I'm not so sure on this one. I sort of got lost off in a side issue of malice vs. incompetence and am not satisfied with the arguments made here. Nonetheless, i'm posting it without further edits because i think doing more would require quite a bit of research and i just don't have the time for that right now. Even if the leaders don't believe it at all, their suckers (read: base) sure tend to. Anyway, on with the show...

Just like the title says, this post will deal with a very curious aspect to our Republican-led government. It's kind of strange--though pleasing--to watch the Republican Congress/Executive flop about and eventually fail its founding principles as stated. Even its successes have been had by abandoning the overall goals of the movement. Just listen to Cato, that bunch of psychotic neoliberals, whine about how Bush has abandoned the Republican plan to privatize everything from roads to the water supply.

First off, i know i haven't posted in a while. I sort of ran out of things to talk about, actually.

Well, i still have things to talk about, but i didn't have the time or concentration to work them up into posts. We'll see how well this goes.

What i have here is the product of a lot of thought followed by recent inspiration. I do not have a single idea or point that could be made in the introduction, but rather there are four or five different ideas and subtle inter-connectedness of these things. Sure, the diary got titled "The Lie of Capital" and i eventually go there--but much more than that lurks behind the "There's more..." link.

Join me as i peel back the veil that conceals the lie we have been conditioned to accept since we were children--a lie which we hear over and over to justify actions ranging from the unethical to the atrocity...

It's not the legality, it's the morality!

The Republicans always want to talk about "moral values". Let's talk about "moral values".

First comes love.

Then comes questionably legal weapon shipments.

Then comes elephantine and poorly planned military power-play designed to create sweeping political change in an entire region (and steal its oil).

[Insert picture of Rumsfeld macking on (okay, shaking hands with) Hussein here]

So what?

(From my personal blog.)

I want to write a book.

On the odd-numbered pages there will be pretty, childrens' book-ish drawings of George W. Bush in comical scenarios. On the even pages... well... a pair of examples detailed on the flip-side.

Not too long ago--although everyone seems to have forgotten about it now--President Bush nominated some guy named Judge Alito to the Supreme Court. Sure, what with the impending collapse of Republicanism in this nation it's kind of hard to pay attention to even Supreme Court nominations. We'll have plenty of time later. Today is Judge Alito's Big Gay Day in my blog-world. It's his "coming out", you might say.

Judge Alito shares a common thread all of President Bush's Supreme Court picks have shared: a committment to gay rights. And we're not talking a committment to obliterating gay rights, here. Each of Roberts, Meiers, and now even "Little Scalia"--a man whose counterpart, Real Scalia, is willing to explicitly deny the Ninth Amendment in order to argue against, among other things, the idea that people can have sex in non-governmentally approved fashion--have all had solid records as one of the big contradictions in modern politics and public life: pro-gay Republicans.

Oh, yes. I know, "Scalito" is a crazy... he couldn't possibly be pro-gay, right?

I would call it "murder porn", but inevitably some right winger would whine about how it's technically not murder because the victims were killed in a war zone, etc, etc. Said right wing person would, of course, be technically correct.

Americablog comes up with a new story about a real-porn for-what amounts to snuff porn trading site.

Yes, i mean you.

I would write a big long essay on precisely how stupid and wrong the author is but there's not really anything there for me to dissect. It's not that the author makes subtle logical errors, not that the author puts forth an argument that merits logical analysis, there's just nothing there to talk about. (Of course: with that in mind you know i'm going to ramble on for another fifteen paragraphs--but don't mistake that for the author saying something substantial, rather: the author has just accidentally exposed something i have been examining for a while and now i'm going to poke it for a bit.)

So Bush admitted his strategery with respect to "terror" (that is: a "global war on terror") is a failure and that my position, and the Liberal and French and Democratic and so on position, was really the right way to go all along.

Then some terrorist guy releases a video where he says "Hah! You'll have to leave Iraq EVENTUALLY! And when you do? It's ours, motherfucker!" Not in those words, mind you, but something to that effect. Now Bush is back to saying we're at war and of course it's a war and war war war is the only way.

This flip-flop might seem confusing--"Just when the administration was starting to show signs of mental activity he freaks out?"--but let me give an analogy...

It's contest time again.  The political group that actually most closely resembles the Taliban is the one that wants to ban all public expression of Christianity and which wants to indoctrinate our children through the public schools into hating America.  So here's the deal.  Let's use the very same word plays to illustrate the distinctions between the Taliban, the American Taliban, and American conservatives....  

Before [1990], "race-baiting" referred to racists. Afterward, it referred [...] to people who oppose racism.

(Much more in the extended entry!)

President Bush must prepare and share a plan for withdrawal of the troops or resign.

It.

I even like the new orange. Of course, my monitor has always had slightly funny color.

I do have two complaints, though.

It's really rather narrow. I run 1600x1200 resolution and the actual text portion takes up about 30% of my browser window's width, if not less.

It "feels" a little bit heavy on my browser. I'm not entirely sure why that is. The old version was heavy too, but this one feels heavy in a slightly different way i guess.

Well, with all the "I don't like the new design!" diaries i have to take a contrary stance and stand for those who do: i like it!

So i saw this while reading that paragon of heterosexuality, Jesus's General, and wondered what would happen if you inverted it. Curiously enough, i think it's more accurate that way. I swapped out some euphemisms for others, too, to counteract propaganda-by-word-choice. With a little of my own, perhaps, but can you blame me? Onwards!

(Check the extended entry for my list!)

Well, i propose a counter-shirt.

Is this America?

As usual, copied to here as well:

I haven't been posting for a while, i guess, but stuff is just going too fast for me to really keep up on. I have about two hundred links sitting in my "current links" folder and some of them go quite a ways back. I'm not really sure why i haven't posted much lately, don't think it has to do with the title--but then again, maybe it does. I've also been meaning to write on "how the Democrats can win the same sex marriage debate", but that also hasn't been happening. I'd better hurry up, too! I don't want 2006 to pass me by.

But without further ado...

Fear on the Eve of Victory

I saw, in the threads today, a comment that read something along the lines of the following:

...I thought abortion was the central pillar from which all Democratic values flowed.

The correct statement:

...I thought legalized abortion was the central pillar from which all Democratic values flowed.

One statement above is the Republican attack on Democrats, one statement above is not.

Thank you.

Second part of who knows how many is now up! Get it here. Included in the update is the whole "Limiting the Expanse of Government Power" section.

See the extended entry for the summary!