Stating the Obvious About Professor Al-Arian

I must say, I'm surprised that there hasn't been more talk about the arrest of Sami Al-Arian in connection with terrorism-related charges.

Atrios says he's a little uncomfortable about his arrest. Andrew Sullivan has taken the opportunity to stick it to swarthy-looking fellows everywhere, just a little. But that's really about it.

This surprises me, as I was waiting for the storm.

For anyone unfamiliar with the situation, Al-Arian's story has been playing out in the media since 9/11. He's been feuding back and forth with the University of South Florida over things he's said in the past ("Death to Israel") and his outspokenly pro-Palestinian views.

Along the way, he's become something of a poster boy for the persecution of Muslim and middle-eastern men, along with both the supporters and the detractors that come with such a position: the Right hounded him for his anti-Israel views, and the Left defended him as the victim of groundless prejudice. A simplification, perhaps, but essentially correct.

Now, however, it seems extremely likely (likely, not certain, because he has not been convicted yet) that Al-Arian is, in fact, a terrorist. And a major one at that.

This should be profoundly disturbing to anyone concerned about the harassment of Muslims in the current climate of terrorism fear.

Let me restate it clearly: The people who harassed this man were right.

Whether or not they did it for all the wrong reasons, in the end, they were right, and this man deserves everything they did to him, and much, much more (again, assuming the charges against him are true).

I have an evil feeling that this is going to make it a lot harder to defend other men who actually are innocent against the reckless charges of bigots and fearmongers.

I am also made extremely uncomfortable by the fact that it's going to be a lot harder to defend academic dissent on college campuses, one of the few places where such dissent can truly flourish and develop.

And all of this ignores all the larger issues about the fact that a major terrorist was operating out of an American university.

Despite the fact that it is good to see a terrorist taken into custody (the real, legal way, with court hearings and everything), this is still extremely bad news.

Update: Todd Morman has pointed out, correctly, the inherant contradictions in this post regarding Al-Arian's guilt. I therefore quote my response (because who actually reads my comments sections?): I'm inhabiting two slightly contradictory positions when it comes to his guilt: I'm being a good Liberal and presuming innocence until proven guilty. However, at the same time, I really don't think the FBI would have moved against him and seven others with so many concrete charges if there wasn't some serious evidence against him. Keep in mind that this is [most likely] not a "Richard Jewel" type smear, as Al-Arian has actually been arrested, charged, and arraigned before a judge(Jewel was only "a prime suspect").

(An additional note: I may be wrong about the arraigned before a judge part- I read that he was scheduled to appear before a judge at 2:30 om EST on Friday, but I can't find the article to back it up...My point still stands, though.)

Update the Second: Man, this was not a very well-worded post. It has been pointed out in Atrios' comments section that I appear to condone the harassment Al-Arian has suffered at the hands of various people over the last two years. When I stated "The people who were harassing him were right," I meant that they were correct in their assumption that he was a terrorist (which was the cause of the harassment), not the harassment itself (again, keeping in mind the caveats about his guilt or innocence).

Knock One Down, Prop One Up

Now that we know what movies not to see, what movies should everybody see right away?

My suggestion for this weekend: The Salton Sea.

This movie actually took me by surprise. I rented it about two months ago because Joshua Todd has a bit role in it. Todd, as the lead singer of the now-broken up Buckcherry, is officially the Coolest Man in the World, and I pretty much just wanted to see him (he also had a bit role in an episode of The Shield, which longtime readers know I love).

As it turns out, the movie was incredible.

It's an independent film (although that distinction has kind of lost its magic in the last few years) that I don't think ever hit theaters- or at least if it did, it was an extremely limited run.

Val Kilmer is in it, and whether or not you like his work, he is amazing in this movie.

Basically, it's a movie about speed freaks, trumpet players, and revenge. It doesn't sound like it would work, but it really, really does. Also, it has some of the most beautiful trumpet music I've ever heard...I didn't even know the trumpet could make sounds that could be described as "beautiful."

Anyway. The Mighty Reason Man has spoken. Go watch.

"I thought you said you wanted a twelve inch pianist!" "Ah ha ha- Shut up!"

It's a good day, so I'm going to start off on a happy note.

I want to allow Roman Polanski back on to US soil so we can deport that little bastard.

The Goblin Queen reviewed Polanski's latest offering, The Pianist, last night.

While I'm sure Katie's review is spot on, I haven't seen it, I have no desire to see it and I will not see it.

Some of you may assume from my apparent dislike of the director, Roman Polanski, that I am a prude who is holding against Polanski the fact that he cannot step on US soil or else he will be arrested for rape.

"That's not fair! He is an artist! And it was a long time ago. Besides, who hasn't had Quaalude-fueled sex with a thirteen year old girl at one point or another? Is it his fault he happened to be 43 when he did it?"

Ho ho.

You might think this, but you would be wrong.

No, I do not hate Roman Polanski for turning the wonderfully-named Quaalude -- a play on the phrase "quiet interlude,"
the drugs intended effect -- into the rather less reputable Quarapeaminorlude.

I hate him for The Ninth Gate.

Tell me, have you ever been reading a book that was starting to go really well, and then found out that the last fifty pages were missing? That in fact those fifty pages had never been written? That the author simply thought it would be a fun gimmick to just end the story at random?

Neither have I, but I'm assuming it would feel somewhat akin to the way I felt after watching The Ninth Gate.

An initially slow movie, it eventually ramps up and becomes a rather interesting story about a rare books dealer trying to find an authentic copy of a book that opens the gates of Hell. It sounds schtick-y, but it's not. It's done a lot better than most of the other "Devil and Hell" movies that came out in the late nineties (the exception being The Devil's Advocate. I don't care what you think about Keanu Reeves- Charlize Theron is hot and Al Pacino makes a fantastic Satan).

Anyway, it finally gets really good at the end, and the viewer starts thinking it's a damn good movie as he or she waits for the endgame.

It doesn't come. You think you're about there when- Cut to cheesy special effect, Roll credits.

When I saw that, I waited through the entire credits sequence, to see if maybe it would be interspersed with extra scenes that would make the whole movie make sense and resolve the whole thing, a la Wild Things.

No. Just credits. Then the end of the tape.

I knew then that Roman Polanski is a Bad Man, and I resolved to never, ever forgive him for this travesty of a movie, for this act of cinematic blueballing.

I do not care how good his movies are, or how many awards he gets; I will never, ever watch another Polanski movie. Not ever again. That farce of an ending has soured me for life, and I will do everything in my power to prevent other people from watching his movies.

This man is a crime against story, art, structure, cinema, and nature.

Oh yeah, and he also fucked a thirteen year old.

Coma

As I accidentally took the "PM" version of headache medicine a few hours ago instead of the "daytime" version, I will be collapsing in the middle of the room on my way to bed in a few minutes. No posting tonight due to this mistake. Apologies all around. Will return tommorrow afternoon.

Information Request

While I already know the outline, I've recently been trying to fill in some of the details of the GOP's conversion from Eisenhower's party to Reagan's, specifically the crucial years between Nixon's resignation and Reagan's election. Does anyone know of a good book or two about this, at least partially? I'm looking for a fairly unbiased view, not some Peggy Noonan-type crap. And I've already read David Brock's book.

Please make any suggestions you might have in the comments section, or send me an email (the address is at the bottom of the page).

Gracias.

Edit: Maybe what I'm really looking for is something that traces Goldwater Republicanism, from 1964 on; although I'm not looking for a Goldwater biography- it's the movement I want to trace.

Autism, Taxes, and Deception Most Foul

Cleaning out my 'sent' folder, I came across an email I had sent to a few people last year, on December 2nd. Here it is, in full:

"I have to admit...I think I may have been deceived. In all my fuss (and a few other people's fuss) about the whole Autism issue, I overlooked a different provision of the Homeland Security bill that was put in at the last minute: The evisceration of a law that would make it illegal for corporations to receive government contracts if they moved offshore to avoid paying US taxes. (Read Arianna Huffington's superb column on this. But I'm sure you've already read it. Right? Right.) This is huge, huge, huge after all the corporate scandals earlier this year and the bluster we received as a result...and my cynical mind is thinking dark thoughts about deliberate misdirection on the part of the White House towards a more gut-level issue, namely Autism, that they knew would peter out after a few days, because they can explain that one a whole lot better (by which I mean, with lies that are less obviously lies) than they can this "government money to tax-dodging corporations" thing.

"Now, I don't want to attribute supernatural powers to Karl Rove. He's not the AntiChrist- by which I mean, I'm sure his parents are kind and loving people, and not actually Lucifer Morning Star, the Prince of Darkness. However, it doesn't seem so odd an idea. They had to know that the Left was ready to pounce on any potential abuses of the Homeland Security bill. Is it so unreasonable to think that they might have tossed us a nice juicy issue to get our hands on while they snuck the other stuff under the radar? (Although if the lukewarm response by the mainstream media and the already diminishing outrage among a few left-wing blogs is the Left's version of a pounce, then I am very frightened indeed)

"They even gave themselves a way out in promising to revisit the issue when Congress comes back in session. Hell, it could even become an Ari Fleischer talking point: "On this issue, the President decided, as a matter of conscience, to show strong leadership and oppose this effort by a few [conveniently nameless] congressman within his own party." Republican parents of autistic children and their friends could once again support Bush with a clean conscience, and he might even win over a few left-leaning parents with his "courageous" stand against the hardliners in his own party.

"Raising an issue as cover for something else, then gaining points on both sides of the aisle for shooting it down. If it weren't being used for such evil purposes, I'd admire it.

"But then, maybe I'm just being paranoid."

You know what? With the exception of the way in which the thimerasol provision was dropped (I expected there to be more fanfare [although that can probably be explained by the fact that the new Majority Leader has tried to put this kind of thing in before. They had to low-profile it, or it would have tarnished that saintly image he's developed in the last two months]; the White House did receive some credit for it, though), I am convinced that I was right.

After all, the thimerasol provision only benefited a handful of companies, specifically Eli-Lilly. The offshore-incorporation stuff potentially helps all of their corporate donors.

Or am I still being paranoid?

Update: MB of Wampum has pointed out to me that the offshore corporation loophole was eliminated along with the thimerasol protections. The legislation would "Eliminate a loophole related to so-called inverted corporations – corporations that moved their headquarters offshore to avoid federal taxes – to clarify that federal contracts will only be awarded to these companies when deemed essential to national security."
So, I am completely Wrong About Everything in this post. So it goes... Although, really, I'm still suspicious about exactly how one deems a contract necessary to National Security...is it just because George Bush says so? Because we all know how that would work out...

Do Democrats Want Everyone To Like Them?

The more I read about last fall's election, and the overall strategy employed by the Democrat Senate and Congressional Campaign Committees -- of playing down Iraq, National Security, and the Tax Cut (the first one, before the current monstrosity was rolled out) -- the more I get the impression that the Democrats are afraid to piss off the Right wing. Not the Republican party apparatus, or their supporting framework of organizations, but average, everyday voters who identify as conservative.

My question is, why?

There's about 30-40 percent of the voting population that will vote against the Democrats no matter what happens; Bush could be caught selling the nuclear codes to China, and these people would still support him.

So why worry what they think?

I mean, who cares if 40% of your state is screaming bloody murder about how you want to raise everyone's taxes and induce a communist revolution? You only need 51%. Everyone else can rot.

Look at the Republicans. It is incredibly obvious that they don't give a damn about the 30-40% who are going to vote Democratic no matter what. They throw the Right all kinds of bones to make their core supporters happy, then put on their good suit and tone it down to woo the middle 20% - or at least, the middle 11%. They ignore the Democrats' base completely, except to occasionally accuse them of horrible things (in order to further rile up their 30-40% and swing some of the middle 20% their way).

The problem is that the Democrats respond to the bomb-throwers on the other side in the worst possible way: by backing down and trying to make them happy, in the hopes that they'll let up enough for them to convince the middle 20%.

An example: The Bush Tax Cut

How many Democratic congressmen tried to preempt charges of being "tax-raisers" last year by emphasizing their support of the tax cut, or at least neglecting to criticize it?

Damn near all of them.

Now how many Republicans tried to preempt charges of "fiscal irresponsibility" or "favoring the rich" by de-emphasizing their support for the same tax cut?

I'm waiting.

Maybe I'm just too young to understand these things, but aren't you supposed to be afraid of the displeasure of your own fucking base?

In essence, it seems that the Democrats want the Right to love them. They think that they can win them over with a little soothing talk.

Well, as should now be blindingly obvious, that's a loser's game every time.

'People I Am Officially Pissed Off At' Dept.

I found out about this a week or two ago, but I was just reminded of it (in a tangential, free-association kind of way...don't ask) a few minutes ago.

Damn Mary Landrieu for luring me in with her strong rhetoric and good (for an elected official) looks.

Why.

Why.

Why is she teaming up with Sam Brownback (who, as a Republican from Kansas, is by definition Wrong About Everything) to ban therapeutic cloning? Human cloning, I can understand. We should absolutely ban human cloning.

But you don't lump it in with therapeutic cloning and ban the whole damn thing!

I've been afraid of a wrong-headed ban on all cloning ever since that lunatic Dr. Seed announced his plans to clone a human a few years back, and now the pretty blonde Senator from Louisiana is coming to ruin our lives.

I'm not going to get into the difference between human cloning and therapeutic cloning, except to say that human cloning is for making Xerox people, and therapeutic cloning is for curing diseases. Heidi Pauken wrote a fantastic article on this last week for The American Prospect. Go read it.

Basically, with regards to cloning, there are currently two camps in the Senate: The Midwestern Republicans-and-Landrieu faction, which submitted the 'Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2003' on 1/29/03, and the Hatch-Feinstein-Kennedy faction, which submitted the 'Human Cloning Ban and Stem Cell Research Protection Act of 2003' on 2/5/03. The former would ban all cloning, period, while the later would ban human cloning while allowing therapeutic cloning research to continue. Both of these bills are currently in committee.

The way I see it, there are four possible reasons why Sen. Landrieu is providing Democratic cover fire for Sen. Brownback on this issue:

1. She is secretly evil and thinks that God does not want us to cure Alzheimer's - Basically adopting the Religious Right's position (not in those exact words, but essentially), she is of the opinion that no matter what the potential benefit, everything having anything to do with eggs and sperm is bad except for straight up missionary-style breeding. I tend to doubt this one, as she is technically for stem-cell research (although she's pretty lukewarm even there, given that "she fully supports President Bush's decision to allow the federal government to participate in research that uses existing embryonic stem cell lines" without bashing him over the head with the fact that his "allowing" continuing research is basically a lie, as the restrictions he placed on such research have essentially halted it). However, I include it because there is a chance she is doing it to appease her notoriously religious constituency, which in this case is just as bad as believing it herself.

2. She got suckered into it - She does not (or did not) understand the distinction between the two forms of cloning, and her staff was not astute enough to clue her in.

3. She doesn't really care about cloning one way or another, and so supported the bill that would give her the publicity of being the only Democratic Sponsor - Just as evil as #1, but for different reasons. As the only Democrat whose name is on the bill, she is one of the first people the media will talk to if it moves out of committee, and the farther it gets, the more exposure she will receive. This theory has the added benefit of dovetailing with the rumors that she is considering one day running for President (in 2008, possibly), as this kind of coverage would help her with the first hurdle any Presidential candidate faces: name recognition. You'd have to be pretty cynical to believe this one, but then, you'd have to be pretty cynical to believe that an incumbant Senator would switch from French kissing the administration to whipping it with a sugarcane lash when the Louisiana runoff system allowed her a second chance to win an election in which the former strategy did not work well enough.

4. She is signing on to a Republican bill for favors to be named later- Banning all human cloning would go over really big in the Bible Belt states that the rest of the Sponsors are from, and so they would most likely have been willing to offer quite a bit in return for making it a more generally palatable "bipartisan" bill. This is not completely unreasonable, but I am hard pressed to come up with something that would be worth selling out on cloning. Yes, the medical potential of this stuff is that big. But perhaps Mary doesn't see it that way. Keep a very close eye on how much pork makes its way to Louisiana in the next year or so.

It's anyone's guess as to which one is the case. Regardless, I have just one thing to say: Mary, baby, come back to me. I'll treat you right, I swear. Don't do this. We can still be happy, baby. We'll forget all about this. Just come back to me, baby.

Just come back to me.

Ego & Vanity Run Amok: Propaganda Effectiveness Report

The staff here at VeryVeryHappy is currently in the middle of a (non-alcoholic, as it is a work night) champagne-cork popping frenzy over the initial results of our weeklong experiment.

Since VeryVeryHappy went live a week and a handful of hours ago, 1,651 people have been tricked into receiving our dangerous combination of Progressiveness, Tomfoolery, Anger, and Hate. Our studies also conclude that approximately half of them have returned for more at least once.

Today, 0.000005 % of the US population; tomorrow, the World!

Aside: No more talk of site stats for at least a month. Nobody really cares, and it lends itself to navel-gazing at the expense of actually writing things.

Update: This, I should have seen coming. Already one of my friends has pointed out to me, in a tentative voice, "You really shouldn't say your site has hate in it. Hate is wrong. It is wrong to hate."

My response, in full, was, "Quit being such a fucking Leftie!"

Of course I have a heart full of hate. Any right thinking person who looks around and sees what is happening, both in the world and this country, should have a heart full of hate. There are evil people doing evil things to us. And I hate them. A lot. And I don't have time to screw around being nice. At least I direct my hate at people who truly deserve it.

So no, Hate stays in.

Much Sorrow

I don't know what's going on, but apparently Wampum is on indefinite hiatus. This does not make me happy, as Wampum has been a consistently excellent blog and general source of information- I know I've read it approximately twice a day for the last two or three months.

Do yourself a favor and go read some of her archives. It's some very good stuff.

Toys

Apparently, someone in the West Bank has seen Short Circuit 2 one too many times.

This kind of thing is not going to improve the situation over there.

Scorecard Time!

Just so I'm clear:

The Republican Vice President of the United States, a former CEO of a major energy firm with close ties to other major energy corporations, met behind closed doors with representatives from most of the major energy firms --who also happened to be huge campaign contributors -- in the summer of 2001 in order to set energy policy for the United States.

The Vice President then refused to release the records of that meeting to the GAO, an investigative arm of Congress currently headed by a former aide to Republican ex-President Reagan and used to keep tabs on the Executive Branch, who then took the unprecedented step of suing him for said records. In defiance of court order, he continued to refuse to release the records.

Meanwhile, documents salvaged from the burning wreck of Enron prove that the California energy crisis -- the tentative reason for the Vice President's closed door meeting -- was in fact the direct result of massively fraudulent energy manipulation on the part of the major energy firms.

In December, the GAO's lawsuit was struck down by John D. Bates, a W. Bush-appointed judge who also happened to have spent the latter half of the 90's serving as a deputy to Independent Prosecutor Ken Star who -- in violation of the spirit, if not the letter of the Independent Prosecutor laws -- was a viciously partisan Republican who spent eight years and $70 million trying to dig up dirt on a Democratic President before being forced to admit that no wrongdoing had been done - after said President was no longer in power.

Now, the GAO has decided to drop the suit for good, because Republicans in Congress threatened to cut its budget if it continued to pursue the suit.

And Bill Clinton was impeached for a blowjob.

Okay. Just checking.

(Thanks, Atrios)

Enough!

Fucking hell, ladies and gentlemen. How about we just say what we mean, eh?

When most Republicans say anti-American, they really mean anti-Republican.

Anyone disagree?

(Not via, but inspired by Atrios)

Edit: Alright, I'm willing to give the majority of Republicans the benefit of the doubt, and amend that to "most Republicans in the Media (including the blogosphere)."

Malpractice, Continued

I have very strong opinions about health care, and the system for providing it that is currently in place in this country, but for some reason, it's just not gelling tonight...part of it is lack of key information (which I will be looking into, eventually), and part of it is the overwhelming size and complexity of the problem. Health care is in serious crisis in this country, and it is going to take a hell of a lot more than just haphazardly plugging whatever hole a major media story highlights to fix it. Fundamental, system-wide change is not only necessary, but inevitable: if we do not fix it ourselves, the system will solve the problem for us by collapsing on our heads.

The only real point I have to make tonight is this: the opportunity to be as physically healthy as modern medicine allows should be a basic right. One of the fundamental ideals of this country is that everyone should have the chance to make their lives, or the lives of their children, better -- that's the essence of the American Dream -- and people who are not healthy cannot do that.

It's as simple as that.

Malpractice

Yeah, we need to cap jury awards for medical malpractice, don't we? Wouldn't want these people to get their grubby little paws on too much money.

Think of the poverty-striken doctors.

Edit: Alright, that's a bit too flippant for an issue as complex as this. No more posting during commercial breaks (Tuesdays are the only night of the week I watch television...I am utterly addicted to 24 and The Shield). I will write more on this subject later.

Revelations

Holy shit! Lynn from 24 is Ensign Ro from Star Trek: The Next Generation!

I knew she looked familiar...

On the Naming of Names

Vaara has suggested that there should be an ongoing effort to gain the rhetorical initiative by renaming "wargasmoid"-types as "anti-peace," rather than simply pro-war, or more accurately anti-anti-war.

The fundamental problem with that suggestion, from my point of view, is that Vaara is a much nicer person than I am.

While I support his effort, I think that "anti-peace" is much too kind, and does not adequately convey the depths of my contempt for such people. Therefore, I hereby submit a list of alternative labels (keep in mind the important distinction between people who truly believe we need to go to war for various highly-principled reasons [whom I support], and those that blindly follow the President's lead while saying vile things about those that choose to think things out for themselves [whom I would like to deport]):

Anti-thought
Anti-reason
Anti-intellectual
Anti-dissent
Anti-principled opposition
Anti-democratic
Anti-Founding Fathers
Anti-Framers
Anti-Lincoln
Anti-Roosevelt (both Teddy and Franklin)
Anti-independence
Anti-American (Score!)
Anti-patriotic
Anti-majority rule with minority rights
Bastards
Pro-death
Pro-really-cool-explosions
Pro-conformity
Pro-winning the battle over yourself
Pro-mindless automaton
Pro-ignorance
Pro-incineration-of-people-who-are-not-them
Pro-sheep
Pro-anger-over-reason
Pro-lies
Pro-refusal-to-admit-the-emperor-is-naked
Pro-fantasy
Pro-Divine Right of Kings
Pro-Taxation without Representation
Pro-law of the jungle
Nincompoops
Pro-Evil
Anti-Good
Pro-blinders
Anti-understanding
Pro-lunacy
Anti-sanity
Pro-bullying
Anti-problem solving
Pro-violence
Anti-compassion
Pro-bullshit
Anti-honesty
Pro-flawed grouping of everything into "good" and "evil" categories with no continuum between the two
Anti-acknowledging the complexity of the world

and

Punk-ass bitches

Any questions?

An Old Discussion That Will Become Relevant Again Someday Soon

Another interesting thing I learned from Michael Savage today was that failure to pass a law requiring a photo ID at the polling place during elections is voter fraud, and because Democrats don't support such laws, they are traitors who hate democracy.

This seemed odd to me, as I had always voted Democratic, and yet I didn't recall having a vicious hatred of democracy. So I thought about it for approximately three seconds, and came up with a very big reason why such laws would be bad.

In the form of a series of questions:

A) Do you have a photo ID other than your driver's license? (Passports do not count, as most people do not have or need them. School/work IDs don't either, as they cannot be accepted as a legal form of identification)

B) What groups of people are least likely to have a driver's license?

If you answered A) No and B) A large chunk of the Democratic constituency (urban residents, working class, poor, etc.), you just figured out why this isn't a voter fraud issue, but a partisan issue.

The next time you hear someone whining about the necessity of preventing voter fraud by requiring photo ID, remember that what they're really saying is "I want to keep a lot of Democrats (or just poor people in general) from voting." And while you are allowed to hold that opinion, you are not allowed to put the force of the law behind it.

Update: After looking around, I see that these folks have some good reasons too. But I like my reason best. Brevity is the soul of something or other.

Chicago Uber Alles!

Fantastic liberal radio host (and all-around media personality) Nancy Skinner was on the O'Reilly Factor tonight. I do not watch the O'Reilly Factor, because it never seems to quite hit the high intelligence and credibility quotient that Inside Edition maintained during Bill's tenure there.

Tonight, I made an exception.

Based in Chicago, Skinner has been a full fledged member of the Liberal Media for seven years. Her criminally underrated show is a consistent source of hope for those of us who would love to see the airwaves cleanse themselves of people like Rush Limbaugh.

There's really not a whole hell of a lot to say about her appearance tonight, except this:

SHE BEAT THAT MOTHERFUCKER'S ASS!

Strong words, but then, anytime someone shows Bill up on his own turf is a time to celebrate. Not because he's particularly good at debating, or because of the inherant strength of his positions, but because he's the one who controls the show; the cameras, the microphone, the format, the time allowed. The odds are just a wee bit stacked in his favor. Plus he yells. A lot.

But apparently, it's a lot harder to yell and say "Shut up, shut up!" when your guest is a pretty blonde woman who smiles really big after making you look like a buffoon.

I wasn't kidding. I really don't have anything else to say about it. It was a discussion on whether or not Liberal radio hosts can make it, and we've all heard that discussion over and over again in the last few months. I pretty much just wanted to gloat, and plug Nancy's show. If you live anywhere near Chicago, you can hear it on Sundays from Noon to 3 pm (Central) on 890 AM. If you don't, listen to it over the internet at WLS-AM's website.

Interesting Variations on "Jerks"

The Bush administration as "barking scrotum monsters?"

Can I get that on a bumper sticker?

(via LanguageHat)

I Am the Liberal Media!

Looking over my site statistics (to learn how best to serve you, the consumer), I found out that my site comes up as #3 when you do a Google search using the words "french" "are" "cowards," and #4 if you use "French" and "cowards."

My liberal propaganda is infilitrating the conciousness of America.

How cool is that?

Update: I also just hit 1,000 unique visitors, which seems pretty good considering I started this thing on Wednesday. I will indoctrinate you yet, America...

Another Update: "French" and "Cowardice" put me at #2! And #1 is a Cheap Trick lyrics page (The song Surrender...get it? I'm not joking, it really is). Eat it, fuckfrance.com (#6)! Why don't you guys get a job or something? Damn hippies.

Yet Another Update: "French" "cowards" "cowardice" puts me at #1.

Mr. Nettle Would Not Be Pleased

My favorite talk radio host has disappointed me today.

Michael Savage, the official mascot of this site, was doing his thing this evening, comparing me to vermin and informing me about how much I hate America. This was all well and good. But then, while talking about his book ("Number One. Number One. Number One."), he got my hopes up. "I'm a highly literate man. I'm a very good writer. A very good writer," he told me.

"Well, hell!" I said to myself, "I like good writers!"

I immediately raced out to Barnes & Noble, hoping to broaden my literary horizons. Self improvement is a good thing.

I ran in, grabbed a copy of The Savage Nation, and sat down, preparing to learn something.

My friends, I swear to you upon all I hold dear, the very first page I opened to, the first page of chapter two, began thusly: "The future of America hangs in the balance like a loose tooth."

I could feel my heart breaking.

"Jesus God," I thought. "Doesn't [Savage Nation publisher] WorldNet Daily have editors?"

I mean, couldn't they at least pay some guy minimum wage to say, "Hey, um...Mike? You know, this is a really, really, bad simile."

I don't claim to be the Shakespeare of my time. I don't claim to be God's gift to readers everywhere. I try to write competently, and leave to others to decide if I am good or not.

But I do know that Mr. Nettle, my seventh grade English teacher, would have beat me senseless with a ruler -- and damn the law -- if I had ever written a sentence as poor as that one.

I will not even stoop to discuss Mike's fondness for the term "Turd World Nation."

So, Mikey, two points for self-promotion, but five demerits for not being able to back it up.

I am crushed.

Confirmation, and A Second Premise

Atrios, without whom I would know little more about the outside world than a cave-troll, links to this fantastic story of the basic worthlessness of Fox News.

This of course reinforces the First Premise of VeryVeryHappy:

Fox News sucks and is making your children dumb.

While the staff here at VVH is nearly delirious with joy over this proof of our innate superiority, we realize that there is a key component of this Premise that needs to now be added in order to properly reflect reality. However, as any good mathematician knows, a postulate needs to be kept fairly simple.

I am therefore creating the Second Premise of VVH, which reads as follows:

Fox News is teaching your children that it is okay to steal, as long as you do not get caught.

Oh, and Roger Ailes (the evil one, not the good one) is to be referred to as "Jolly Roger" from now on.

VeryVeryHappy's Definitive Position on War in Iraq
--The Obligatory Post-Protest Comments--

7,512,100.

That's the number of protestors out yesterday throughout the world, and it doesn't even include a lot of the lesser protests (for example: Lansing, Michigan, where 1,500 people turned out).

As all my longtime (read: since Wednesday) readers know, I am undecided as to my position on the coming war. I have heard good arguments from both sides of the aisle, as have all of you. I have not made a final decision, but there are some things I know for sure.

In sum:

I am not for war.

I am not against war.

I am not against anti-war protestors.

I am not against pro-war protestors (note the distinction between "pro-war" and "anti-anti-war")

What I am against are the people who feel that anti-war opinion should be suppressed.

What I am against are people who feel they can dismiss anyone who is anti-war as a communist, a traitor, an idiot, or a coward.

What I am against are people who don't acknowledge the fact that this administration has very little credibility with a large portion of the electorate, or dismiss that portion as communists, traitors, idiots, and cowards.

What I am against is the way this administration has represented me and my country to the world. There is a substantial part of the world that sees us as tough-talking bullies who have no regard for our friends and very little grasp of the consequences of our actions, and, considering our words and actions in the last two years, this is not an unfair opinion.

And what I am absolutely against is being lied to, about facts, motivations, and intentions. And this administration has done so at least once per category.

So what am I taking away from these protests? The hope that that number, seven million five hundred twelve thousand and one hundred, if it doesn't actually stop war, will at least go a little way towards stopping those things that I am so against.

Today, I am allowing myself some optimism.

VeryVeryMother

After reading this post about the Bush administration supporting the denial of permit to the New York protestors to my mother, her response was:

"Well, fuck them."

That pretty much sums it up, doesn't it? Always listen to your mother.