zjr909

This article merely states the obvious: Americans are always a sucker for a man in a uniform. And make no mistake: not only will John McCain run on his military record - he need run on nothing else but his military record. Until Americans grow up and stop drooling everytime they see a flag (or a flag pin), the McCains of this world are practically a shoo-in for public office. The only time a military background works against a candidate is when the candidate him or herself questions the validity of such a background, as John Kerry did upon his return from Vietnam. So unless the Democratic nominee can manage to forcefully frame the contest away from the standard military paradigm, neither Obama nor Clinton stands a chance against McCain. The problem is, neither Democratic candidate seems truly committed right down to their toenails to the economic well-being of the middle and working classes, the way John Edwards seemed to be. So they both would have an uphill battle trying to work the campaign out of whatever frame the Republicans cement it in. The American electorate, despite all its economic woes, wants one thing above all else: to be reassured that everything they watched happen in the past eight years wasn't as bad as it seemed to be. And John McCain, I'm afraid, is just the man who can con them into being reassured (with a little help from his friends in the media, of course). posted 05/15/2008 at 07:37:15

When all is said and done (and it probably won't be long), the United States will come out way ahead of the pack - in the historical competition for the grand prize: the most evil nation that ever existed on earth. We even surpass the previous record holder - Nazi Germany. Why? Because, unlike Germany, we were never reduced to absolute nothingness by the rest of the world, as Germany was after World War One. We have absolutely no earthly excuse for the horrors we've inflicted on the peoples of this planet. It was pure evil fueling every single atrocity. But wait, some will say: we have not killed six million people (actually closer to twelve million: how quickly we forget the Gypsies). To which I can only reply: prove that we haven't. Just because we've "nickled and dimed" our victims to death doesn't mean they were not legion. And, all the while, we continue patting ourselves on the back for being the greatest, most generous, most compassionate people who ever lived. That hubris alone ought to tell you something. posted 05/14/2008 at 07:19:57

I just read an article in Truthout that the Blue Dog Democrats may be poised to block the GI portion of this emergency war funding bill - thereby saving Republicans the discomfort of having to wallow in unpatriotic muck! Is there nothing so sleazy that a Blue Dog Democrat can't be found to champion it? Of course, that only underscores the larger picture: the utter hypocrisy of flag pins and cries of Support the Troops. What's the term that applies here? Oh yeah: Put your money where your mouth is! posted 05/08/2008 at 09:41:14

On a day when almost everyone is blathering about the earth-shattering significance of Hillary and Barack's latest adventure (it has no significance), one of the most genuinely significant articles ever to appear in the Huffington Post goes virtually unnoticed. Not that that surprises me: even so-called progressives love to roll in the muck of stupidity most of the time, coming up for a breath of reality only when absolutely required by events on the ground. Since it's a given that Cheney/Bush intend to have their second war of choice, this article shows us their most likely path to Iran: a series of mini-wars, escalating so gradually to a full-scale invasion that Americans will ease right into it without missing a single commercial break. So by the time the election rolls around (thanks to a do virtually nothing Congress), it won't matter in the least whether Hillary or Barack carries the Democratic banner. The future, as they say, is now. posted 05/07/2008 at 07:21:15

I suspect the administration "protests too much" about their sinister policies being revealed; and that the "leaks" were deliberately staged. One does not torture in absolute secrecy: torture is merely a tool of control, inspiring the mind-numbing fear in everyone that it could happen to them too. And, I suspect as well that it will start happening on a far grander scale. Because no significant road-block has been erected to stop its spread (a Congressional show of opposition isn't a road-block). And since the good folks of America seem not to particularly care whether it spreads or not, it will. And, rest assured, it will come home to roost. posted 05/07/2008 at 07:40:57

Wonder if McCain'll take his message of hope and love for the poor to New Orleans? You know: THAT New Orleans, where the poor had to weather Katrina in the sports arena because...because they had no cars to get out of town with! They were too poor to own cars - that's one of the things being poor is all about. Gas tax? I don't think the poor wake up every morning despairing that the gas tax - not to mention the capital gains tax - might be too high for their American Dream master plan. Get a grip McCain. posted 04/28/2008 at 09:16:37

It continues to boggle the mind, the corner Obama and Clinton's supporters are backing themselves into (not to mention digging the hole this country's in deeper and deeper). Do they realize that whoever the nominee is, that'll be it? There's no going back or turning around or doing it all over again. This is not a movie set, folks, this is for real. Democrats get one shot at it in November. So whoever is nominated has to have the support of all Democrats, otherwise McCain wins. The invective, and downright hatred, constantly spewing from each candidate's supporters makes reconciliation impossible. I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings, but Obama's supporters had better be willing to support Clinton if she's the nominee; and Clinton's supporters had better be willing to support Obama if he's the nominee. Or, if the convention is so hopelessly deadlocked that someone else ends up being the nominee, both sets of supporters had better be willing to suck in their pride and support whoever the nominee is. Otherwise, it's "Bomb bomb bomb Iran" come January 2009. Isn't it a little more important to stop McCain than to sit out the election - or, worse still, actually vote for McCain in protest? Like they say: pride goeth before a fall. And, OMG, what a fall that will be! posted 04/24/2008 at 07:35:44

It's called Caveat Emptor: Let the Buyer Beware. Even back in 2001 it was as true as it is today: if a Republican's lips are moving, a lie is being told. Not that the New York residents could have picked up and moved; but, still, they had no reason (and I'm tempted to say: no right) to believe what they were told when the evidence of their senses told them overwhelmingly otherwise. When enough people suffer enough damage, they just might stop believing what they're told by public officials. But I wouldn't hold my breath on that one. posted 04/22/2008 at 11:39:57

As good as this article was, its authors act as if they've never heard of John McCain - otherwise they wouldn't waste their breath advising what the next president should do. McCain will do even less than nothing - he's already pledged as much. But it may well be too late to do anything to save ourselves anyway; our economy exists primarily as a conduit to institutionalize the elites' self-interests. And saving the world is not one of their primary concerns. Human pollution of this world will end...when the world says so. Period. posted 04/22/2008 at 12:14:41

I gotta remember to save this post - so I can come back when John McCain takes his oath of office next January and say "Nora Ephron told you so." Though I, too, like so many other commenters herein, am a white male, I have no choice but to agree with Ms Ephron's analysis. Why? Call it the sports hater in me. As long as sports remains the most important thing in most men's lives, they will eventually end up in the McCain camp. It's practically a given. And I'll have to endure yet four more years of corruption under yet another Republican he-man. Because the type of mentality that considers the gross exercise of competition expressed in the sports motif to be the highest moral value is exactly the type of mentality that considers "kickin' ass" the highest expression of patriotism. posted 04/21/2008 at 09:42:51

Jrockbg says that public transportation in Europe "isn't so much a choice as a lack of options." What does he think driving a car is? Unless you live right in the city, public transportation is almost non-existent in the US; you have no option but to buy and maintain a car if you wish to get to work. And Pquilson worries that Obama might tax his 401k. Dude: it's going to be taxed when you dip into it; it's only pre-tax until then. He also reminds us "there is no 'free' anything." Unless, of course, you're a big enough player in the military-industrial complex, like Halliburton; or if you go belly up like Bear Stearns, in which case you'll be rescued by Mr. & Mrs. Taxpayer. The song the right sings never changes: as long as the tax dollars flow upward, Everything's Coming Up Roses; but let one stray dollar fall downward and it's Buddy Can You Spare A Dime. One more thing: the amount of money in your possession is not the measure of your freedom. When you "work hard, save and play by the rules" you're basically only doing what someone else has determined you should be doing. The decision to willingly slip on the chain isn't really what freedom is all about. Honest, it isn't. posted 04/21/2008 at 08:31:34

The whole flag thing got me thinking too: what a cesspool the far right has made of this country. First you have to curtsey and bow before the Almighty; then you have to stick a flag up your butt - otherwise you're clearly not on the right side of freedom. Though I had the good sense not to watch the debate travesty, I had the misfortune to see one of the trailers for it: a perfectly idiotic woman wanting to ask Obama how he "felt about the flag." How in the name of sanity would you answer such an absolutely stupid questioin? How do you feel about the flag? How you feel about the American people and their current plight, yes, of course. But how you feel about the flag? If this is what passes for political discourse, let's just elect Osama Bin Laden president and be done with it. posted 04/18/2008 at 10:31:34

The battle has already been lost - science just hasn't admitted it yet. When two supposedly "progressive" Democratic candidates feel the need to testify for Jesus, then Ben Stein becomes totally irrelevant. He can sit back and relax and brush up on his trivia. Barack and Hillary have done his work for him. Theocracy has already arrived in America. Because if you must first proclaim your subservience to The Son of God before being admitted to the White House, this ain't a free country no more (if it ever was). As an aside, let me wax prosaic and point out (as billions before me have) that the far right and far left meet out there in the Looney Tune world. Another enemy of Darwin is none other than Alex Jones (he of the PrisonPlanet). Mr. Stein: meet Mr. Jones. Dodo birds of a feather? posted 04/18/2008 at 09:32:32

When the debates come on, JUST SAY NO. It's that button at the top corner of your remote. If everyone tuned out, the shit would have to stop because the sponsors would smack the Gibsons et al upside the head and order them to get it right or take a hike. posted 04/17/2008 at 07:20:14

Here's what I seriously don't get: this travesty called the 2008 campaign has been going on non-stop for over a year - so why would ANYONE with one whit of intelligence have bothered to watch the latest installment? I realize that Jason Linkins or any other person actually associated with some phase of journalism was required to endure it - but why would anyone who didn't have to watch it do so? The expression that comes to mind is: Don't dignify it by pretending it's a serious endeavor. If they give a debate, or an election, or any other totally meaningless entertainment - and no one comes to see it or tunes it in, then maybe they'll get the message. But if everyone treats it as if it actually meant something, then of course it'll continue forever. Gibson and the other moderator had nothing better to do; but I did: I had to watch the dogs and the cat sleep. Much more rewarding. posted 04/17/2008 at 06:48:37

I'm now convinced: fear of socialism is what's filling our prisons. Along the way, the rich picked up on the average American's greater aversion to losing what he has to the poor than to the rich (apparently, being fleeced by a prince confers greater status than being robbed by a pauper). And, over the years, the rich have judiciously reinforced that fear by continually showing Mr. Average American just how right he was - and just how bad the poor really are. "Why, just look, Citizen, at all these laws the poor break! We can barely make laws fast enough to keep up with the demand! We no sooner round up one set of paupers than a new law demands yet another round up! You sure wouldn't want them getting hold of your hard-earned money, now would you? Bye the bye, have you seen our new line of wars? Bound to be one in here you like. Of course, they don't come cheap - but, oh my precious Lord, are they ever worth it!" And, as the fleecing of the citizenry grows exponentially, so too does the prison population grow exponentially - so as to always keep the poor as a buffer between the rich and the rest. And that's how America came to be the land of free enterprise. posted 04/16/2008 at 07:08:03

Someone needs to address the larger issue: is it really necessary that presidential candidates present themselves to the working class as "one of us"? and, if so, why? Has anyone taken a poll, specifically asking Americans if they consider this kind of role playing essential in a president? All but a couple presidents - at most - have come from at least somewhat privileged backgrounds. Yet every candidate seems to feel this pressing need to possess "the common touch." But you know what? No matter how privileged your background, there's one absolutely foolproof way to show the people you're one of them: by genuinely caring what happens to them. Granted, it's probably as difficult as the biblical camel's passage through the eye of a needle for a child of privilege to care about others in anything but the most superficial way - but it is possible. And if they do care about ordinary citizens, then they don't have to go hunting, or bowling, or drinking - or any other mindless activity - just to prove they've got "the common touch." posted 04/15/2008 at 07:45:26

Two words for you: Andrew Jackson. He was our seventh president, our first "man of the people" pretender - and, in my judgment, the only one of our early presidents who would stand a chance of being elected today. In a word, the American people have become so dumbed down that the nation's founders would be dismissed en masse as "elitists." Imagine what a sewer the United States would be today if the mentality of the past twenty years had been the dominant mentality from day one. As you can tell, I'm not running for president, or any other public office, so I can come right out and say it: the majority of Americans are absolute dolts who can be conned into anything anytime by anyone waving a flag, mumbling a prayer and guzzling a beer. That's just the way it is. posted 04/14/2008 at 12:20:56

What we have here is a dilemma: the only thing that can save humanity is its destruction. Since we'll keep using oil till it finally does run out, the only hope of staving off the ensuing chaos when it runs out is for the climate change wrought by our use of oil to throw the world into chaos before the oil's all gone. Either way we're doomed. Admittedly, it would be a nice fairy tale ending if, at the very last minute, all humanity becomes enlightened and takes whatever steps are needed to keep "civilization" alive. Unfortunately, history shows very clearly it won't happen that way. Because it's not about technology - about coming up with alternate energy sources; nor is about using the remaining oil more efficiently: it's about the human tendency to maintain the status quo no matter what. We'll change our ways - but only when we have no other choice. Except that, this time, when we reach that point of no return, there really will be no return. posted 04/14/2008 at 07:39:14

To sodakhic: you're absolutely right: beheading is torture. Which is why I, a liberal, would have negotiated with the devil itself to try and save someone - especially an American citizen - from such a horrible fate. But not our President. He made it quite clear: "We don't negotiate with terrorists." That was his one and only attitude toward those hideous beheadings. Those poor unfortunate souls were entirely expendable as far as he was concerned. Their lives meant absolutely nothing in light of the great enlightenment he was bringing to Iraq. If you can stomach such phony-baloney, go for it. posted 04/11/2008 at 13:55:58

CommieKazi consistently misses the point. It's possible to criticize one person's wrongdoing without first having to criticize everyone else who may have done the same thing. I suppose, following CommieKazi's logic, if I were to criticize Jeff Daumer for being a serial killer, I would first have to criticize Jack the Ripper for having done the same thing. Here's the thing in a nutshell: one person's crime does not absolve another person's crime. Anyway, I'm quite sure rendition goes back at least to the Civil War. People love torture; all that's needed is first to demonize the torture victim. Then, to propose some ridiculous "ticking time bomb" scenario to justify the torture of the chosen victim. But the "ticking time bomb" justifies absolutely nothing, ever. To save the entire planet, torture is just as evil as it was when Jack the Ripper and Jeff Daumer practiced it. It's the quality of the act that damns it, not the quantity of its victims. posted 04/11/2008 at 08:36:41

And yet...we continue to imagine that people who could sit there and cold-bloodedly plot the systematic torture of other human beings were totally incapable of commissioning some sort of precipitating event. How much will it take for the American people to admit that these "leaders" are flat-out capable of anything? If conscience doesn't stop you from doing what shocks the conscience, you probably don't have a conscience. So how would you know where to draw the line? The only possible answer is: "Can I get away with it?" And if you think you can get away with it, there's nothing stopping you. posted 04/11/2008 at 07:24:42

Once again, residentchimp gets it 180 degrees backward. It wasn't Pelosi, nor would it be Carter, who the terrorists make a fool of - it's Bush, McCain and all the other war-mongers, who are playing right into their hands by sending in elephant guns to take down gnats. As all rational people already know, terrorism is basically a criminal activity and should be treated as such if it's ever to be dealt with successfully. And this insane idea that Hamas is some alien force superimposed upon the Palestinians from without has to be scrapped immediately. Hamas has been chosen by the Palestinian people to speak for them. Accordingly, he who refuses to speak with Hamas in essence refuses to acknowledge the existence of the Palestinians. posted 04/11/2008 at 07:04:03

The solution is not re-instating the draft; but rather de-mystifying the military. As long as military might is treated as a sacred icon, whether the force is volunteer or conscripted, the military will always think of itself as just a little better than the rest of society. On the day it becomes just a little embarrassing to mouth the great mantra "Support The Troops" - on that day, all humanity will have taken the first step away from the inevitable doom awaiting us. posted 04/11/2008 at 07:46:05

Of all the disgusting, repulsive slogans this invasion has generated - and they are legion - by far the most hideous is "We fight them over there so we won't have to fight them here." Newsflash: IT'S OUR WAR! Over here is precisely where we should be fighting "them." If innocent children have to be maimed and butchered for no earthly reason - it should be our children, not Iraqi children. Because IT'S OUR WAR. All we did was force it on the Iraqis, so we could keep on shopping till we drop. In truth, no people on earth should ever be allowed to have a war unless it's fought on their own soil, in their own back yards, with their own families being blown to bits. I suspect that might reduce the glamour and romance of war. posted 04/09/2008 at 07:53:39

Without tongue in cheek, let me state very clearly: the surge is definitely working! How do I know this? I know it because it continues to achieve its objective. And what is that objective? Very simple: the entire objective of the surge is keeping the troops in Iraq. And the troops are still there. Ergo, the surge is working. Should we ever bring the troops home, the surge - indeed, the war itself - would no longer work. Because, in the final analysis, the war itself is the entire purpose of the war. So as long as the war continues, the war is working. What could be easier to understand? posted 04/08/2008 at 09:29:20

Even after the telecoms gut net neutrality (which, given the general apathy of the public, is almost a forgone conclusion), there may still be a sliver of hope left for a free internet. This, because it's a safe bet the telecoms will not censor right wing blogs and propaganda machines. And this, in turn, could give progressive blogs, etc, an opening to bring a lawsuit - or at least make the public aware of the blatant discrimination against progressives and against news in general. Of course, then you end up with the same problem you have now: getting the public to give a damn about anything that requires them to string two or more thoughts together. posted 04/07/2008 at 07:47:35

Residentchimp's comparison of torture to college hazing was most satisfying: I love it when a troll inadvertently puts his foot in his mouth. Because the similarity between the two may be more than skin deep. How many times through the years have we read about a pledge being seriously injured or even dying as the result of his hazing? So, yes, Residentchimp, I agree: torture is a little like college hazing - and both should be outlawed once and for all. But, to get to the larger picture: since the MSM did at least mention the Yoo memo in passing, there should have been millions of people jumping on the web to Google his name - right? It's easy to do: you just substitute "John Yoo" for "Britney Spears." And, voila, there it is. So, even though the MSM is reprehensible in its omissions, there is a way around it - if people care enough to find out what's going on. posted 04/04/2008 at 07:36:12

If the Democrats don't explicitly link the war with the economy, they have no chance of defeating McCain. Only the 3+ trillion dollar war tab is powerful enough to defeat the freakish McCain he-man persona. The lead-up to the election will also, once and for all, reveal if the MSM really is pro-McCain (read the Jay Rosen post for a host of red herrings throwing doubt on this all-too-obvious situation). Since there will be debate after debate, ad nauseum, and since it will be the MSM darlings framing the debate, the kind of questions asked will make it very clear where the MSM's loyalties lie. If ever Bill Clinton's "It's the economy, stupid!" rang true, this will be the time. If the Democrats don't indelibly brand McCain with the ruin of the economy, they don't deserve to win. posted 04/02/2008 at 09:37:15

The MSM is simply pro-establishment. At one time that establishment was liberal and Democratic (the Kennedy/Johnson years); now it's conservative and Republican. So, of course, the MSM has had to shift to the right to keep up with the current fashion. In a perfect world, the press would be independent; but in the real world, the primary role of the press seems to be cheerleading. Instead of onlookers, they're participants - which means they actively seek a certain outcome. And that outcome is almost always a continuation of the status-quo. So they're going to favor the Republican war-monger over the Democratic war-monger. It's just that simple. posted 04/02/2008 at 08:47:41

The American people made it very clear in 1980 they wanted nothing to do with reality. Jimmy Carter? What: Mr. Mass Transit? Mr. Gas Lines? None of that reality crap. They went for Ronnie Reagan's Morning in America, where all you had to do was dream, and everything you every hoped for would trickle down the backside of corporate America into your anxious awaiting mouth. And they've been supping on trickle down ever since. And you know what? They'd still fall for it all over again. Is it any wonder the elites feel no sense of shame at what they're doing to the rest of us? They're probably still scratching their heads wondering how the f**k they got away with it. posted 03/27/2008 at 12:07:08

I would caution everyone: remember George McGovern. I don't mean to criticize Senator McGovern. I supported him and voted for him. He seemed like a God-send: a genuine peace candidate, who pledged to end the Vietnam War (and bear in mind: even if the Iraq occupation follows a McCain timetable, it'll never be as unpopular as the Vietnam War was). You knew back then - you just knew - that McGovern meant it when he pledged to end the War. Yet he lost in the greatest electoral rout in US history. Lesson to be learned: please don't anyone be so foolish as to ever take the American people at their word when they say they oppose a war and want it to end. It's a death trap. And I'm quite sure that's precisely why none of the major Democratic candidates have made ending the Iraq debacle the centerpiece of their campaign. The American people are totally fickle about wars: it's a love-hate thing. One day it's "Oh I hate this war!" Next day it's "Oh I'm so sorry, I don't hate you, war, I wuv you! I do, I do: I wuv you!" Just imagine where we'd be today if the voters had followed their "conscience" and put George McGovern in the White House. A George W Bush presidency in the kind of world that would have ensued would simply be unthinkable. So, please, don't force any candidate to accept American opinion at face value. It's a no-win situation. posted 03/27/2008 at 07:29:04

Since every candidate has to be certifiably religious, does it really matter which pastor certifies which candidate? Until the unofficial religious tests for holding office are scrapped we'll never be free of this pastoral nonsense (but I guess that won't happen until Messiah makes his grand entrance). It's so funny to hear our leaders decry Islamic theocracies - funny because we're every bit as much a theocracy as they are. We just call it democracy, that's all. As long as a candidate's religion is considered an essential part of his persona, expect to see every shade of religiosity represented in our government. And expect all the real issues to continue to go begging. But, hey: we gotta look after our souls first; then, if we still have time, maybe take a peek at the real world. posted 03/26/2008 at 09:33:32

Where is it leading? Maybe, to another 911. Oh, but wait. That's right: the first was merely a coincidence. Sorry, wrong universe. There's nothing to see here. posted 03/26/2008 at 12:07:07

I used to think the blogs were quite unique. Now I realize: just as the Democrats are Republican lite, so too are the blogs MSM lite. They've developed an audience, attracted advertisers, become way too self-important. They're just one step away from being an establishment adjunct. They will have no truck with anything outside the pale of establishment dogma. They all claim to be opposed to the Iraqi war, and oh so scandalized by the assaults on the Constitution. But they absolutely refuse to even consider attacking the base on which all that's happened in the past seven and a half years sits - the gift that keeps on giving, long after the last piece of scrap has been ushered away from public view. The sacred idol that none may hurl stones at. As far as I'm concerned, they're all just whistling past the graveyard. posted 03/26/2008 at 08:06:14

The brain's capacity may be far more finite than we thought. There may be a critical mass, and once it's reached, the brain short-circuits. Maybe it can't store endless amounts of data and still retain the capacity to sort through the data and make sense of it. A far better analagy for our brain than the computer might be the cell phone. Given all its immense possibilities, its ultimate expression is "texting" - but with abbreviations, not even words any longer: the ultimate fantasy world, where even talking requires too much thought. There's a wonderful Lewis Black riff about watching cable news and being constantly distracted by the enormity of the display ("What the f... was that? What the f... was that?") If only we could all be like Lewis Black; unfortunately, we are able to attend to all the data. But in attending to it, it's all absorbed, bit by bit, until our brain reaches its capacity, and we've learned nothing. Then we tune in our radios, because there's still so much information out there just waiting to be gleaned, and we discover a world of right wing propaganda; we don't really attend to it, because we can't any longer, but our brains absorb it. It all becomes part and parcel of "common knowledge." And when our leaders strike the right chord, it clicks with what we "already know." Which is, of course, the downside to the "Information Age": everything becomes information - ideas and facts and fantasies and pure unadulterated lies become interchangeable pieces of data free floating in our brains. Orwell was old hat; it's no longer about changing history to change reality. It's about expressing reality through an infinity of meaningless data. They don't have to convince you we were always at war with Oceania - because you have no concept of what it means to be at war. Or out of money. Or without capable leadership. The old fried eggs: that's your brain in the Information Age. posted 03/24/2008 at 11:14:57