Pages

Search Ratttler

Monday, October 31, 2005

FUN WITH CONSERVATARIAN HYPOCRISY

TimMCOdx, a new face in Mainstream, wades into the abortion debate, with no regard at all for rationality or consistency:

TimMCOdx: On the other hand, I have a hard time respecting people that would kill innocent unborn children but have a problem executing murderers.
BhadKhat: Tim, how do you feel about social programs such as Head Start, food stamps, etc
TimMCOdx: Bhad....I'm opposed to it
BhadKhat: I see, Tim, so you are only concerned about children while they are "unborn"...the
BhadKhat: I think it would be awesome if conservatives were as concerned about children who are post-birth as they are before birth
TimMCOdx: Jesus....Are you aware that people have fed themselves without help from the government? People do that all the time.
Jesus Claus: tim, that's just dumb
BhadKhat: you oppose abortion, and in the same breath, you oppose programs that benefit children and low-income families
TimMCOdx: Jesus....That's dumb? Explain.
Jesus Claus: you want kids to suffer because "everyone should fend for themselves"
Jesus Claus: that's a shitty attitude
BhadKhat: I love how Republicans call themselves "Christian"....they would be the first to nail Jesus to the cross
Jesus Claus: you want kids to suffer for your principle
Jesus Claus: disgusting
TimMCOdx: Jesus....Well, if YOU want to feed them, nobody is going to stop you.
Jesus Claus: i want our tax dollars to DO GOOD for children
Jesus Claus: YOU don't
BhadKhat: "Republican" and "Christian" go together like "bin Laden" and "Compassion"
Jesus Claus: while you stand on principle, real people suffer
TimMCOdx: Jesus....No, I want the government limited to defense, law courts, and police. If you have a problem with that, vote for people who think differently. But they haven't been very good at winning elections recently.


I didn't know when I started that Tim was a libertarian. That explains a lot. It's really easy for libertarian zombies to call for the government to not spend for the welfare of society, and for private donations to cover all the poor, but the rest of us actually have two braincells to rub together, and know that a society set up by libertarians would never work.

But notice here how the libertarian, who is supposed to believe in personal freedom above all else, can tie himself in knots to oppose the rights of women. And the sheer pigheadedness to advocate for the elimination of spending for programs that benefit children, it's just mindboggling. This piece of human filth has no problem oppressing women with his beliefs, but has no problem allowing his ideology to rule him, even if it results in actual suffering for children. Ladies and gentlemen, this is what libertarianism does to you: It warps your thinking and atrophies your moral sense. Get vaccinated as soon as possible.

JC

TR HAD IT RIGHT

This is the stupidity spewed today in Mainstream:

nellyandlynn: We should stick up for our Superior no matter who it is..they Won the Election, they deserve the Respect, just like at your job, If a Person gets Promoted to Supervisor, You Best deal with that

nellyandlynn: What the Problem here is ...We Adults, sit and Show disrespect for our Country..this needs to stop

nellyandlynn: well you know what Claus? what you are doing and saying to others is NOOOOOOOO different than the Whites that Had Slaves back in the day, and Badmouthed the Blacks...You are sad


What the fuck does that last part even mean? Criticizing our leaders is the same as white racism against slaves? What kind of drugs do you have to be taking for that to be meaningful? Would it make more sense if you used a 1/2 inch drillbit to core your head several times? I guarantee you this pair of conjoined twins sharing half a dessicated brain were pointing at the TV during the Clinton impeachment and dribbling out their slurred condemnations: "Bloshhhhhhobbbbs are bbbbbbbaaaad. 'Sssss nah da zzzzzex, 'ssss da bbbbberjjjjjjureeeeee!"

Goddamn, fuckwits, learn a lesson from one of the few good Republican presidents, Teddy Roosevelt: "To announce that there must be no criticism of the president.. is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonous to the American public."

Now that's a real leader. Not like the running dogs in this White House heading for "pound me in the ass" Federal Prison.

JC

DO AS I SAY, NOT AS I DO

George Bush is mortally wounded. As much as prominent conservatives and right wing bloggers would like to slide right over this into a new fight over a SCOTUS nominee, this presidency is in free-fall. Plenty of these wingnuts will tell you that this is an inside-the-beltway phenomenon, and that Bush still has the confidence of "true" Americans out there in the "heartland." Don't you believe it. New polls are coming out, and assuredly many of them were conducted even before the twin timebombs of Bush's collapse over Harriet Miers and the ignominy of the Libby indictment were even fully exploded.

The American people have told pollsters that the majority of them believe that Bush has reduced the ethics of the White House. Only 34% of respondents this Bush is trustworthy, and only 25% think he is cooperating with the CIA leak probe. This is devastating news for Bush, as his only real advantage, besides his handling of the war on terror (also in trouble), has been the perception that he is an honorable man. That percerption is very nearly gone. People are waking up to the fact that Bush and his team are conniving animals, willing to put this country in serious danger to viciously attack an enemy. And in this case, it is doubly damaging, because we know (despite the mealy-mouthed warblings of the wingnuts) that the critic, Joe Wilson, was correct.

So now a new front in the battle has been opened. Wingnuts were saying during the Miers debacle that what they had wanted was a real knockdown fight with the Democrats. They wanted to take an odious, repugnant conservative judicial activist and shove him down the Democrats' throats, just to prove they could still do it. This Samuel Alito character, often called "Scalito" because of how similar he is to Antonin Scalia, is a reprehensible jurist, a man who opposes abortion rights, supports racial discrimination, and shows a vile indifference to the rights of innocent Americans fighting authoritarian law enforcement practices. A worse choice, and one further out of step with ordinary Americans, can hardly be imagined.

No doubt the wingnuts on PalTalk will applaud Alito, but most Americans will not. If the Republicans really want a fight on this, I'm hopeful that the Democrats will give them one. Bush might have been able to push through a ridiculous choice like Alito when his approval was high, and before he had tragically screwed up Hurricane Katrina, the war in Iraq, and the CIA leak. Now, Bush is staggering, clutching his stomach as his political lifeblood splatters the floor from a half dozen self-inflicted wounds. This failed president should be put down, for the good of us all, and now is the time to do it.

For more information on Samuel Alito, take a look at this preliminary report by PFAW.

JC

HAPPY HALLOWEEN 2005

Hand carved by THE RATTLER

CAT-O-LANTERN

PEACE-O-LANTERN

I plan to burn them both until the squirrels eat them .


Photos by M.B. for THE RATTLER

Sunday, October 30, 2005

MORE FOOLISHNESS

It's extremely difficult to take LordMercifulVoo seriously, which is why I rarely bother to try. As I entered the room tonight, Voo was on one of his typical dishonest rants about Israel. Let me give you a little clue into Voo's character. The man loves to think of himself as an iconoclast. Whether the conversation is about Israel, racism, religion, or politics, Voo always has to go to great lengths to convince you (and himself) that he is far too intelligent to fit into any "category" of belief. No matter what you think, Voo is always way too savvy to agree with you.

Naturally, this leads to bouts of silliness and illogic. Here's a perfect example, and one I've discussed before. Voo tells us that jews are always telling him that there is a "jewish" race, and that jews are trying to get one over somehow. I've never heard any jew, here or elsewhere, claim that there was a jewish race in the same way that there is a black or white race. What jews do say is that there is anti-jewish discrimination, and bigotry against Israel. Voo has to be dishonest and mock a strawman opponent, because he has no real argument to make. Even in trying to bash Israel, he calls Israel "racist." Hey, Voo, how can Israel be racist if "jew" is not a race?

As far as calling Israel a "welfare state", while it is true that Israel gets a great deal of foreign aid from us, it is also true that many nations get similar aid. In addition, Israel is a major supplier of high-tech military hardware, and plays an important strategic role in the region. Now, you can argue the relative merits of Israel as ally vs provocation, but Voo can't or won't do so. He prefers mockery to reason, and makes himself a laughingstock in doing so. I have seen Voo make much better arguments about other issues. Hopefully he will notice that he's making a fool of himself and improve his attitude.

JC

WEASEL!

Will the weaselly behavior of wingnuts ever end?

RichardCranial: George W. Bush is laying a claim to be the President who did the best job creating jobs for blacks. Currently, black unemployment is 9.4%, which is significantly lower than the 10% it averaged in the Clinton years
RichardCranial: The current rate is also much lower than the average black unemployment rate over the past 30 years, which is 12.4%.


So, Dick wants us to think that black unemplotment is better now under Bush than it was under Clinton. Notice, though, that Dick's quote uses the term "average" in order to be intentionally misleading. If we look at trends, a radically different picture emerges. I had a hard time posting this graph and chart, so go now to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics site.

Look at the graph. You can see that African American unemployment started out in 1992 at 13.5%. The graph dips to 7.0% in April of 2000 and stays around 8% before it begins a trek upward in Bush's reign. Can you see the weaselling? An average of black unemployment during the Clinton years would indeed be around 10%. But the downward trend is obvious. The only reason why Bush's average isn't as high is that he hasn't managed to get black unemployment back up to 13% yet. But give him time, he still has 3 years to go.

RichardCranial, you are a weasel, and you are BUSTED!

JC

Saturday, October 29, 2005

YOUR BIGOTRY IS SHOWING

If you are in Mainstream tonight, you are witnessing a gigantic spat between jacquie_2, 1BobbyMcgee, and LordMercifulVoo. It all began, (or at least tonight's episode began) when Bobby made the bizarre claim that the only reason he keeps getting banned is because Voo incites him to say hateful things, for which he then gets kicked off of PT. Yes, it really is the abusive husband's excuse, "Why do you make me so mad that I hit you?"

Bobby tells us that he "used to be a star, but now he's spit on." We all had some fun with that. I said, "Bobby played Rosebud in Citizen Kane," and, "Bobby is Keyser Soze." Brizter and Snow Virtual had a lot of fun mocking Bobby. And all was right with the world.

That is until jacquie made some sarcastic comment about not using the insult "bitch" in the room. Suddenly, Voo was off on one of his hobby horses: minimizing the discrimination experienced by people other than African Americans. Whether it's gays, or jews, or women, none of them have had it as bad as African-Americans, according to Voo. Or at least, none of them belong in the same category as African-Americans. While that might be technically true, for a variety of reasons, it's obvious that the only reason Voo brings it up is to mock other people's experiences. Usually the way Voo belittles the experience of other groups is some narrow, hair-splitting legalistic issue, and tonight was no different.

Apparently, Feminism is not as important because women are technically a majority in the world, and thus they don't "count," as much. I gotta tell you, I don't follow this reasoning. Even a cursory analysis will prove that women have almost always been denied rights and have been the victims of bigotry and authoritarian control. I just don't understand what Voo thinks he's proving by belittling women like this.

Anyway, it looked like jacquie was just messing with his head anyway. And fundamentally, I agree with the idea that we should not be draconian in "banning" rough speech. Racial slurs and gay bashing are one thing, but once you start banning "bitch" and "bastard", you might as well put on your Sunday best and have a tea party with your Cabbage Patch Kids.

One last thing, though. Bobby started taunting Voo, telling him to fuck off, bounce him, etc. I don't know whether it was his cold, but Voo busted out some nasty bigoted shit at Bobby. Telling him to, "go fuck your turban, suck a camel, etc." It just goes to show you, there's some rancid stuff that bubbles to the surface in us all, when we get pissed off enough.

JC

ALL BETTER

Well, I've crawled out from under my computer, clutching my Wrench of Justice and smeared with grease, and I have somehow managed to get PalTalk working again. No thanks, I might add, to the PalTalk Help room attendants. I told them exactly what I needed to fix the problem, but they wouldn't hook me up. I swear, if I paid for this stupid program I might have a legitimate reason to be angry. Not that having no good reason to be mad has ever stopped me from complaining before.

I think they upgrade PT specifically and solely to piss me off. So, anyway, it's still a wonderful Fitzmas season. The PT wingnuts are nowhere to be found, and I've been tilting up every rock in the swamp looking. There must be a meeting in some damp, musty basement where the nutters are working out how this is all Clinton's fault.

I just noticed that Malo5 is talking about how much he likes man-sperm in his throat. I'll let you know what develops...

JC

WE REGRET ANY INCONVENIENCE

Well, a new version of Paltalk has apparently come out. And it should come as no surprise to anyone that the installation is fucked up on my computer. Halfway through the install, an Error message pops up that says: "Unable to Create Directory:" with no directory name listed. Most of the files get installed, but the .EXE file does not.

If anyone has any idea how to fix this, or has the .EXE and can send it to me, or if you have any questions, comments or suggestions for the blog, feel free to drop me a line at: Vaevictus at nyc.rr.com.

Hope to see you soon...

JC

Friday, October 28, 2005

LET THE GAMES BEGIN!

One thing that a lot of PT neocons are trying hard not to think about is that, no matter how much they try to downplay the disaster the Libby indictment is for Bush, the real danger here is that this is going to be played out in a very public trial...

On cable news EVERY DAY....

With leaks, speculation, and revelations....

and all of it....

In an election year.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....hrm...snerk...ghrrrk...

This is going to be brutal.

JC

INDICTED BY 'FITZ', LIBBY SHITS, QUITS

TALKING POINT

PERJURY is not a "big deal" crime!

REMIND people who mention this GOP talking point of CLINTON and his CONVICTION FOR PERJURY which was fully orchestrated by the GOP! It seems to THE RATTLER, it was a big deal when Clinton did it!

TALKING POINT TWO

"Its over now, and Libby isnt a 'big fish' anyway."

Not a "big fish'? Hmmm. Seems to THE RATTLER, that Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff is a pretty big fish.

Karl Rove, Bush's chief political strategist and deputy chief of staff, wasn't indicted, although Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald intends to keep examining Rove's role in the disclosure. Whether Rove eventually faces charges will be critical in determining how extensively Bush is damaged by the affair.

LINK http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=ao1NpCZX4h9Y&refer=top_world_news

More to come.............STAY TUNED>>>>>>>>>

NOOGIE

YOU'RE GETTING HOSED

According to reliable sources, the following offer was made:

Quote of the day--- Ricochet Rebel: Noooogie you are the rattler? Noooogie: yes i am (We'll trade you one Driller for a Brutelogic).


Now, you can make whatever trades you want, but you gotta check out the current price guides first. A Brutelogic, even from an out-of-print set, is basically worthless. You'd get better value trading for basic lands, for chrissakes. Brutelogic is a Black - Summon Fucktard, 1/1 Swampwalk. Which sounds cool, but there's a problem. It's one of those crappy token cards. "When summoned, place 1 token on Brutelogic. At the beginning of each turn, add one token. On any turn where there are an even number of tokens on Brutelogic, smash yourself in the temple with a ball peen hammer." Can anyone see the problem here? Yes, exactly! You're gonna end up with a huge stack of tokens! And possibly internal bleeding!

Nah, take my advice, stick with your Driller. It's a Green Summon Nitwit, 3/3, with no special abilities (or redeeming qualities). It's no Craw Wurm or Thicket Basilisk, but with a decent 4 mana casting cost, you shouldn't be disappointed. A Driller might help you in a strong deck, but a Brutelogic is gonna get you killed every time.

JC

BRUTE LOGIC STARTS NEW BLOG - POSTS ALL THOUGHTS!!!

In a remarkable flip flop, local PALTALK troll BRUTE LOGIC has started his own website, in the form of a blog, and posted all of his relevant arguements. The flip flop came after a solid week of insistence that "blogs are crap...tyvm....irrelevant....read drudge....that is facts....tyvm...blogs suck."

The blog, currently entitled "Social Issue NUTs" was originally entitled "the raggler" but following several RATTLER created puns about how brute was on the rag, the name was changed to reflect the current style, which seems to be extreme minimalist. The editor is listed as "the raggler".

This blog is a great example of the creativity of most if not all conservatives, and since it was wholly inspired by this one, THE RATTLER highly recomends you check it out and see for yourself what BRUTE LOGIC has to say, which so far, is not a damn thing. No shit. go look. It's a blank page. Has been for 2 days now, right after BRUTE announced "Watch this !" in MAINSTREAM POLITICS , shortly after posting the link at BLOGGER.COM for "create a blog". Several minutes later, BRUTE posted the web adress of his 'new blog' in the room, for the world to see and enjoy. THE WHOLE ROOM had a hearty laugh , remarking to BRUTE, "We dont see anything there, what is up with that ?"

(EDITORS' NOTE - L.M.A.O. !! !! !! )

When asked on PALTALK to explain the lack of anything but a title on his blog, he and his new live in lover ARCHIE BUNKER both responded by saying"Unlike you commie pinko Castro loving libs we have jobs, and we cant spend all day writing blogs like you do." The two then proceeded to hang out in the MAINSTREAM POLITICS room on PALTALK for the next 8 hours.

Please cut and paste the link to BRUTE LOGICs' BLOG! THE RATTLER WILL KEEP YOU POSTED ON THIS DEVELOPING STORY!!!!!

(it is not hotlinked)

http://raggler.blogspot.com


NOOGIE

IT SHOULD BE ILLEGAL TO BE THIS STUPID

Our good friend and constant source of amusement MrArchieBunker just got done "skoolin'" us on post-1950s presidential election history. According to his misinformed bleating, every presidential election since WWII has been a story of a stolid conservative Republican trouncing a namby-pamby liberal Democrat. Oddly enough, he carefully wends his squirrelly way around Kennedy, Johnson, and, of course, Clinton.

This mental midget crows, "We've broken the code, we don't need liberals to win anymore!" Pathetic. He even gurgles contentedly as he strokes himself and mutters, "I'm not doing rhetoric, it's all the facts, thank you ma'am."

Now, far be it from me to burst the little dear's bubble. I'd hate to have to lay the factual smack down on his tiny wittle head, but that's what you pay me for. So, without further ado, I present to you, the Southern Strategy:

In American politics, the Southern strategy refers to the focus of the Republican party on winning U.S. Presidential elections by securing the electoral votes of the U.S. Southern states, originally through support for states' rights.

...

In the 1964 presidential race, Goldwater adopted an extremely conservative stance. In particular, he emphasized the issue of what he called "states' rights". As a conservative, Goldwater did not favor strong action by the federal government. For instance, though not a segregationist personally, he strongly opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 on the grounds that, first, it was an intrusion of the federal government into the affairs of states and second, it was an interference with the rights of private persons to do business, or not, with whomever they chose. This was a popular stand in the Southern states; whether or not this was specifically a tactic designed to appeal to racist Southern white voters is a matter of debate.

...

Nixon, with the aid of Harry Dent and then South Carolina Senator Strom Thurmond, who had switched to the Republican party in 1964, ran on a campaign of states' rights and "law and order". Many liberals accused him of pandering to racist Southern whites, especially with regards to his "states' rights" stand.

As a result every state that had been in the Confederacy, except Texas, voted for either Nixon or Southern Democrat George Wallace, despite a strong tradition of supporting Democrats. Meanwhile, Nixon parlayed a wide perception as a moderate into wins in other states, taking a solid majority in the electoral college. That is why the election of 1968 is sometimes cited as a realigning election.

...

Nevertheless, in 1980, when Ronald Reagan initiated his general election campaign after accepting the Republican Party nomination, he did so with a speech in which he stated his support of states' rights. He did so at a county fair in Philadelphia, Mississippi, which was also known as the place where three civil rights advocates were murdered in 1964. Reagan went on to make a speech praising Jefferson Davis, the president of the Confederacy and states' rights advocate, at Stone Mountain, Georgia, site of the founding of the modern Klan. A prominent Klan leader endorsed Reagan, but he disavowed the endorsement and moved to neutralize any negative publicity by securing the support of noted Southern civil rights activists Hosea Williams and Ralph David Abernathy.

Bob Herbert reported in the October 6, 2005 edition of the New York Times of a 1981 interview with Lee Atwater in which he explains the GOP's Southern Strategy: "You start out in 1954 by saying, 'Nigger, nigger, nigger.' By 1968 you can't say 'nigger' - that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.

"And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me - because obviously sitting around saying, 'We want to cut this,' is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than 'Nigger, nigger.' " [1]

Charges of racism have been lodged in subsequent Republican races for the House and Senate in the South. The Willie Horton commercials used by supporters of George H.W. Bush in the election of 1988 was claimed to be racist. Other examples include the 1990 re-election campaign of Jesse Helms, which attacked his opponent's alleged support of "racial quotas." Many ardent Democratic party supporters claim that support for federalism in the Republican party platform is, and always has been, nothing but a code word for racism, a charge Republicans consistently deny. Such allegations typically peak after a racially charged controversy involving Republicans, such as Senator Trent Lott's supportive remarks at Thurmond's hundredth birthday celebration.

Leaving aside all questions of race, the Republicans have continued to modify the Southern strategy, and to use it not only within the South, but in conservative areas of the Midwest and other regions. As racism became less politically palatable as a lone motivator, it was augmented by divisions based on other cultural issues like abortion, school prayer, or funding for the National Endowment for the Arts. These cultural differences are emphasized rather than economic issues including tariffs, federal job spending, and so on (with the single exception of taxes). They play on perceived and actual cultural differences between the conservative and liberal parts of the nation. the South is seen as more religious and traditional than, say, New England. An example of this new iteration of the Southern strategy can be seen in this quote from Pat Buchanan, a famously conservative political pundit, in which he denounces John Kerry (the 2004 Democratic contender for President) as:

...a Massachusetts liberal who voted against the Defense of Marriage Act, backs civil unions for homosexuals, voted to defend the infanticide known as partial-birth abortion and wants to raise the federal income taxes that George Bush lowered. [2]

The strategy can be seen in the phrase "Massachusetts liberal", emphasizing Kerry's alleged cultural alienness to the South, and in the emphasis on cultural, rather than economic, issues. A 2004 book by Thomas Frank, entitled What's the Matter with Kansas?, revolves around the rise of cultural issues as a Republican strategy.

It's obvious that the Republicans set out to appeal to the deep seated racism and hatred of "liberal Northerners" in the Old Confederacy and the West. Reagan even made it more blatant with his praise of Davis and his use of images like the urban "Welfare Queen" to win his elections. The Republican party of today has expanded it's playbook to include homophobia and misogyny as well. Karl Rove, likely to be indicted tomorrow, is a disciple of Lee Atwater, who as much as admitted, in the interview seen above, that Republicans were using coded language to appeal to racists. Beyond a shadow of a doubt, the Republican party of Nixon has used coded racism to build a coalition based on hatred and division, rather than on good policy or good politics.

Perhaps MrArchieBunker can be proud of that kind of winning record, but not me. I'd rather die than stand behind a party that uses racism and bigotry to win. The only bright point is that research and experience shows that young people are much less prejudiced than prior generations. There is hope that, within a few decades, enough of the "Old Guard" bigots will either die out or be shamed into silence that a new progressive politics can emerge. Hopefully, Archie will know enough to keep his bigotry to himself.

JC

Thursday, October 27, 2005

A BIG DEAL

One of the most detestable attitudes we see on PalTalk, expressed here by TARFU:

TARFU: it's not the torture law, it's trying to limit our men from getting information, not allow our men to stress our enemies out
TARFU: no one is for torture
TARFU: i support stressing the shit out of our enemies
TARFU: not torture


Now, I am inclined to chalk this up to ignorance. I would like to think (and, granted, giving the benefit of the doubt to Bushites is rarely advisable) that TARFU, like many Bushites, is simply unaware of what is going on. Given the photos and testimony from Abu Ghraib and Gitmo, I must say I don't see how it's possible that people can imagine that this isn't "real" torture. That somehow, we are only talking about "stress positions," and only a short interval for them.

Is it possible that TARFU is completely unaware of the findings in the Taguba Report?

(B)etween October and December 2003, at the Abu Ghraib Confinement Facility (BCCF), numerous incidents of sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses were inflicted on several detainees. This systemic and illegal abuse of detainees was intentionally perpetrated byseveral members of the military police guard force (372nd Military Police Company, 320th Military Police Battalion, 800th MP Brigade), in Tier (section) 1-A of the Abu Ghraib Prison (BCCF).

In addition, several detainees also described the following acts of abuse, which under the circumstances, I find credible based on the clarity of their statements and supporting evidence provided by other witnesses

a. Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees;

b. Threatening detainees with a charged 9mm pistol;

c. Pouring cold water on naked detainees;

d. Beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair;

e. Threatening male detainees with rape;

f. Allowing a military police guard to stitch the wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed against the wall in his cell;

g. Sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick.

h. Using military working dogs to frighten and intimidate detainees with threats of attack, and in one instance actually biting a detainee.

(T)he intentional abuse of detainees by military police personnel included the following acts:

a. Punching, slapping, and kicking detainees; jumping on their naked feet;

b. Videotaping and photographing naked male and female detainees;

c. Forcibly arranging detainees in various sexually explicit positions for photographing;

d. Forcing detainees to remove their clothing and keeping them naked for several days at a time;

e. Forcing naked male detainees to wear women’s underwear;

f. Forcing groups of male detainees to masturbate themselves while being photographed and videotaped;

g. Arranging naked male detainees in a pile and then jumping on them;

h. Positioning a naked detainee on a MRE Box, with a sandbag on his head, and attaching wires to his fingers, toes, and penis to simulate electric torture;

i. Writing “I am a Rapest” (sic) on the leg of a detainee alleged to have forcibly raped a 15-year old fellow detainee, and then photographing him naked;

j. Placing a dog chain or strap around a naked detainee’s neck and having a female Soldier pose for a picture;

k. A male MP guard having sex with a female detainee;

l. Using military working dogs (without muzzles) to intimidate and frighten detainees, and in at least one case biting and severely injuring a detainee;

m. Taking photographs of dead Iraqi detainees.

These findings are amply supported by written confessions provided by several of the suspects, written statements provided by detainees, and witness statements.

The various detention facilities operated by the 800th MP Brigade have routinely held persons brought to them by Other Government Agencies (OGAs) without accounting for them, knowing their identities, or even the reason for their detention. The Joint Interrogation and Debriefing Center (JIDC) at Abu Ghraib called these detainees “ghost detainees.” On at least one occasion, the 320th MP Battalion at Abu Ghraib held a handful of “ghost detainees” (6-8) for OGAs that they moved around within the facility to hide them from a visiting International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) survey team. This maneuver was deceptive, contrary to Army Doctrine, and in violation of international law.


We are talking about rapes, beatings, assaults with dogs, and in some cases unexplained deaths. And if anyone doubts that the approval for torture emanated from the highest levels of this administration, take note of the Bybee Memo, a memo written by the DOJ for Bush as a legal justification for the president's right to torture prisoners beyond any laws:


An Aug. 1, 2002, memo from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, addressed to Gonzales, said that torturing suspected al Qaeda members abroad "may be justified" and that international laws against torture "may be unconstitutional if applied to interrogation" conducted against suspected terrorists.

The document provided legal guidance for the CIA, which crafted new, more aggressive techniques for its operatives in the field. McClellan called the memo a historic or scholarly review of laws and conventions concerning torture. "The memo was not prepared to provide advice on specific methods or techniques," he said. "It was analytical."

Attorney General John D. Ashcroft yesterday refused senators' requests to make public the memo, which is not classified, and would not discuss any possible involvement of the president.

In the view expressed by the Justice Department memo, which differs from the view of the Army, physical torture "must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death." For a cruel or inhuman psychological technique to rise to the level of mental torture, the Justice Department argued, the psychological harm must last "months or even years."

A former senior administration official involved in discussions about CIA interrogation techniques said Bush's aides knew he wanted them to take an aggressive approach.

"He felt very keenly that his primary responsibility was to do everything within his power to keep the country safe, and he was not concerned with appearances or politics or hiding behind lower-level officials," the official said. "That is not to say he was ready to authorize stuff that would be contrary to law. The whole reason for having the careful legal reviews that went on was to ensure he was not doing that."

...

"This is painful, incorrect analysis," said Scott Norton, chairman of the international law committee of the New York City Bar Association, which has produced an extensive report on Pentagon detentions and interrogations. "A lawyer is permitted to craft all sorts of wily arguments about why a statute doesn't apply" to a defendant, he said. "But a lawyer cannot advocate committing a criminal act prospectively."

The August 2002 memo from the Justice Department concluded that laws outlawing torture do not bind Bush because of his constitutional authority to conduct a military campaign. "As Commander in Chief, the President has the constitutional authority to order interrogations of enemy combatants to gain intelligence information concerning the military plans of the enemy," said the memo, obtained by The Washington Post.

Critics say that this misstates the law, and that it ignores key legal decisions, such as the landmark 1952 Supreme Court ruling in Youngstown Steel and Tube Co v. Sawyer, which said that the president, even in wartime, must abide by established U.S. laws.


Take careful note of that last part. This was an overt attempt by the Bush Administration to proactively raise themselves above the law, specifically so that they could engage in the kinds of reprehensible behavior we saw at Abu Ghraib. This is exactly what they were asking for, and for any Bushite to try to deny this is rank dishonesty.

JC

THE AWFUL TRUTH

about Jesusland. Brutie and nelly are getting bent out of shape about abortion rights:

nellyandlynn: you Abortionists...suck..You people that believe in Abortion...YOU BABY KILLERS....suck
Brutelogic: NO ONE, and I mean no one has killed more dumpster babys than the dem platform........ millions.....fact


Now, if you're a frequent reader of the blog, you'll suspect that nelly and Brute are completely off base. Seems like they think that the vaunted values of Jesusland mean that they all live sainted lives. Let's take a look at some data. From the NYT:

On teenage births, the same differences become clear. In New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts, about 5 percent of babies are born to teenage mothers, while in Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, New Mexico, South Carolina, Texas and Wyoming, 10 percent or more of all births are to teenage mothers.

The study also found that the percentage of births to unmarried mothers was highest in the South.



Brutie can't get enough of mewling about how much better things are in Jesusland because of how Christian they are. Let's see how the dats shakes out. From a study in the Journal of Religion and Society (via the LA Times):

He found that the most religious democracies exhibited substantially higher degrees of social dysfunction than societies with larger percentages of atheists and agnostics. Of the nations studied, the U.S. — which has by far the largest percentage of people who take the Bible literally and express absolute belief in God (and the lowest percentage of atheists and agnostics) — also has by far the highest levels of homicide, abortion, teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.

This conclusion will come as no surprise to those who have long gnashed their teeth in frustration while listening to right-wing evangelical claims that secular liberals are weak on "values." Paul's study confirms globally what is already evident in the U.S.: When it comes to "values," if you look at facts rather than mere rhetoric, the substantially more secular blue states routinely leave the Bible Belt red states in the dust.

Murder rates? Six of the seven states with the highest 2003 homicide rates were "red" in the 2004 elections (Louisiana, Mississippi, Nevada, Arizona, Georgia, South Carolina), while the deep blue Northeastern states had murder rates well below the national average. Infant mortality rates? Highest in the South and Southwest; lowest in New England. Divorce rates? Marriages break up far more in red states than in blue. Teen pregnancy rates? The same.

I don't think I need to tell you that abortion has decreased in proportion to the increases in access to birth control and prenatal care. And which part of the country opposes birth control? Oh yeah, it's those sanctimonious Jesuslanders who'd rather a girl get knocked up than have control over her own life. No wonder there are more abortions. After all, how many pious frauds do you think will stand by their principles when it's them or their daughter faced with a choice? Yeah, I thought so.

JC

THEOCALYPSE NOW

After months and months (and months and months) of incessant and insipid speeches from PalTalk's own Christocracy, the denizens of Social Issues have finally taken his treacly message to heart.

From the ranks of this humble chat program (and gay sex-cam emporium) hundreds of worthy souls have risen to the occasion by placing themselves in the primaries for every major elective office in the United States, from POTUS all the way down to lowly Chief Dog Catcher and Mr. Softee Truck driver of Southern Appalachia.

In a stunning upset, all of the candidates of the PT Krew, as they have come to be known, were elected to their respective offices in stunning upsets and landslide victories. As the first major legislative initiative of the new government, all laws regarding Internet Pornography were unilaterally dissolved and wiped from the books.

Only after their main goal was accomplished did the new crew turn itself to the solemn duty which had called them forth in the first place. In a dignified ceremony on this blustery October afternoon, on the steps in front of the Capitol building, at exactly 12 noon, the Constitution of the United States, the founding document of this grand country, and the living document that has guided our nation for over 200 years, was amended to include this new dictum:

Christocracy is a Clown

You can just make it out in the picture, right above the signatures.

JC

DOUBLE FISTED BITCH SLAP!


What a day this has turned out to be. Still waiting on Fitzmas Day indictments, but the Bush Administration gets a double whammy today, with the forced retraction of the Harriet Miers nomination plus the forced reinstatement of the Davis-Bacon Act requirment to pay prevailing wages in the Katrina Fuck-up Clean-up. It looks like rebellious Republicans would have mustered the votes needed to defeat Chimpy in both cases.

Granted, only with the Davis-Bacon Act were Republicans actually arguably doing the right thing (although I'm certain that they were more concerned with losing votes than with paying fair wages). As for the Supreme Court nomination, it's obvious that the hypocritical conservatives applied a religious litmus test to Miers and found her insufficiently homophobic, too open to feminism, and too open to reasonable abortion rights. So much for "questions about cases likely to come before the court," being off limits. Remember, kids, it's OK if you're aRepublican!

JC

ANOTHER GREAT READ

http://americanfreedumb1.blogspot.com/


A journal of political Satire, and opinion.

Wednesday, October 26, 2005

THEY'RE GETTING DESPERATE


MosesKnows, our resident stickler for the rule of law, has a question:

MosesKnows: is anyone here familar with the details of "identity protection act of 1982" enough to have an opinion whether it was violated?

MosesKnows: “covert agent” means a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency— (i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and (ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States;


Well, let's take a look at some wingnut talking points debunked, from Think Progress:

CLAIM — FITZGERALD WAS SUPPOSED TO BE INVESTIGATING THE INTELLIGENCE IDENTITIES PROTECTION ACT (IIDA): “On July 30, the CIA referred to the justice department, the leaking of Valerie Wilson or Valerie Plame’s name, for investigation under the — what’s it called? (Brit Hume: “Foreign Intelligence and Identities Act, very odd name”) There’s almost no chance I think that Rove or Libby are going to be prosecuted for violating that act.” [Bill Kristol, Fox News Sunday, 10/16/05]

FACT – THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT DELEGATION TO FITZGERALD DIDN’T MENTION THE IIDA: “By the authority vested in the Attorney General by law, including 28 U.S.C. 509, 510, and 515, and in my capacity as Acting Attorney General pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 508, I hereby delegate to you all the authority of the Attorney General with respect to the Department’s investigation into the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee’s identity, and I direct you to exercise that authority as Special Counsel independent of the supervision or control of any officer of the Department.” [Letter from James B. Comey, Acting Attorney General, to Patrick J. Fitzgerald, United States Attorney, 12/30/03]

FACT – FITZGERALD WAS GIVEN THE SAME AUTHORITY AS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO PROSECUTE ANY VIOLATION OF THE LAW: “The Department, in appointing Special Counsel Fitzgerald under “other law”, has afforded him independence by delegating all of the Attorney General’s authority with respect to the investigation and instructing him to exercise that authority independent of the control of any officer of the Department.” [GAO, 12/30/04]

FACT – THE CIA REFERRAL TO THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT DIDN’T MENTION THE IIDA: ” But the CIA’s initial “crimes report” to the Justice Department requesting the leak probe never mentioned that law, says a former government official who requested anonymity because of the confidential material involved. Fitzgerald may be looking at other laws barring the disclosure of classified info or the possibility that current or former White House aides made false statements or obstructed justice.” [Newsweek, 8/1/05]



*****


CLAIM – VALERIE WILSON WASN’T AN UNDERCOVER AGENT: “Now, look, Fitzgerald has had two years, two years to answer a simple question, and that is, was the law violated by someone having willfully exposed a CI — an undercover CIA agent? Now, we know that wasn’t true. The, Valerie Plame wasn’t even an undercover agent at the time.” [Fred Barnes, Fox News, 10/15/05]

FACT – CIA SAYS WILSON WAS UNDERCOVER: “But within the C.I.A., the exposure of Ms. Plame is now considered an even greater instance of treachery. Ms. Plame, a specialist in nonconventional weapons who worked overseas, had ‘nonofficial cover,’ and was what in C.I.A. parlance is called a Noc, the most difficult kind of false identity for the agency to create.” [New York Times, 10/5/03]

*****



So, MK, not only is your question irrelevant to this investigation, but the CIA confirmed that Valerie Plame was undercover. I think it's time for you to shut the fuck up now.

JC

THE ANSWER TO EVERY QUESTION

We love Fitz! We love Fitz!

It's getting kind of spooky now. It used to be that the answer to every question was, "CLINTON'S PENIS! CLINTON'S PENIS!" In a few days the answer will be "PATRICK FITZGERALD! PATRICK FITZGERALD!" But now, the planets are apparently in alignment, because the answer is both. Take a look:

Brutelogic: He did nothing when the terrorist attempted to bring down the world trade center
Brutelogic: clinton he did nothing in the American embassy bombings,


Fascinating. I wonder...

The Washington Post

The staff of the 9/11 commission called (Patrick Fitzgerald) one of the world's best terrorism prosecutors. He convicted Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and all four defendants in the embassy bombings, which had left 224 people dead. He extracted a guilty plea from Mafia capo John Gambino and became an authority on bin Laden, whom he indicted in 1998 for a global terrorist conspiracy that included the African bombings.

The NYT

"I've tried a lot of cases, and he's probably the toughest adversary I've ever seen," said Roger L. Stavis, a New York defense lawyer who faced Mr. Fitzgerald during the 1995 terrorism trial of Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman. Mr. Stavis prided himself on knowing the web of Muslim extremists but was surprised when Mr. Fitzgerald asked a witness about Osama bin Laden, then an obscure figure.

"I thought, 'I don't know who Osama bin Laden is, but he's in Pat Fitzgerald's crosshairs,' " Mr. Stavis said. In 2001, Mr. Fitzgerald led the team that convicted four men in the 1998 bombings of two American embassies in East Africa.



So, in this case, it looks like the answer to CLINTON'S PENIS is PATRICK FITZGERALD.

Oh, Brutelogic, don't you ever get tired of being a fucktard?

JC

FUN WITH KARL AND SCOOTER


This is something you all must read. (PDF file)

JC

Tuesday, October 25, 2005

WHERE DO THEY COME UP WITH THIS STUFF?

Nickel and Dimed, by Barbara Ehrenreich, available from Amazon

Oh yeah, conservative liars tell them. Our slope-browed friend drclean hits us up with the knowledge:

drclean: karl,,no man with a family of 4 is on minimun wage,,,they are starting wages for high school people


Hmm. I wonder...

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, about half of all hourly-paid workers earning $5.15 or less were under age 25, which means half of them are OVER 25. The BLS says that only about one-fourth were age 16-19. Also, the Economic Policy Institute says that more than one-third (35%) of the workers who would benefit from an increase to $7.25 are parents of children under age 18, including 760,000 single mothers.

I'll tell you, the only reason conservatives think what they think is because they "know" what they "know."

JC

GOOD TO HEAR

Buddy_Romance, who lives down in Florida, reports that he successfully weathered Hurricaine Wilma. The same can't be said of his roof, apparently, but The Rattler is glad to hear that he survived, soggy, but unharmed.

JC

BETTER THE DEVIL YOU KNOW...

There's a dictator in the world who took power in a bloody military coup. His nation is consistently ranked as one of the most egregious violators of human rights on the planet. We know that he both possesses and continues to produce monumentally dangerous weapons of mass destruction. In fact, one of his chief weapons scientists is confirmed to have sold data on producing nuclear weapons to our greatest enemies, such as North Korea and Iran. His government tolerates radical fundamentalists paying for madrassas that teach hatred for Americans and Jews. And finally, his government is believed to be harboring and refusing to apprehend the man who orchestraed the greatest terrorist act in modern history.

It sounds like all of the PalTalk hawks, none of whom are serving in Iraq, would hate a country like the one described above. saltspring (nee Sword of the Amish) just made the putrescent suggestion that anyone who opposes the invasion of Iraq in fact must love and support Saddam Hussein. Allow me to be one in a long line of people who have said to saltspring, Go Fuck Yourself.

saltspring is like most hawks, at heart a fraud, and is unable to see the Catch-22 that completely eviscerates both his pathetic argument and his tenuous claim on moral clarity. If anyone who supports an evil dictator is tainted, then saltspring is, by his own definition, a supporter of evil, for approving of a "necessary" alliance with Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan (the country in the first paragraph). If, on the other hand, saltspring mewls that it's perfectly fine to ally with a terrible man to achieve worthy goals, why then saltspring has completely undercut himself, as such a penchant for RealPolitik is exactly the reason why we should not have invaded Iraq: that it has resulted in a worsening of geopolitical conditions and could never result in improvement for Iraq or the region (now hurtling toward civil war).

Hey salty, how's the view up there on your own petard?

JC

Monday, October 24, 2005

HOW IN THE TANK DO YOU HAVE TO BE...

...to publish a comic like this:


I mean, it's like he's not even trying anymore. Any idiot knows that the Catholic All Saints Day was enacted to preempt Celtic Samhain:

The Celts, who lived 2,000 years ago in the area that is now Ireland, the United Kingdom, and northern France, celebrated their new year on November 1. This day marked the end of summer and the harvest and the beginning of the dark, cold winter, a time of year that was often associated with human death. Celts believed that on the night before the new year, the boundary between the worlds of the living and the dead became blurred. On the night of October 31, they celebrated Samhain, when it was believed that the ghosts of the dead returned to earth. In addition to causing trouble and damaging crops, Celts thought that the presence of the otherworldly spirits made it easier for the Druids, or Celtic priests, to make predictions about the future. For a people entirely dependent on the volatile natural world, these prophecies were an important source of comfort and direction during the long, dark winter.

To commemorate the event, Druids built huge sacred bonfires, where the people gathered to burn crops and animals as sacrifices to the Celtic deities.
During the celebration, the Celts wore costumes, typically consisting of animal heads and skins, and attempted to tell each other's fortunes. When the celebration was over, they re-lit their hearth fires, which they had extinguished earlier that evening, from the sacred bonfire to help protect them during the coming winter.

By A.D. 43, Romans had conquered the majority of Celtic territory. In the course of the four hundred years that they ruled the Celtic lands, two festivals of Roman origin were combined with the traditional Celtic celebration of Samhain.

The first was Feralia, a day in late October when the Romans traditionally commemorated the passing of the dead. The second was a day to honor Pomona, the Roman goddess of fruit and trees. The symbol of Pomona is the apple and the incorporation of this celebration into Samhain probably explains the tradition of "bobbing" for apples that is practiced today on Halloween.

By the 800s, the influence of Christianity had spread into Celtic lands. In the seventh century, Pope Boniface IV designated November 1 All Saints' Day, a time to honor saints and martyrs. It is widely believed today that the pope was attempting to replace the Celtic festival of the dead with a related, but church-sanctioned holiday. The celebration was also called All-hallows or All-hallowmas (from Middle English Alholowmesse meaning All Saints' Day) and the night before it, the night of Samhain, began to be called All-hallows Eve and, eventually, Halloween. Even later, in A.D. 1000, the church would make November 2 All Souls' Day, a day to honor the dead. It was celebrated similarly to Samhain, with big bonfires, parades, and dressing up in costumes as saints, angels, and devils. Together, the three celebrations, the eve of All Saints', All Saints', and All Souls', were called Hallowmas.


Pathetic.

JC

WAR PIGS


at 4:07 PM EST today, all the wingnuts in Mainstream disappeared. slammer, Brutelogic, just a talker, all of them, vanished like Dubya's approval ratings.

We can only assume that the Grand Wizard blew a somber note on the Horn of Fucktards to gather the freepers to one final Black Mass before Fitzmas Eve.

And their haunting mantra was heard through the misty moonless night: "Karl Rove-a...Karl Rove-a...Karl Rove-a..."

JC

SOBERING

This is something I want all of you to see. From The Tattered Coat, the final post of a soldier silenced by Big Brother:

Months ago, in response to a post I wrote about the military blogger Colby Buzzell, Kate of Broken Windows told me to pay attention to Daniel Goetz, a soldier writing a blog called All the King’s Horses.

Regrettably, I never followed her advice. And now, as Lizzy, Fred, and Navyswan tell us, it is too late.

It is too late because Daniel has been silenced, against his will. And not only has he been silenced — he has been forced to publicly declare himself “a supporter of the administration and of her policies.”

A stop-lossed soldier angry that he is still serving in Iraq, seven months beyond his original enlistment agreement, Daniel is no longer free to post on his blog. Though he had taken care to adhere to the code of conduct to which he is bound, it is likely that a post of his on the Operation Truth website brought his views to the attention of military officials.

Daniel’s final post is heart-breaking; the single most chilling thing about it, if you know your Orwell, is its title: Double Plus Ungood.

I thank all of you who have been so supportive recently. I have never before received so much positive feedback, and it was very heart-warming to know that so many people out there care. Having said that, it breaks my heart to say that this will be my last post on this blog. I wish I could just stop there, but I can not. The following also needs to be said:

For the record, I am officially a supporter of the administration and of her policies. I am a proponent for the war against terror and I believe in the mission in Iraq. I understand my role in that mission, and I accept it. I understand that I signed the contract which makes stop loss legal, and I retract any statements I made in the past that contradict this one. Furthermore, I have the utmost confidence in the leadership of my chain of command, including (but not limited to) the president George Bush and the honorable secretary of defense Rumsfeld. If I have ever written anything on this site or on others that lead the reader to believe otherwise, please consider this a full and complete retraction.

I apologize for any misunderstandings that might understandably arise from this. Should you continue to have questions, please feel free to contact me through e-mail. I promise to respond personally to each, but it may take some time; my internet access has become restricted.

posted by Daniel at Saturday, October 22, 2005



Being forced to call that batshit-crazy fucker Rumsfeld "honorable" is just adding insult to injury.

JC

LOGICMAN, TAKE TWO

I am no fan of the religious bigotry routinely displayed on PalTalk. Rooms like Bush HQ, and others that constantly disrespect Islam, are disgusting. The troglodytes that ooze their slime in those rooms are among the worst specimens of humanity. They will go to the special Hell.

But there is such a thing as being legalistic to the point of absurdity. And it certainly doesn't hurt if you're willfully ignorant about context and history. So it is that LordMercifulVoo uses false balance to arrive at a ridiculous conclusion.

Now, I agree with saltspring (nee Sword of the Amish) on a vanishingly small number of things. But he makes sense to me when he says that the difference between what is taught in Islam vs Christianity is frequently a literalist interpretation of the Quran, which is taken to radical extremes in many cases. While it is true that radicalism is often exacerbated by the colonialism of the West, the fact remains that Islam, and arab cultures, are far more religiously controlled than the West. In order to see the difference, note that the "Christian" world passed through an Age of Enlightenment in the 1800s. The result (though not perfect modernism) was that reason and empiricism were given much more status, and society from then on was MUCH less under the control of the Church or religious dogmatism. Again, not that those evils disappeared completely (think of our own religious fundamentalists in the US today), but it is undeniable that Christianity has lost much of its power in the West, especially Europe. Note well, for the next paragraph, that virtually no major groups now regard the Bible as infallible, AND also make that the center of their lives and government.

In response to saltspring, Voo brings up the following from the Bible, "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law," (Luke 12:51-53 NASB). Voo says, "See saltspring, Christianity is just as bad as Islam, and it says to do the same things."

This is a truly childish response, but it is typical of Voo. In the modern West, an extremely small number of religious christians would base their lives literally on this bible passage. Even if they are literalists, Christians today generally do not turn against their families any more than they would execute someone for wearing garments of two fabrics, or for eating shellfish (From Leviticus). We certainly do not see the same level of violent fanaticism emanating from radical Christian groups. Keep in mind, though, that in the so-called Dark Ages, Christians could frequently be persuaded to strike out violently based directly on Biblical passages, such as pogroms against "Christ-killing" Jews or the burning of witches.

Most Muslims do not take the Quran literally, and many muslims are quite liberal and moderate. But this is the key point: There still exists within some cultures this strict adherence to the literal word of the Quran. And in many of these cultures, such as in Saudi Arabia and in the madrassas of Pakistan, to name two, people are still taught that Jews are pigs, and that infidels and nonbelievers must be converted or killed. To put it simply, Islam has not had it's Enlightenment yet. Remember, though, that this is a difference in degree and not kind.

This, then, is the fallacy in Voo's reasoning. He is looking at each book outside of its current context. Where the Bible is generally considered to be a collection of parables, and (most importantly) is not frequently used as a literal basis for modern actions, the same cannot be said of Islam. How foolish is it then, to try to win an argument by willfully ignoring 2000 years of history?

JC

Sunday, October 23, 2005

NEENER NEENER

1Bobby McGee (now Ricochet Rebel) is arguing on the mic that the widespread oppression against women in Saudi Arabia is no big deal because apparently the Americans who want to talk about women's rights don't mention that somewhere in America, apparently teenagers are being prosecuted for eating french fries.

I shit you not.

This is called the Tu Quoque Fallacy, which is Latin for "you too." Bobby doesn't want to have to defend repression of women in arab countries on the merits, so all he can do is point to incidents in America that are not even close to being comparable. Maybe if Bobby had the balls to talk about the genuinely autocratic and misogynistic cultures of arab nations, he might be more respected on PT.

I'm not holding my breath.

JC

TAKE ME TO YOUR CHAIN-SMOKING, FASCIST, PHILANDERING LEADER

Here at The Rattler, we mostly deal with ignorant Bush-backing neocons. But there is another kind of mutant lurking on PalTalk, and if you spend any amount of time online, you've probably met...an objectivist.

These disciples of Ayn Rand, also called minarchists, or sometimes libertarians, are obsessed with the idea that government should get out of everyone's lives, and allow everyone to have what they call "freedom."

Here in Mainstream, our resident Randroid is Roxanna Armozel (nee Lady Attis). To give you an idea of how this person argues, consider this: He rages on the mic about morality being based on pure logic, and that moral considerations are as simple as 2+2=4. Now, most people in PT, and in real life are smart enough to know that morality is based on values and sentiments, neither of which lead to easy answers to all moral questions in all situations. But for Roxanna, since he THINKS he has the inside track on morality, anything Rand says after that, even the batshit insane ideas about selfishness being the highest good, MUST be true, because it follows from impregnable logic.

Golks, I've heard this before, when I spent a few months in Scientology. The only difference is who the nutty author was.

As a reference for further study, consider this, from Seth Finkelstein writing in The Ethical Spectacle. I'm excerpting a lot of this, and I highly recommend you read all of their essays on Libertarianism:

To start off, Libertarianism is highly axiomatic. Note how the above quote touts its logically consistent approach. There's a set of rules to be applied to evaluate what is proper, and the outcome given is the answer which is correct in terms of the moral principle of the theory. Are the religious thinking connections starting to become evident? This doesn't mean there can't be religious-type schisms in applying the axioms (for example, there's one regarding abortion). But in practice, the rules are simple and tight enough to produce surprisingly uniform positions compared to common political philosophies.

Libertarian proselytizers will preach some warm-and-fuzzy story such as

We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.

Now, how many ideologies have you ever heard state anything like

We believe that disrespect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud are good things in human relationships, and that only through slavery can peace and prosperity be realized.

Libertarians are for "individual rights", and against "force" and "fraud" - just as THEY define it. Their use of these words, however, when examined in detail, is not likely to accord with the common meanings of these terms. What person would proclaim themselves in favor of "force and fraud"? One of the little tricks Libertarians use in debate is to confuse the ordinary sense of these words with the meaning as "terms of art" in Libertarian axioms. They try to set up a situation where if you say you're against "force and fraud", then obviously you must agree with Libertarian ideology, since those are the definitions. If you are in favor of "force and fraud", well, isn't that highly immoral? So you're either one of them, or some sort of degenerate (note the cultish aspect again), one who doesn't think "force and fraud must be banished from human relationships".

In a phrase I'll probably find myself repeating "I am not making this up". It's important to realized that what might sound like hyperbole or overstatement really, truly, will be found when dealing with Libertarian arguments.

Just to pick an example from one public exchange (directed to me)

Too complicated. All you need is one proposition:

No person should initiate the use of force against another person.

All libertarian thought flows logically from this. For instance, taxation is undesirable since it is backed by the coercive force of the state. Naturally the key word is "initiate."

So, the question is, does Seth agree with this proposition or not? Of course he will say there have to be certain exceptions. This is the difference between him and a libertarian. Libertarians (like free speech advocated!) prefer not to make exceptions.

Note that this is the only political movement, so far as I know, rooted in one simple ethical statement about human rights. This alone biases me in its favor.

My reply to this point was to ask if he agreed "No person should do anything evil". I get to define evil, "evil" is taken according to "Sethism". The response:

Seth, you have not answered the question. Do you agree, or do you disagree, that it is always wrong for one person to initiate force against another? If you disagree, then you disagree with the fundamental concept of libertarianism, ...

On the other hand, if you agree with the proposition, yet you still don't like the conclusions that libertarians draw from it, then we can refocus our attention on the chain of logic that leads to those conclusions and find where you feel the weak link is.

Observe the aspects pointed out above. It's a "agree or disagree" where implicitly "initiate force" is taken to be that of the Libertarian ideology. And it's justified by the axioms, the "chain of logic".

Note the rhetoric is made further meaningless by the "initiate force" concept. When Libertarians think using force is justified, they just call it retaliatory force. It's a bit like "war of aggression" versus "war of defense". Rare is the country in history which has ever claimed to be initiating a "war of aggression", they're always retaliating in a "war of defense".

The idea that Libertarians don't believe in the initiation of force is pure propaganda. They believe in using force as much as anyone else, if they think the application is morally correct. "initiation of force" is Libertarian term of art, meaning essentially "do something improper according to Libertarian ideology". It isn't even connected much to the actions we normally think of as "force". The question being asked above was really agree or disagree, that it is always wrong for one person to do something improper according to Libertarian ideology. It was just phrased in their preaching way.

While you might be told Libertarianism is about individual rights and freedom, fundamentally, it's about business. The words "individual rights", in a civil-society context, are often Libertarian-ese for "business". That's what what they derive as the inevitable meaning of rights and freedom, as a statement of principles:

Since governments, when instituted, must not violate individual rights, we oppose all interference by government in the areas of voluntary and contractual relations among individuals

The whole idea of a contract is that government enforces relations among individuals. The above sentence is a nonsensical, it's conceptually that they oppose all interference by government in the areas of government enforcing relations among individuals".

The key to understanding this, and to understanding Libertarianism itself, is to realize that their concept of individual freedom is the "whopper" of "right to have the State back up business". That's a wild definition of freedom. If you voluntarily contract to sell all your future income for $1, they then oppose all government "interference" with your "right" to do this. It's a completely twisted, utterly inverted, perfectly Orwellian statement, almost exactly "Freedom is Slavery".

This is not at all obvious or what people tend to think when they're told the song and dance about rights and freedoms. This point about contract and Libertarianism needs to be stressed. Often, the "chain of logic" used by a Libertarian will be a fairly valid set of deductions. But along the way, there will be very subtle assumptions slipped in, such as "contract" (meaning business) as a fundamental right. It can be quite difficult to spot, such as a redefinition of terms, or a whopper like the above. But again, it's very "logical", very "axiomatic".

...

One of the seamiest and ugliest aspects of Libertarianism is its support of turning back the civil-rights clock to pre-1964 legal situation for businesses. "I am not making this up". They're very explicit about it:

Consequently, we oppose any government attempts to regulate private discrimination, including choices and preferences, in employment, housing, and privately owned businesses. The right to trade includes the right not to trade -- for any reasons whatsoever; the right of association includes the right not to associate, for exercise of the right depends upon mutual consent.

That's "rights" according to Libertarianism. Whites-only lunch counters, "No Jews or dogs" hotels, "we don't serve your kind here", "No Irish need apply", "This is man's job", etc. All this is a "right of association" in Libertarian theology.

Such a weird position is not just the purview of some position-writers in a corner, but a surprisingly common trait of Libertarians. It's one of the surest way of identifying one, if they justify such a reactionary position from abstract considerations.

It must be stressed that a) Libertarians ARE NOT racists, sexists, etc. and b) The above is not meant to comment either way on the much more controversial affirmative-action debate. Libertarians can go to town whenever they're called racist, sexist, and so on for the above (gee, how could anyone ever get that idea?), proclaiming their great personal but private commitment to equality. Of course, they never have to do anything much in this regard since events have passed them by. But they want make sure you know they fully support the ideals, even if they think the all the past decades legal effort should be repealed as immoral and unprincipled. They also love to switch the debate the affirmative action, because that's far more contentious than anti-discrimination. But the position's very plain. Drinking from the wrong water fountain would presumably be "initiation of force", allowing relation of force to eject the malefactor.

...

The fanatical opposition of Libertarians to anti-discrimination laws also illuminates a crucial aspects of the stupid-making effects of the philosophy. They can never admit even one instance of government intervention doing good overall for society as opposed to the effects of the market. This isn't a matter of preference, it's absolutely crucial to the function of the ideology. If they ever do that, then it's an admission that social engineering can work, the market can fail, and it's just a matter of figuring out what is the proper mixture to have the best society.

This is what sets it apart from Liberalism, Conservatism, and so on. One outcome against prediction will not send those intellectual foundations crashing down, because they aren't based so heavily on absolute rules applications. Libertarianism, by contrast, if it ever concedes a market failure fixed by a government law, is in deep trouble.

So this in turn leads Libertarians into amazing flights of fancy, for example, to deny the success of civil-rights laws. They must say institutional segregation was somehow all the government's fault, or it would have gone away anyway, or something like that. Rather than racism, it's being made stupid by ideology-poisoning.

Libertarian logic is an axiomatic system that bears very little resemblance to standard deductive thought - which is in part why it's so debilitating to people. It's a little like one of those non-Euclidean geometries, internally valid results can be derived from the postulates, but they sound extremely weird when applied to the real world.

...

What Libertarians have the luxury of doing is sitting back and saying "All the problems will be solved if we just let Jesus, err, property into our hearts, err, politics". What they do tactically is to focus on incidents area where the political process is at its worst, and peddle their snake-oil theory, contrasting the gritty reality with their pristine fantasy. Of course the fantasy looks better then!

The reason they get away with this is partly that there is no Libertopia, so we don't have a constant series of rile-'em-up stories to point out where Libertopia is an atrocity. Sometimes I think of writing a fictitious "Dispatches from Libertopia" for this sort of stuff. Such as:

"Today, Judge Rand ruled that the so-called "child-slavery" provision of the standard employment contract between MegaCorp and all employees was valid. As parents have the control of their children until eighteen, the signing-over of their labor until age 18 to MegaCorp was ruled a valid exercise of parental authority. Judge Rand, in his opinion, stated "The government is not to interfere with economic arrangements, absent a showing of fraud or force, as per the Fundamental Law of Libertopia. All parties with the legal right to contract consented, and that is the sole standard of evaluation. The fact that MegaCorp said it would fire any worker who did not agree to this provision is of no consequence, as that is entirely the right of MegaCorp."

"The separate individual child contracts were also ruled to be valid. Although the children were told if they did not sign, Mommy and Daddy would lose their jobs and the whole family might starve, this was regarded as simply the employer's right to hire and fire as he or she sees fit. No force, coercion, or fraud within the meaning of Libertopia Law was applied." Junior Warbucks, a MegaCorp spokesman, said "Do you make your children do chores? What's the difference?"

But of course this can be attacked in various ways, because Libertopia is pure fantasy, and the real-world rarely stacks up well to a fantasy, especially a political one.

A Libertarian can blithely argue that all problems would be solved by private charity, by people of goodwill, or if government would just get out of the way. It's a common tactic:

If there's a problem, our first question is not, "How can government solve this problem," but "What government program must be eliminated to improve this situation?"

Since there's no Libertopia, they never have to admit being in error and to what will happen under their proposed regime. That's a great debating advantage.



Don't argue with a Libertarian. You just get dirty and the Libertarian enjoys it. OR something.

JC

LOGICMAN, TO THE RESCUE!

Ok, LordMercifulVoo just said something very odd. Let's do a little parsing, shall we? Yesterday, apparently 1BobbyMcGee (now known as Ricochet Rebel) said, "...I blame Americans for the actions of their government in invading Iraq..." or words to that effect. Now, granted, not all Americans voted for Bush and his Republican cronies in Congress. And fewer and fewer Americans now support the invasion and occupation of Iraq. But we will allow that the majorities that elected Republicans are indirectly responsible.

But let's look at what Voo says, "Ricochet, you said yesterday that you blame Americans for Iraq, but you just now said you only blame the Saudi Royal family for their support of the US invasion, and not the people. That isn't logical, Ricochet. If you blame the American people, you have to blame the Saudi people too."

Hmm, let's take that apart. The Americans elect their leaders in a representative democracy. The Saudis, on the other hand, are ruled by a repressive monarchy made up of the members of a few extended families. The Saudi populace are Wahabi Muslim, and generally disapprove of their leaders' extravagent lifestyles and pro-West attitudes. In fact, the Saudi royals are frequently the targets of terrorist acts FROM THEIR OWN PEOPLE. Now, given the two completely different relationships between populace and policy in the US and Saudi Arabia, is it reasonable to make a direct analogy between the two?

Better luck next time, Logicman.

JC

DISHOOOOONESTY, IS SUCH A LONELY WORD....

Virginia_1776 is up now, making the classic dishonest hawk argument about Iraq, that, "...a democratic Iraq is better than being under Saddam," and that, "....the Iraqis can make their own decisions now, which is an improvement." This argument is stale, mendacious, and dangerously naive. And that's not counting how much dumber it is when JesSeado is spouting it.

Sam Rosenfeld and Matt Yglesias, of The American Prospect cover this terrotiry well in their new essay on the incompetence dodge. What we can now see is that the idea of invading a Middle Eastern nation that is a powderkeg of sectarian animosity, and hoping to democratize them at gunpoint, is, quite literally, an impossibility. Virginia is arguing based on a completely false premise. Iraq id NOT better off now than under Saddam, and is clearly heading for disaster. Many officials think that the situation is, EVEN NOW, an undeclared civil war. For Virginia to try to make us weep with the joyous reclamation of Iraq for liberal democracy is mind-numbingly stupid.

And this is part and parcel of the traditional conservative accusation, revived for a new era, that anti-war liberals are actually on the other side somehow. "Would you rather Saddam was still in power?" they say with crossed arms and smug smirks. Why don't you ask Brent Scowcroft, the first George Bush's National Security Advisor?

A principal reason that the Bush Administration gave no thought to unseating Saddam was that Brent Scowcroft gave no thought to it. An American occupation of Iraq would be politically and militarily untenable, Scowcroft told Bush. And though the President had employed the rhetoric of moral necessity to make the case for war, Scowcroft said, he would not let his feelings about good and evil dictate the advice he gave the President.

It would have been no problem for America's military to reach Baghdad, he said. The problems would have arisen when the Army entered the Iraqi capital. "At the minimum, we'd be an occupier in a hostile land," he said. "Our forces would be sniped at by guerrillas, and, once we were there, how would we get out? What would be the rationale for leaving? I don't like the term 'exit strategy' -- but what do you do with Iraq once you own it?"

Scowcroft stopped for a moment. We were sitting in the offices of the Scowcroft Group, a consulting firm he heads, in downtown Washington. He appeared to be weighing the consequences of speaking his mind. His speech is generally calibrated not to give offense, especially to the senior Bush and the Bush family. He is eighty and, by most accounts, has been content to cede visibility to the larger personalities with whom he has worked.

James Baker told me that he and Scowcroft got along well in part because Scowcroft let Baker speak for the Administration. I learned from people who know Scowcroft that he finds it painful to be seen as critical of his best friend’s son, but in the course of several interviews prudence several times gave way to impatience. "This is exactly where we are now," he said of Iraq, with no apparent satisfaction. "We own it. And we can't let go. We're getting sniped at. Now, will we win? I think there's a fairchance we'll win. But look at the cost."

The first Gulf War was a success, Scowcroft said, because the President knew better than to set unachievable goals. "I'm not a pacifist," he said. "I believe in the use of force. But there has to be a good reason for using force. And you have to know when to stop using force." Scowcroft does not believe that the promotion of American-style democracy abroad is a sufficiently good reason to use force.

"I thought we ought to make it our duty to help make the world friendlier for the growth of liberal regimes," he said. "You encourage democracy over time, with assistance, and aid, the traditional way. Not how the neocons do it."

The neoconservatives -- the Republicans who argued most fervently for the second Gulf war -- believe in the export of democracy, by violence if that is required, Scowcroft said. "How do the neocons bring democracy to Iraq? You invade, you threaten and pressure, you evangelize." And now, Scowcroft said, America is suffering from the consequences of that brand of revolutionary utopianism. "This was said to be part of the war on terror, but Iraq feeds terrorism," he said.



So you see, Virginia and other neocons, even the previous Bush officials knew, not that invading Iraq was risky, but that it was INCAPABLE of leading to a stable democracy. You're wrong, and you can't ever be right about this.

And hey, where are those WMDs again?

JC

Pageviews