ended up occupying parts of the country for 22 years, spawning Hizbullah.

This is important. Hizbullah was not started by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. It was organized by them out of the disparate Shi'ite groups that popped up to resist the Israeli occupation. Iran helped merge them together, but they're a Lebanese creation.

This means Hizbullah is an indigenous group, not a foreign body like the PLO was. Saying that Lebanon "harbored" Hizbullah is like saying the United States "harbors" white supremacists or anti-government militias. You probably hate them and despise their goals, but you can't they’re alien parasites on American society. Like Hizbullah in Lebanon, they're an integral if extreme part of the political and social fabric. Ending of expelling Hizbullah is akin to amputation rather than lancing a boil."

From Kerblog, a Lebanese blogger:

"stop!
that's it!
i can't anymore!
nein!
please do not contact me for any interview anymore.
i am beginning to freak out repeating 5 times a day the same things. if your interested in what i am doing, please write yourself a story about it (it's easy, you'll see).
anyways, everything i am asked is already on the blog. or worst, on tv.
i should by the way keep record of these interviews, some are incredible. i was asked twice so far: "don't you think that your piece of music and bombs is of a bad taste?
i answered twice: "do you think that it is of a good taste to throw a bomb on a bus with civilians escaping their village?"
it is incredible that some people, listening to this piece in their living room in london or in paris, ask themselves if they like it or not. i think that some people should never stop seeing cnn and fox news. it is made for them. it is "good taste" news."

And next, Live from an Israeli Bunker:

"We had 10 sirens today, and finally a new instruction came to stay at least 15 minutes down there after a siren. This might be obscure so I'll explain. What happened in the past few days, and I've talked about this already, is this: Siren goes off, people go down into the bunker, all clear to come back up after a few minutes, then they rapidly fire again. You almost never hear a lone siren by itself, always in pairs or more with short pauses in between. This is designed to hit people when they come out of the bunker. So now we wait for 15 minutes and sure enough, while in the bunker we hear yet another siren again. But since everybody are down there nobody gets hurt the second time around. That's why recently we had relatively few casualties. STAY DOWN THERE. It will save your life, your completely safe there.

But we are spending more and more time down there. And some of you asked what it's like, and whats going on. Well this is from the last time: We are down there and after ten minutes another siren hits, so this means that we'll spend at least 25 minutes down there. The radio puts on a song to pass the time, it's "I want to be loved by you", Marilyn Monroe singing circa 1959 from a wonderful movie called "some like it hot".

Anyway, the scene was to me at least, surreal. Just imagine: "I wanna be loved by you, just you", somewhere three dozen miles away two rockets are inbound, "And nobody else but you", in your minds eye your flying behind them, seeing the green valleys of south Lebanon below you, "I wanna be loved by you, alone!", your passing over Israeli troops now, seeing them building up in a few locations, "Boop-boop-de-boop!", you for a second glimpse a dozen special op soldiers moving bend over on the ground unaware that behind the next hill there are three Hezbollah terrorists, but your not going to see the outcome of that because your moving on..."

Ya Know,sometimes it's just beyond my comprehension...

And to be honest,I've come to the place where I am GLAD I don't understand what motivates people to do things like this.I don't want to understand this shit anymore,I want to work to STOP it.

I've dealt with mild harassment for being a liberal surrounded by conservatives,I can only imagine the crap I'd have to deal with if I ran for any office here.

If I find a horse head in my pool,it's going in the front yard with a big ass sign on it saying:

THIS is what conservatives do to their fellow Americans and neighbors who disagree with them.One of your neighbors put this in my pool.Where my son and his friends swim.Think about it.

Not to mention the person who did this had to cut off a horse's head in the first place.Which all by itself is sick enough.Yeah,and I'm unhinged? Umm,no.

One good thing for me has sprung from this kind of "compassionate conservatism". Never again will I feel that something is wrong with me or that I'm not witty and smart. I may not be pretty,popular,or win the Nobel Prize or a membership into MENSA,but I'm refreshingly and fabulously NORMAL and SANE.

P.S. David Neiwert should get a Pulitzer for his work on right wing hatred and how it makes it's way into becoming acceptable. If you don't keep up with his blog,you should try to squeeze it into your daily blog rounds now and then.

Wingnuttia

Gord spoke of Oklahoma's nutty senior senator, Jim Inhofe, the other day. It seems it's contagious:

In a desperate bid to be known as Oklahoma's Stupidest Senator(tm), Tom Coburn one-ups fellow Okie James Inhofe:

...

Via Dr. Attaturk. [You gotta see the pic at Attaturk's]

What can Israel do?

TPM commenter LS posits Israel is doing the only thing it can to stop Hezbollah:

...

Here's the thing, though. I have yet to see anywhere on line an honest attempt to wrestle with the conundrum Israel faces. Hizbollah operates within civilian neighborhoods, and does things like house its weapons in apartment buildings (where people actually live). What are the military options for dealing with an enemy that positions itself in this way?

...

The option, sir/ma'am, would have been for Israel to abandon the 'Israel uber Alles' position they've had since '73. The option would have been for Israel not to treat the Palestinians and Lebanese like insects and vermin, annoyances to be shooed away or exterminated. The option would have been a humanitarian one as opposed to always calling in the tanks.

People don't blow themselves up in buses because they hate Israel. They do it because Israel's policies toward their people have robbed them, and their children, of hope for the future.

We also have ourselves to blame for years of 'wink and nod diplomacy' when dealing with Israel's conflicts with its neighbors. Where we give them a pat on the head and an admonition, 'just don't break too much before you're done'.

As I've said in the past, there are no saints in this struggle, but many of Israel's problems are the result of their own policies toward their neighbors. A little more 'velvet glove' as opposed to 'iron fist' over the past thirty years might have saved a lot of pain and heartache. Israel probably has no other military option at this point, for no leadership has come from Washington, and real diplomacy is a lost art at Foggy Bottom*.

*[Link added after the fact.]

Awlayas*

[/NY accent] Get the fuck out.

'All of you' or 'Y'all' for those not from the NY Metro Area.

Howard

I'm not a fan of Howard Stern. I used to be when I was younger, when he was in New York and before he was syndicated, but I can only listen to so much toilet humor and heavy breathing over lesbians. I respect him the way I do Larry Flynt for his 1st Amendment stands (I've long ago canceled my subscription to Hustler as well). But you gotta love that he's taken up the cause against Holy Joe.

Caesar Salad

A recipie for disaster ...

Apologies

To our pal Pissed Off Patricia for my being slow on the uptake. She's got her own place and it took me until today to realize it. Of course it's been added to the blogroll.

New Concept For Journalism

I was going to link directly to the source on this, but I found a precis on it with a link in the first 5 words. It's quite long, but I think worth a read. See what you think.

DallasBlog

Jay Rosen over on Pressthink is trying out a new concept in online journalism content creation. With seed money from Craig Newmark of Craig's List fame, he's about to open a web site at NewAssignment.Net. In essence, he will attempt to build up independent electronic enterprise reporting as the mainstream media tears itself down.

Rosen describes it as "journalism without the media," and it makes some philosophical/business assumptions that seem on-target. First, a way has to be develop to harness the blog-type energies into fact-based, original and salable news products. That can be done by using an open-source approach to come up with solid assignments, which can then be picked up for reporting by professionals or able news novices. (Lord knows, there is plenty of talent to be mined. MSM dumped more than 6,000 professional journalists from its ranks in just the last two years, by some estimates.)

Second, NewAssignment.net (which is not yet opened, but reserved with a holding page at the moment) would serve as a way to create, syndicate and disperse original reporting created for real dollars. It would be, in essence, a new kind of wire service.

People could invest/contribute to stories they want to read about (or run in their own publications), the reap the rewards of the collaborative NewAssignment.Net community.

Like many great ideas, this one is rooted somewhat in idealistic and, perhaps, overly optimistic visions of our media future. But something like this will eventually have to arise to supplant the ever-skimpier MSM contributions to enterprise and in-depth reportage. Like it or not, bloggers exist only because they have MSM content to blog about. With original reporting -- fact-checked and well produced -- we may at least add to the pool of realiable information available for all consumers.

Seems to this ex-newspaper dood it's well worth a shot. Craig's List, BTW, is already down for a $10K bet on the same.

"Well worth a shot" indeed! Somehow, I don't think we're going to see a lot about this in the traditional MSM, but that's the whole point, ain't it?

FEMA OKs 1st Amendment Rights

Following up on my post of July 20 about FEMA preventing its trailer residents from speaking to reporters. From Editor & Publisher.

The controversy over Federal Emergency Management Agency's denial of media access to residents of the organization's trailer parks has been momentarily quelled, according to The Advocate of Baton Rouge, La. The newspaper reported today that FEMA recently reversed its media policy, allowing reporters with proper credentials access to residents of the trailer parks, which were set up as disaster relief following Hurricane Katrina.

"Government authorities telling private citizens that they can't speak with journalists--then threatening to have those journalists arrested--is typical for despotic regimes in foreign capitals," The Advocate wrote on July 23.

The actions of FEMA outraged not only local government officials, but journalism organizations around the country as well. David E. Carlson, the president of the Society of Professional Journalists, wrote a letter condemning the denial of media access, and Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) sent out a memo with the contact information of the inspector general of the Department of Homeland Security, Richard L. Skinner, urging readers to write Skinner and demand for an investigation to begin.

Today, The Advocate has Stark recanting his position.

"We're responding to your criticism," Stark said to the editors and staff of The Advocate over a conference call. "You pointed out some very good points that we shouldn't be trying to muzzle the press."

That's bureaucratese for "you caught us violating the Constitution without the power to get away with it like our bosses do, so we're forced to change our position".

This is a perfect example of what the Press is supposed to be doing.

Update:

FAIR

But it is almost beside the point whether Katrina victims' access to the press is being restricted by official policy or unofficial practice. The Advocate piece provided two specific examples of residents of FEMA camps being told by FEMA security guards that they were "not allowed" to talk to media. (Another example, recorded on audio tape, was broadcast by Democracy Now!—4/24/06.) Stark’s letter simply ignores those incidents, providing neither an apology nor an explanation for these civil liberties violations. Thus FAIR repeats its call for an investigation by the inspector general of the Department of Homeland Security.

I think that'd be kinda like the head fox investigating a break-in at a chicken coop. It should be investigated by a Justice Department not owned by Bush, or by a Democratic Congress.

November.

What is it?

About Jesus freaks and sex? I mean, I can understand if they don't condone homosexualty, or masturbation, or actually enjoying the act purely for the pleasure, but why must they try to legislate those of us who do?

I don't care what they do, or don't. But Jeez, you would think none of them ever had good sex before. But that's not my point. My point is that if you only have sex for procreation purposes, how do you become a good lover? It's like everything else, the more you practice at something, the better you get.

I've also found (speaking purely through personal anecdote) that relationships are better if the sex is good. If you're in tune with your lover's body (basically being aware what makes them curl their toes and make those noises), you get more in tune with their emotions when you're not in the bedroom, or whatever room you like to do it in.

And let me explain I'm talking more about the quality of the sex rather than the quantity, and not the kinds of acrobatics you do either. I'm talking about the way you tune into each other, the way you know how a certain touch in the right places will elicit certain reactions. The way you both say, 'I'm Gumby, dammit' afterward, when both of you are sated from the full effect. Sex is a wonderful form of communication in its purest form.

Now don't rush to click the comment link to say, 'Well, Fixer, you know how tight-assed they are, and they want to control our lives because they're afraid homosexuality might be contagious, or actually enjoying yourself with someone you want to give pleasure to and get in return is against God's will', I say this: Why did God give us the capacity to derive pleasure from the act itself? Why did God give us the opportunity to feel good if he didn't want us to in the first place? In all the years of building hotrods, I've never intentionally built a function into a car I didn't want it to have, and I'm nowhere near as talented an engineer as the 'man upstairs' (although Mrs. F says I have a God complex). Are we saying God made a mistake? I thought we were the fallible ones?

I mean, if it's as the Jesus freaks say, where sex should only be performed in pursuit of procreation, why didn't God make the act of conception the pleasurable experience as opposed to the orgasm? It makes sense to me. If sex were to be for the purely mechanical act of producing children, why doesn't the woman achieve orgasm when sperm fertilizes egg? Why give us the sensory organs at all? And why in Hell did he give us the urge to jerk off? Why not preprogram us to fuck at certain times of the year and only with our own [should have been 'the opposite'] sex?

As a writer, I know about building worlds. My stories take place in a world I've built over a dozen years. My characters display personalities I gave them and act according to the rules I've assigned to my world and to their individual personalities. Why would God create a world that didn't follow his rules? Seems like a lot of undue hassle to me. If you're the Almighty, why not build it right the first time? Personally, I think He did and it's us who've fucked it up.

Quote of the Day

Commenter Pug on this post at PSoTD:

...

That's why these folks who will call others traitors at the drop of a hat spend so much time on futile attempts to cleanse themselves of the stigma of being a great patriot who just never found the time to serve his country.

...

Who?... for What?

An interesting proposal from Molly Ivins. Read some of the comments, too.

Dear desperate Democrats:

Here's what we do. We run Bill Moyers for president. I am serious as a stroke about this. It's simple, cheap and effective, and it will move the entire spectrum of political discussion in this country. Moyers is the only public figure who can take the entire discussion and shove it toward moral clarity just by being there.

The poor man who is currently our president has reached such a point of befuddlement that he thinks stem cell research is the same as taking human lives, but that 40,000 dead Iraqi civilians are progress toward democracy.

Do I think Bill Moyers can win the presidency? No, that seems like a very long shot to me. The nomination? No, that seems like a very long shot to me.

Then why run him? Think, imagine, if seven or eight other Democratic candidates, all beautifully coiffed and triangulated and carefully coached to say nothing that will offend anyone, stand on stage with Bill Moyers in front of cameras for a national debate...what would happen? Bill Moyers would win, would walk away with it, just because he doesn't triangulate or calculate or trim or try to straddle the issues. Bill Moyers doesn't have to endorse a constitutional amendment against flag burning or whatever wedge issue du jour Republicans have come up with. He is not afraid of being called "unpatriotic." And besides, he is a wise and a kind man who knows how to talk on TV.

One time in the Johnson years, LBJ called on Moyers to say the blessing at a dinner. "Speak up, Bill," Lyndon roared. "I can't hear you." Moyers replied, "I wasn't speaking to you, sir." That would be the point of a run by Moyers: He doesn't change to whom he is speaking just because some president is yelling at him.

To let Moyers know what you think of this idea, write him at P.O. Box 309, Bernardsville, NJ 07924.

An outstanding idea! I would never wish the presidency on Mr. Moyers, but if he got involved it might show up the other candidates - Reps and Dems alike - for the shallow power-seeking liars they really are. Maybe even force a couple of 'em to actually say something meaningful or even - gasp! - truthful. Nah, too much to hope for, but it might stir things up a little, like putting an outboard motor in the punch bowl.

Good on yer, Molly

All the King's horseshit, and all the King's men...

If ya don't care to read Daddy Frank go on about Bush, stem cells, and the beginning of the end for the American ayatollahs, at least go see the cartoon. Via Rozius.

The news is not all dire, however. While Mr. Bush's Iraq project threatens to deliver the entire region to Iran's ayatollahs, this month may also be remembered as a turning point in America's own religious wars. The president's politically self-destructive stem-cell veto and the simultaneous undoing of the religious right's former golden boy, Ralph Reed, in a Republican primary for lieutenant governor in Georgia are landmark defeats for the faith-based politics enshrined by Mr. Bush's presidency. If we can't beat the ayatollahs over there, maybe we're at least starting to rout them here.

That the administration's stem-cell policy is a political fiasco for its proponents is evident from a single fact: Bill Frist, the most craven politician in Washington, ditched the president. In past pandering to his party's far-right fringe, Mr. Frist, who calls himself a doctor, misdiagnosed the comatose Terri Schiavo's condition after watching her on videotape and, in an interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos, refused to dispute an abstinence program's canard that tears and sweat could transmit AIDS. If Senator Frist is belatedly standing up for stem-cell research, you can bet he's read some eye-popping polls. His ignorance about H.I.V. notwithstanding, he also knows that the facts about stem cells are not on Mr. Bush's side.

Go read. That's our Pop!

Revolt of the Puppets

Billmon

The Cheney administration's Arab "allies" appear to have had enough of Condi's natural childbirth method. They're screaming for an epidural:

Those who thought it might turn out otherwise (I'm looking in your direction Booman) probably should have remembered the old Arab proverb: My brother and me against my cousins, my cousins and me against my village, my village and me against my tribe, my tribe and me against the world.

That's not an Arab or a Muslim thing, really -- just basic human psychology. And it appears that in the concentric circles of Middle East loyalties, Sunni versus Shi'a is still trumped by Arab versus Jew, believer versus infidel and (it would appear) tough Islamic fighters versus corrupt pro-U.S. elites.

The "new" Middle East, in other words, still looks a lot like the old one.

Update 12:30 PM ET: The Angry Arab notes, correctly, that one of the sickest/funniest aspects of this whole farce has been watching the neocons and the pro-Israel bloggers fellate the House of Saud -- that feudal hotbed of Islamofascism that miraculously transformed itself into the best Sunni friend Israel never had. Presumably it will now be allowed to revert to its good old Islamofascist self again.

Sounds like Mr. Billmon is a cum laude graduate of the Rude Pundit College of Journalism, huh?

I'm not particularly pro-Israel, but I still hope they kick Hezbollah's ass up around its ears before their leash gets yanked.

Repub nutcase calls sane people 'Nazis'

Think Progress

Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) is the nation's most prominent global warming denier. He famously declared that global warming is "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people." Now, he's taken the argument a step further. In an interview with Tulsa World, Inhofe compared people who believed global warming was a problem to Nazis:

Inhofe added that every claim in An Inconvenient Truth "has been refuted scientifically." He also admitted he'd never seen the movie.

UPDATE: Inhofe also compared An Inconvenient Truth to Hitler's book, Mein Kampf.

When us reality-based types compare criminals who start illegal wars, spy on and lock up citizens without due process, and stomp all over the 1st Amendment, just for starters, with Nazis, we're accused of being waaaay over the line.

Apparently when a nutjob Republican from an oil-producing state calls us Nazis for believing some science that might hurt his constituency of major donors' bottom line (let alone wreck the planet), that's OK.

Note to Oklahomeys: Dab a loop on this cat and get rid of his whacko ass.

"Yer outta here, honey..."

Go see Jane of Firedoglake talk about getting thrown out of the Clinton/Lieberman rescue attempt.

I can only hope that she hasn't led such a sheltered life that she hasn't been thrown out of better places than that!

Go wish her Happy Birthday, too. After seeing the video, I think she may be almost old enough to drink!

What's that sucking sound...?

From The Satirical Political Report on Clinton's rescue attempt in Connecticut:

This latest development has also "aroused" the interest of former Special Prosecutor Ken Starr, who maintains that this is not the first time that Clinton has gotten entangled with a Jewish Bush.

Ha!

Move along ...

Nothing to worry about here, ma'am.

The Bush administration acknowledged yesterday that it had long known about Pakistan's plans to build a large plutonium-production reactor, but it said the White House was working to dissuade Pakistan from using the plant to expand its nuclear arsenal.

"We discourage military use of the facility," White House spokesman Tony Snow said of a powerful heavy-water reactor under construction at Pakistan's Khushab nuclear site in Punjab state.

...

"What is baffling is that this information -- which was surely information that our own intelligence agencies had -- was kept from Congress," said Sokolski, now director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center. "We lack imagination if we think that this is no big deal."

...

Aside from the fact Pakistan is what is basically a homeport for bin Laden and his organization, that everyone in the country but Pervez Musharraf hates us, that this could kick off an Asian arms race (remember, the Japanese have hinted they might consider building nukes to counter the threat from the insane midjet in North Korea, and leave us not forget India's rival program), and that some of the fissile materieal will most certainly make it into a dirty bomb, what could be bad? They're helping us in the War on Terra, right?

With a couple more years left of the Chimp, the Rapture freaks might get their wish. What did you say? Congressional oversight? Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha!