Nicotrol For Right Wing Blog Addicts

As a public service, we here at VeryVeryHappy are proud to offer the following generic entries to several popular Right wing blogs to stave off whatever twisted cravings you might have to read the real things.

InstaPundit:

HERE'S AN INTERESTING POST by a guy named Steve from Des Moines. He highlights the direct connection between the modern Democratic Party and the National Socialist German Workers Party. Some incriminating stuff here. Of course, you wouldn't know this if you only watched CNN...

posted at 05:43 PM by Glenn Reynolds

THE NEW YORK TIMES IS FULL OF SHIT because they quote unreliable sources and make things up.

posted at 05:17 PM by Glenn Reynolds

James Lileks:

Gnat was adorable today. I know that's a standard dad thing to say (average in the way that a gray tabby cat is average - familiar, but still aggressively likable. "Like me! Purr! Hiss!"), but it's true.

"Why can leprechauns get to end of the rainbow but we can't?" she asked with an impertinent grin.

The sheer cuteness of it floored me.

And you know what? I couldn't help but be reminded - by this precocious little girl who still doesn't know what wonders and complexities await her in this world - of why the Democrats are traitors and the Left seeks to destroy all that is beautiful.

I don't know, Gnat, I don't know. Let's find out together.


Andrew Sullivan:

IT LOOKS LIKE I WAS RIGHT: The only people blown up today are foreigners. America's shores are safe for you and me. George Bush is a genius.

EMAIL OF THE DAY: "As a proud member of the Communist Party, I have to say, the madness needs to stop!

I would describe myself as very liberal. I support nationalization of industry (without compensation), mandatory taxes ranging from 60-97% of all income, and the rehabilitation of endangered species by feeding them aborted fetuses. I also believe that war is wrong, and no person should ever do violence to another, for any reason.

I still believe strongly in most of those things, but the terrible tragedy that struck our nation two years ago has made me realize that I was wrong about war. The incredible leadership of President Bush during this time of crisis has opened my eyes.

It is with these stances in mind that I say: The Democratic presidential candidates are way too far Left for me!

I cannot describe to you how turned off I am by the disgusting, repetitive nature of their anti-Bush rhetoric. I can't say I agree with everything the President does, but he has proven himself to be courageous and strong in the face of the worst crisis ever to face our nation. He does not deserve the vile things that these nine nobodies are saying about him.

This, combined with their poilicy positions (which are so liberal they scare me!), forces me to conclude that none of them deserves the nomination. Unfortunately, one of them will get it.

And therefore I will be proud to vote for George W. Bush in November 2004.

P.S. - I am not Andrew Sullivan pretending to be an emailer.

P.P.S. - Really."

SONTAG AWARD NOMINEE: Dan Rather did tonight's newscast without a flag pin on his lapel. Pretty convincing proof that Bernie Goldberg was right. Bias indeed. But I'm sure Eric Alterman can come up with a nice-sounding excuse about how this has no bearing on his ludicrous "What Liberal Media" thesis. We're waiting, Eric.

- 2:47:23 PM

Little Green Footballs:

We must fight anti-Semitic tendencies wherever we may find them, for we must never forget the horrors of the Holocaust.

We must also kill all suspicious-looking Muslims.

Now quit taking my words out of context.

posted by Charles at 3:44 PM PST

The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler:

I am so fucking enraged I think my head is going to explode!!!

For any of you asshated illiberal moonbat fucknozzles that are reading this, here are The Rules^TM that Loyal Citizens (REAL Americans to you, you bedwetting shiteating fuckwits) live by:

If some dried-up Commie sympathizing whore from the Irritating Retarded Shitdogs (I.R.S.) tells you that they haven't stolen enough of your money, you shoot her, because she's a cunt.

If you are in the Gestapo city of Chicago and one of Mayor Fucktard Daley's SS troopers pulls you over and gives you a ticket, you shoot them, because Nazi scumfuckers deserve to be Horrendously Hollowed out by Hollowpoints^TM!

If I ever see a crowd of foolish felching fuckweasle hippies, there'd better be cops in between me and them, because otherwise I'd tear their fucking midget-dicks off and shove them down their putrid throats! Or I'd shoot them.

And never, ever include the letter "o" when spelling "G-d", because that's a sin.

Posted by Emperor Misha I at 03:27 AM

50 K

Well, I'll be damned. This evening, VeryVeryHappy officially hit 50,000 page views.

This is, of course, absolutely ridiculous, as I'm just some guy writing on the internet (with decreasing frequency, I know...I'm working on that).

Anyway, I think it's pretty cool that something I made has been looked at 50,000 times. Pretty puny when compared to the big boys, but seeing as how my posting has dropped to a trickle since roughly April, I'm quite pleased.

For the people who've been dropping by since February, I salute your endurance. For those who have jumped on my little bandwagon since then, I appreciate you sticking around. And to everyone, thanks for occasionally taking a few minutes out of your day to check out VeryVeryHappy, and for dropping a comment or two.

Now start visiting on weekends too, you ungrateful bastards.

Holy Christ, Donald Luskin Has Lost His Mind

No, this is not news. But I at least thought that the NRO editors would have the decency to try to cover it up a little bit. You know, snip a faulty premise here, cut a multi-word personal insult there. Something. This man goes on television, for God's sake.

But no. His increasingly disturbing stalking of Paul Krugman has been thrown into high gear after Krugman's appearance on Russert's show last night.

Highlights:

"Are you surprised that Krugman's publisher, W.W. Norton, has repeatedly refused my requests for a review copy of the book?"

No. If I repeatedly said "Donald Luskin is an idiot" in a prominent liberal publication, and then asked Luskin's publisher for an advance copy of his book so that I might call him an idiot while quoting it, I would expect to be told to go fuck myself.

So Donald, go fuck yourself.

"For the next month or so, it's going to be all Krugman all the time. It's going to be painful to have to listen over and over to all the trademark Krugman talking points we've all come to know and hate so well. [...] In recent weeks I had been feeling pretty depressed with this prospect. [...] But when I saw the interview with Russert on Saturday night, I stopped worrying. And now I'm hoping that his 15 minutes of fame will be his undoing. In situations where he's separated from the prestige and credibility of his New York Timescolumn — and when people can talk back — Krugman will no longer seem the Great and Powerful Oz. He'll stand revealed as nothing more than the man behind the curtain."

Seriously, I've paid less attention to girls I wanted to have sex with than Luskin does to Krugman.

"The nervous, stammering, shifty-eyed, twitching, ill-tailored, gray homunculus slumping across the table from Tim Russert Saturday night..."

Excepting only the lyrics to a handful of White Snake songs, this is the most pathetic thing I have ever read in my life. Even more pathetic than when Luskin started calling Krugman's responses to him "elephant shit" (what, "bullshit" does not properly convey how much you disagree? Fuck it, lets's go whole hog and say "blue whale shit!" Ooh! My post compares what you say to the feces of an animal many times larger than a bull! You can't handle this! You can't handle this!)

I mean, if you're trying to appeal to the "false sense of superiority due to a vast overestimation of one's grasp of rhetorical skills and devices" demographic by going for the unfunny insult string, at least make it interesting. Make me get out a dictionary, Don. This one sentence is the ultimate (though I dare say not the final) proof that anything he writes about Krugman should be taken slightly less seriously than anything Roseanne and Tom Arnold say about each other, and so he could at least be good enough to let me break even in intelligence gained/lost --after having my IQ damaged through exposure to this and similar columns-- by learning some new words.

No lie. I read this column today, and now I can't do math.

Perhaps excessive proofreading of his own columns is the cause of Luskin's repeatedly-demonstrated innumeracy?

"And I'm delighted to report that, as you will see, the Krugman Truth Squad had a key role to play in the wheel-removal process. In fact, I think we may have to make Russert an honorary member of the Squad."

You have to be pretty arrogant when your estimation of yourself is greater than Rush Limbaugh's. Hell, you need to be Napoleon for your estimation of yourself to be greater than Limbaugh's. But Donald manages to pull it off. Congratulations, I guess. The big difference between the two, though, is that while Limbaugh's "talent on loan from God" thing has worn exceedingly thin, he can at least fall back on it being a supposed self-parody.

Luskin is apparently serious when he talks about how Big and Important he is. He has skillfully managed to create an online persona that seems -- to him -- to be witty and cunning and always victorious, a persona that -- to everyone else -- seems rather obviously to be massive overcompensation for being picked last for kickball when he was a child.

Maybe if we all just call him Home Run Luskin for awhile, he'll be able to heal those long-festering psychic wounds, and kindly go the hell away.

"Coming out of the commercial, after doing the obligatory flash of the book jacket for the camera (operators are standing by), Russert opened with,

RUSSERT:The National Review Online has the Krugman Truth Squad.

KRUGMAN:Yeah.

RUSSERT:They monitor every word you write. And they will pick apart every column, and say 'He no longer is just an economist. He's an ideologue, and he just is trying to twist facts in order to prove a political point.' "

Holy hell, I can hear Luskin's erection. And I'm half a continent away from him.

"Let's really savor this. Coming out of an awesomely long pause — a pause you just never see on television, one that probably had some guys in the CNBC control room really twitching — Krugman said, 'I think that given, given that I'm writing 100 columns a year, uh, the number of things they've actually been able to make stick is pretty small.'
A mind-boggling defense. Actually, it's not a defense at all — it's a confession.He is confessing that he lies — but, he has an excuse: He had to write 100 columns a year! He was too busy to tell the truth. "

Wow. Paul Krugman is a bit introverted and uncomfortable on television. He must be killed immediately.

Luskin's...unique...interpretation of Krugman's statement is not unexpected. Why do I get the impression that Krugman could have read The Iliad for an hour and Luskin would have called it a confession of his abominable sins?

Oh, that's right. Because I am right, and Donald Luskin is approaching terminal velocity in his descent toward batshit crazy.

"Was he also too busy to tell the truth about the number of columns he writes in a year? In the last twelve months he's written 93 columns, not 100."

I do not say this lightly: Jonah Goldberg is too good to be associated with an institution that publishes Luskin on a regular basis.

Think about that.

"In the last six months, the Krugman Truth Squad has uncovered dozens upon dozens of lies, errors, distortions, and misquotations within Krugman's columns, but the Princeton professor has only countered with lame self defenses on his personal website. "

Someone really should get around to letting Donald know that even conservatives are embarrassed by how thoroughly Krugman has shredded Luskin on those occasions when he actually stooped to responding to one of Don's columns. I mean, come on. After the third round of one of those slapdowns, Luskin was reduced to writing an entire column that consisted largely of creative rephrasings of "I am right and you are wrong."

"Krugman got to take his microphone off and pull the little rubbery disposable earphone out of his ear and go back to his hotel room and mutter about how terrible it is to be "stalked, uh, intellectually," and tell himself that his book will probably sell pretty well anyway, despite the conservatively biased media."

I can be accused of many things, but fantasizing about my enemies' preoccupation with me is not one of them.

And Krugman whispers about Luskin late at night alone in his room? Am I the only one who detects erotic undertones here?

Maybe Krugman should just let Luskin fuck him and get it over with.

I close with a comment I left at someone's site a few weeks ago that seems particularly appropriate today:

Luskin becomes more and more unhinged every time I read him - which, admittedly, is not particularly often...just enough to track his downword spiral toward raving madness and adjust my bet with myself over the exact date on which he will accuse Krugman of secretly being John Hinckley. Currently, I'm going with September 17th, 2004, when election mania hits a fevered pitch and poor Donald's psyche cracks like an egg.

I think it is time to adjust my bet once again.

Announcement

Never in a thousand years will I forgive John Edwards if the Democrats wind up with 49 or 50 Senate seats after the 2004 election.

Memos From The You've-Got-To-Be-Fucking-Kidding-Me Dept.

Colorado Republicans, at the behest of famous Detached Observer With No Agenda At All David Horowitz, are looking into ways to tie state funding for public universities to the hiring of more conservatives at said universities. Keep in mind that this means "conservatives as defined by David Horowitz."

For various reasons, this will never happen, but just the fact that politicians are willing to talk to reporters about this kind of thing is absolutely apeshit crazy.

I'm trying to decide whether or not I am depressed about the fact that the most important message that needs to be presented to the American people is "These People Must Be Stopped."

"What Do You Think Of Your Team's Execution?"

Disaster and doom and very bad things.

We will discuss the horror show that was the Bears-49ers game later this week, but tonight I am going to listen to Def Leppard and Motley Crue, mouse up my hair, and pretend that it is 1985 ("Man...Jim McMahan is so awesome!"). Otherwise, I would cry myself to sleep.

Q: Which would be more effective at stopping the pass rush, the Bears' offensive line, or a large block of cheese?

A: Who cares? They both should be fed to the rats.

It Wouldn't Be A True Presidential Speech...

If the illustrious InstaPundit didn't take the opportunity to lie about people he dislikes:

"It was an outright challenge to the neo-McGovernites, and even more of a challenge to those wafflers (and several are beginning to appear) among the Democratic presidential candidates, specifically mentioning Somalia and Beirut (bipartisan bugout history there), and noting that lessening our commitment would be a disaster, and play into the terrorists' hands."

The McGovern thing is cute - especially since the only candidate even vaguely supporting immediate withdrawal of all our forces from Iraq is Kucinich (unless, of course, Glenn has taken Chris Suellentrop's unusually dunderheaded misreading of Dean's statements at the Democratic debates to heart).

We're in Iraq for the long haul, and all of the serious contenders for the Democratic nomination acknowledge that; indeed, I do believe that one of the primary premises of even the anti-war crowd was that if we invaded Iraq, we would be obligated to rebuild it at the cost of several years and hundreds of billions of our dollars.

To snidely claim otherwise is a "lie," in the same way that Glenn Reynolds is "the best argument for storing nuclear waste in Knoxville."

Balls

Bush certainly has them, yes indeed.

Some of the more reasonable sorts have been wondering just how Bush would manage to ask for international help in Iraq without looking like the kid who trips you at recess but then tries to talk you out of your twinkie at lunch.

The President has kindly answered that question for us: by demanding it.

"I recognize that not all of our friends agreed with our decision to enforce the Security Council resolutions and remove Saddam Hussein from power. Yet we cannot let past differences interfere with present duties. Terrorists in Iraq have attacked representatives of the civilized world, and opposing them must be the cause of the civilized world. Members of the United Nations now have an opportunity -- and the responsibility -- to assume a broader role in assuring that Iraq becomes a free and democratic nation. "

Damn.

"Hey, Dave, I think I smell gas coming from that house."

"Really? I don't."

"Yeah, definitely gas. We need to go in there."

"Dude, that's somebody's house. We can't just break in there. We should call the cops."

"Dave, you pussy! I'm going in! You can screw yourself."

"Okay."

[Smash! Crash! Shatter-tinkle-CRUNCH!]

"Hey, Roger, you okay in there? I'm still not smelling any gas."

"Screw you! It's in here! I'll find it!"

"Okay."

[Time passes. Flames shoot out of front window.]

"Um...Roger? Is that flame from the gas?"

"No. That...um...that was me. Hey! Listen. You have to come in here and help me put this fire out."

"What? Why?"

"It's your duty. I know we had some disagreements in the past, but you must now acknowledge your responsibility for what has happened here, and you must now help in the long and dangerous process of putting out this fire that I started while doing something which you advised me not to do."

"Um...have you found gas in there yet?"

"I'll get back to you on that one."


Balls.

Whither Art Thou?

Mr. Davies?

Does anyone know where the hell D² has been for the last month? His last post was August 6th. He hasn't even posted at Crooked Timber since August 5th.

I will be very upset with him if he is dead or something.

(Oh, the irony of my being annoyed at someone for having an erratic posting schedule...)

Andrew Sullivan - Finally Seeing The Light?

"THE AIRCRAFT CARRIER LANDING: Can we all now agree that that was the dumbest political gesture of the last two years?"

Wait a minute...scroll down a few paragraphs...

"SONTAG AWARD NOMINEE: [blah blah blah]"

Nope. Still a prick.

Friendly Reminder (best post ever)

I just think that it's good to be reminded from time to time about things one may have forgotten.

Like, say, the borderline-subliminal "Rats" ad that the RNC ran during the 2000 campaign. You know, the one that flashed the word "rats" when talking about Al Gore?

"[Ad designer Alex] Castellanos said he flashed the word -- part of "bureaucrats" -- so it would look more visually interesting, and that it was just a coincidence that the letters appearing first spelled out 'rats.'"

It's not that I don't believe Castellanos (liar), it's just that it seems that in a Presidential election (stolen), one should be a bit more careful about the image one projects (bumbling idiot). After all, what does it say about your potential Presidency (disaster) if it looks to people like you're trying to manipulate them (state of the union)? That's just no damn good (dick cheney). Granted, this was several years ago (surpluses), but I don't see any evidence (WMDs) that this administration has chosen to take the moral high road (kissinger) since it came into office. Bush should do what's right (go back to texas) and actually start living up to the "straight-shooter" image that so many people (inbreds) seem to have of him.

The Mighty Banality Man

One of the things I've noticed when arguing with conservatives is that more than a few of them seem to be angry at George Bush for not being conservative enough.

This kind of talk always makes me want to take a backhoe to the street leading up to these peoples' houses and scream "Get the Invisible Hand to fix it, fucker!" And then mail their diaries to John Ashcroft. And then replace their condoms with pocket Bibles. And then send their paychecks to Steve Forbes (assuming they make less than $100,000).

Regardless, one argument for Bush's "centrism" (or liberalism, if you're a complete idiot) that I have seen repeatedly: the massive spending increases that have taken place on his watch.

"How can you guys hate him so much? He's spending, spending, spending away, just like a liberal!"

I'd like to take this opportunity to issue a blanket rebuttal to this, and any of the hundred variations of it which I have seen (and for the record, I cannot believe that this needs saying): This may surprise some of my conservative friends, but liberals don't actually like big budget expenditures for big budget expenditures' sake. The only good things about big budget expenditures are the benefits that come from the programs that they fund. And so, if Bush is spending lots and lots of money on things we don't like, then of course we aren't going to like him. In fact, we're going to like him even less for not only doing things we don't like, but for putting our country in dire financial straits by so doing.

Seriously, it's like being mystified because Jerry Falwell doesn't enthusiastically approve of your donations to an Episcopalian gay rights group. "But Jerry, don't you like it when people donate to religious organizations?"

I hope that clears things up. I know it gets too confusing to use actual "thinking" when valiantly battling us evil Statists. Godspeed.

Pre-emptive Response to the Obvious Smartass Remark About The Title of This Post: You're right, that does perfectly describe me! Don't I feel stupid! Ha ha!

It's Not Like We Didn't Know...

That the InstaPundit would be unable to resist the temptation to make a UN-bashing joke while reporting the bombing of the UN headquaters in Baghdad that has killed at least 17 people:

"Maybe the bomb was planted by environmentalists, angry at the U.N.'s complicity in ecological devastation under Saddam"

Fuck Glenn Reynolds and the blog he rode in on.

A Definitive Post On Political Ideology

MY IDEOLOGY: For those of you who care to know, I'm a Godtoldme-ist. It means exactly what it says.

-God told me that Fox News is biased.

-God told me that people who scoff at the charges of human rights organizations like Amnesty International but then self-righteously wag their fingers at those who opposed the war when justifying the invasion of Iraq based on Saddam's murderous record are not "humanitarians", they are "crass opportunists who should be ashamed of themselves."

-God told me that a lot of Republicans are arrogant pricks.

-God told me that Bush is a very, very bad President.

-God told me that so much opinion on the Right is based more on Clinton hatin' than on intelligence.

Should give you an idea of what a "Godtoldme-ist" is.

Oh, and God told me that Michael Demmons is a dipshit.

Taking Advantage

I'm watching Gov. Bill Richardson on Larry King Live right now, talking about all things blackout.

Here's the funny thing: he seems to be stressing rather forcefully the need for the President to propose a massive energy bill, and is saying that it is absolutely critical for Congress to pass such a bill.

I will refrain, for the moment, from pointing out the sudden flood of drool issuing forth from the President's major financial backers at the prospect of massive national support for a comprehensive energy bill drafted by the current administration.

Instead, let us focus on the major soundbites Gov. Richardson has been desperately attempting to imprint on my mind. Our infrastructure is massively out of date. We're barely wheezing by. We need to massively overhaul our infrastructure. We have a woeful lack of capacity. We need to increase energy production and build all kinds of new modern production facilities. We need to fight the local utilities tooth and nail in favor of...well, that part isn't quite clear.

These seem reasonable enough. But something about his manner piqued my curiosity. He seemed far too eager to convince me to demand that Congress immediately pass massive legislation with huge potential ramifications (and massive payouts to various players in the energy business), the necessary public discussion of which could not possibly take place in any but the most superficial form were Congress to actually pass it as quickly as he seems to want.

So I decided to take a slightly closer look at Mr. Richardson.

Courtesy of Disinfopedia.org, I see that the Governor has some very interesting friends. When he ran for Governor of New Mexico, he resigned from a number of corporate boards, among them American Energy Group, Inc., Energy Investors Fund Group, Diamond Offshore, Valero Energy Group, TerraSolar (a solar power company), and Venoco (an oil and gas company).

Hmm. Interesting. But those were probably just honorary positions. No big deal.

So let's look at sources of income over $5,000 (the disclosure of which was required by New Mexico state law): Terra Solar, Intersate Natural Gas Association (trade association of the natural gas pipeline industry), EIF Management (Energy Investment Fund), Diamond Offshore Drilling Inc., and Valero Energy Corp. [among others]

Fucking shameless.

Power Outage

So far, things seem to be going as well as can be expected given the situation. This is good.

But I'm curious. Every news report seems to stress the fact that it was not the result of a terrorist attack. Well, fair enough. I'll admit that that was the first thing I thought of, and it's good that they are trying to reassure the public.

When we think of a terrorist attack on a power plant or a power grid, we think "bomb." As in, somebody bombed a key chokepoint in the grid.

But here's my question: Am I the only one whose first thought was "computer attack"?

Here's why I think that a computer attack (not necessarily terrorist-related) is not completely outside the realm of possibility:

- 21 seperate power stations went down in a three minute period. That just seems strange to me. I know that everyone's talking about cascade reactions from an overload on the Mohawk grid, but that seems somewhat implausible. I mean, these places have safeguards to protect against this sort of thing. Right?

- Power demand could not have been at record levels- it's summer, and it's hot, but there aren't any major heatwaves anywhere. The temperature in New York today was in the low 90s; hot, yes. Unusual, no.

- No one has been able to point to a specific place and say "There! This is the power station/node/ relay station that started it all." I'm not saying that those in charge should already know the exact cause, but doesn't it seem unlikely that they don't at the very least know where the problem occurred?

Anyway, I don't claim to have any special knowledge here...in fact, it's because of my lack of knowledge that I'm asking questions.

As the internet grew in prominence during the late 90's, talk of securing our "electronic frontiers" grew more and more frequent; after 9/11, we heard about it a bit more, but the possibility of an electronic attack was largely glossed over in the media in favor of coverage of things that seemed more personally threatening (nukes, anthrax, dirty bombs, etc). But one of the primary focuses of any discussion about digital terrorism was the threat it posed to our power networks.

So why isn't anyone on any of the major networks at least raising the possibility, especially given the lack of any real information coming out of the government as to what actually caused this?

Edit: For the record, I'm not saying that I think that it is definitely an electronic attack of some sort (again, terrorist or no). I don't even know if it's at all likely. I'm just wondering why I haven't heard anyone even ask about the possibility, when this is a scenario that has been put forward before when discussing America's electronic vulnerabilities.

The End Of The Line

After reading a certain Freeper thread, I got into a bit of a groove. The need to mock foolish people was like a primal urge...I just had to keep coming back to the computer, interrupting a damn fine viewing of "Field of Dreams." I'm better now. To fully appreciate the last two hour's worth of posting, I suggest you start here and scroll up. Chronological order and all.

Jesus, Freepers suck.

Drunken Messages On God's Answering Machine

Sometimes it's best to just let it ring...

"I will literally be on my knees praying tonight that people learn about this neo-socialist being appointed by the Bloomberg Candidate."

Doesn't Iran Have Enough Weapons?

Freeper advice for handling life's little problems:

"WWRD (What Would Reagan Do)"

"Round" Two: "Fight"!

Freepers v. History:

"The U.S.S.R. had plenty of "Rich" guys that endorsed the "system", they were protected."

The Horror

"People should know that most of [Buffett's] wealth doesn't come from shrewd investing, but cleverly avoiding taxes and as I said, those insider connections into government and business."

Irony slashes Freepers' tires on the way out of the stadium.

Round One: Fight!

Freepers v. History:

"I would compare Buffett to the industrialists of WWII Germany...getting rich by means of capitalism, but utterly owned by the socialists and their ideology."

Instant Campaign Commercial

"Maybe I could get behind Arnold. I love his movies, and one never knows what can happen once someone gets in office."

Shit! They're Breeding!

"Okay. I hereby revoke any positive statement made regarding Ahnold. Warren Buffett is a socialist. WTF is going through that guy's head?" [emphasis mine]

If God Loved Me, He Would Grant This Man's Wish

"At least its not Jimmy Buffett, although that would be cool, we could all get drunk, listen to music and forget about it." [emphasis mine]

(Help me, I can't stop...)

Game, Set, Match

"Wonder how [Buffett] weathered the Enron debacle."

Irony leaps over net, smashes Freepers with racket, runs into stands to wild cheers of adoring crowd, walks off with supermodel on each arm.

Goddamn Hippies!

"This could be about energy..."

Irony 2, Freepers 0.

Thank God Arnold Can't Be President!

"The other consideration is that he will use Buffett's extensive knowledge of the electric ultility industry (and monopoly in the West) to try to turn around California's energy mess. I sure hope this isn't going to lead to firesales whereby [Berkshire Hathaway] gets first dibs..."

Irony 1, Freepers 0.

Like A Burning Bush, But With Commercials

God confirms the Freepers' fears:

"This is also being reported on Fox. I don't think it is a rumor."

Free Blow For All!

Sayeth the Freepers:

"Milton Freidman, Larry Kudlow and other supply siders know how to fix California. It is no big secret what to do." [bold mine]

Warren Buffet + Freepers = Fun

"Warren Buffett is the greatest single enemy of the unborn in the world today."

So, what, did Satan get demoted?

(Couldn't help it...I could blog for a month with this material. Priceless, I tell you, priceless!)

Embarrassingly Easy

Yeah, I know, making fun of Freepers is like shooting fish on the sidewalk, but I'm afraid I may suffer an aneurysm if I do nothing about this response to the news that Warren Buffet has signed on to be Arnold's economic advisor in his attempt to become California's top dog:

"Buffett is a frickin' socialist."

Go ahead. Read it again.

No, you aren't hallucinating.

The man who has arguably benefited more than anyone else in history from the free market is a socialist.

Seriously, though, I wonder how liquored up I would have to be to say something as mindbogglingly stupid as that. I think my liver would just leap out of my abdomen and run away first.

(link to this wonderful thread via Atrios)

Fair And Balanced

VeryVeryHappy: Fair and Balanced in the presentation of the fact that Fox News sucks and is making your children dumb and that Fox News is teaching your children that it is okay to steal, as long as you do not get caught.

If The Almighty Ever Decides To Grant Me All Of His Powers, I Shall Drop A Big Rock On Brett Favre

~In which we discover The Mighty Reason Man's hometown~

As some of you may have noticed, I have been rather cagey here on VVH about disclosing where it is, exactly, that I'm from. A handful of alert readers have probably figured it out based upon a few references here and there, but for the most part, my origin -- like Batman's -- is shrouded in mystery.

The reason behind my reluctance to disclose this information is somewhat unclear, even to me. It just seems like bad policy to give out all sorts of random information about yourself online. Most of us, I think, would be surprised by how much information can be pieced together about any given person just by performing a few google searches - and as any William Gibson/Bruce Sterling reader knows, there are all sorts of nefarious ends towards which even the most innocuous-seeming digital information can be used.

If that sounds excessively paranoid, don't worry; my varied and murky reasons for geographical anonymity had more to do with allowing everyone to think that I'm from their own state -- and therefore somewhat more interesting than some guy half a continent away -- than with fears of having my dog killed by vengeful Republicans.

But with the commencement of the NFL preseason, I feel it is both necessary and proper to inform anyone who happens across VeryVeryHappy that they are going to get their asses stomped by My Boys this year- and that certainly wouldn't be any fun if no one knew who My Boys are.

And so, at the risk of exposing myself to the predations of real-world versions of the Dixie Flatline, I humbly announce that I have lived in and around Chicago my entire life, and Da Bears march with God at their side.

So, for all you non-Bears fans (especially you NFC types), why is it that every time you consult your Ouiji board lately, it keeps spelling out "F-E-A-R-T-H-E-U-R-S-I-N-E"?

I'll tell you why. Simple math:

1. Brian Urlacher + healthy Ted Washington + healthy Keith Traylor = No Run For You.

2. Rookie of the Year + horrendous sophomore slump = a pissed off Anthony Thomas willing to take his anger out on your defense (I'm looking at you, Green Bay - especially now that there's going to be a Gilbert Brown-sized hole in your front line)

3. Bears - shitty third-rate QBs + Kordell Stewart = an offense with both running and passing (which, incidentally, won't be nearly as easy to crowd in on given Kordell's running ability)

4. Bears - 2 hour drive to Champaign for home games + renovated Soldier Field = Hometown Karma (applause to Mayor Daley for refusing to allow those bastard McCaskeys to sell the naming rights to Soldier Field; "Charles Schwab Stadium" or some such bullshit would most assuredly have caused God to rain the Holy Cleansing Fire down upon the Windy City, and everyone in the suburbs would be turned into a pillar of salt)

5. Michael Haynes + Richard Dent as Assistant Defensive Line Coach = an indentation in the turf the size of your quarterback's ass

6. McQuarters/Azumah/Brown + Tillman = a secondary with a bit of depth, finally.

7. Da Bears = Great

8. The rest of the league = Losers


Any questions?

Sidenote: Keep in mind that just because you know my hometown and most of my associated sports loyalties, doesn't mean you know in which state I currently reside...

Ho ho.

Back, To A Degree

So, I turn on my computer for the first time in a week to discover that Tom Tomorrow linked to VeryVeryHappy - adding me to his links page^*, no less.

And here I am, in the middle of one of my much-reviled undeclared hiatuses with a handful of shoddy, mostly irrelevant posts at the top of my page. How embarrassing.

My explanation for being away is simple: overtime. It's a pain in the ass, but time and a half pays for a lot of beer. In the matter of Beer v. Blog, Beer wins every time, regardless of the ideological makeup of the court. I trust everyone understands and accepts my apology.

That being said, I'm seriously considering taking a (gasp) declared hiatus of anywhere between two weeks and a month. Not just yet, as I have a few things I'd still like to post about this week (I also have to perform some much-needed maintenance on the site itself - I like all my links to work, dammit), but soon. When it happens, I'll say so, and set a tentative date for my return. It just seems like the polite thing to do.

So. I'm still alive, I still know my Blogger password, and I still think that Republicans are Bad.

Just so everyone is aware.


* Good Lord, what a fantastic group of bloggers in which to be included for this round of inductions into Tom's links section. If VeryVeryHappy ever gains even a small fraction of the respectability of some of those sites, it will have exceeded by several orders of magnitude anything I expected when I started it. Thanks, Tom.

Good Thing I Can Run Fast And My Bookie Is Fat

After accidentally clicking on one of my archive links, I came across an old post from April in which I jokingly started a pool on how long it would take for 40% of the population to believe that most of the 9/11 hijackers were Syrian.

Apparently, I just lost a few days ago: "Come on, July 13-19! Daddy needs a new pair of shoes. "

JoeF is out; so is JimMA. doesn't matter loses a side bet, and catalexis has a month to go (although, given that Iraq has proven to be a bit more of a chore than the administration predicted, I don't think this one's going to pay off for him [her?]).

How disappointing. I was so hoping for another invasion before the weather gets too nasty to enjoy it.

Semantics For Fruitcakes

After reading CalPundit's post about the ridiculous GOP allegation (that I have seen bandied about a bit on a few Rightie blogs, but now made official by Rep. Mark "I'm not Gay Because While Republicans Have Nothing Against Gays My Constituents Would Throw Me Out On My Ass If I Was" Foley) that Pete Stark's use of the terms "fruitcake" and "cocksucker" in the House dustup the other day was homophobic^*, I started wondering about the term "bumfuckery", which has been a favorite of mine recently (in real life). As in:

Bumfuckery - n. 1. craziness, lunacy 2. Foolish, stupid. usage: This situation is utter bumfuckery.

As this isn't a term one would use in reference to a specific person, context usually renders a homophobic connection tenuous at best, and I know that an anti-gay connotation is not my intent, I'm inclined to think that it's fine - but I'm biased, as I've grown somewhat attached to the word recently, and plan on remaining so until I get a new favorite curse word.

Thoughts, anyone?

* A charge that is, of course, ridiculous. Any male over the age of sixteen knows that "cocksucker" is merely a synonym for asshole; it's roughly equivelent to "motherfucker", only slightly more extreme given "motherfucker"'s overuse. "Fruitcake", in ye olde days, was a common synonym for "nutcase." Given modern connotations of the word "fruit", a (very weak) case could be made that fruitcake is a homophobic slur now (although, given this dustup, I have a feeling it's going to be making a grand re-entrance into bloggers' lexicon - in fact, it already has, and it is now most definitely a term for "stupid"), one can hardly blame an old man for the shift in (possible) connotation of an innocuous word.

Also, given the number of times the word "cocksucker" has now been used in the comments section of that post, CalPundit should expect a bit of an increase in traffic over the next few days. Someone should start a contest to guess the first search term involving "cocksucker" that some search engine is going to direct his way. My money is on "Mickey Kaus is a cocksucker."

Bad Ideas, And The Mocking Of Those In Favor Of Them

This is the most fun I've had all week. About as satisfying as beating up a ten year old, and somewhat juvenile, I suppose, but amusing as hell nonetheless.

(A slight explanation, since I refuse to link to this man's actual blog because I'd feel dirty: This is the comments section of a post in which he argues that we should detonate a nuclear bomb on the moon as a warning to terrorists. No, I'm not joking. And neither, judging by his rather irate responses, is he. )


Update: There are some people that it is simply best to let be; while it may initially be fun to provoke them so as to laugh at their inevitably ludicrous responses, such amusement -- for me at least -- only lasts so long before it fades to disgust, then to contempt, then to pity.

In retrospect, I find my whole conversation with this man distasteful in the extreme.

I like arguing with people who think differently than I do. It's fun and, usually, educational - to one degree or another. Even when such an argument turns vicious, I'm more than happy to go round after round.

But when someone unabashedly acts in a manner that most people find repulsively juvenile, it is impossible to continue to engage them and not look foolish yourself.

It's somewhat like arguing with a young child: nothing you say makes the slightest bit of difference, their responses do not change, they unselfconciously hurl insults that you would demean yourself to return or even acknowledge, and you look bad for simply participating in the first place.

I decided to end my initially amusing game of tweak-the-lunatic when he posted a response that, were it not for the photo of himself he has displayed on his site, I would not credit to someone older than 12 - and that is likely an insult to most twelve year olds. As cliche as it is to call childish someone who disagrees with you...well, read it if you like. All I could do was laugh at the ridiculousness of it- and then I grew embarrassed, the way one feels embarrassed for someone who does something humiliating but doesn't seem to have the sense to realize it.

But fuck it. I can't help feeling sorry for someone who's so unhappy that such pettiness makes him think himself anything but laughable to the vast majority of people - but that doesn't mean I have to talk to or about him again.

Anyway, the overall point is, I apologize for this post - as I've said, I initially thought it was quite funny to see the outlandish responses to a bit of firm disagreement and thinly-veiled contempt, but eventually it simply became disagreeable.

Live and learn, I guess. That applies to the blogosphere as well as anything else, it seems.

Because I Have Been Criminally Remiss

...in not mentioning that you should, for the love of God, go buy The Great Big Book of Tomorrow.

No. Seriously. If you are reading my site right now, go buy it.

And while you're at it, send a note to The Daily Show and politely request that they have Tom Tomorrow (or Dan Perkins, if you want to get technical about it), on the show sometime soon - tell them that it's a perfect time to bring him on, as his new book was just released.

It would probably also be helpful to mention that he won the Robert F. Kennedy Journalism Award for cartooning this year. For the second time (the first time was in 1998).

The email address is:

thedailyshow@comedycentral.com

The real mail address is:

The Daily Show
513 West 54th Street
New York, New York, 10019

Just doing my part. Mucho gusto, Tom.

More Libertarian Fun

This isn't relative to anything that's new, but since I'm thinking about libertarians today...

Any libertarian who has ever groused about the "tyranny of the majority" (you know, the whole being against "six people making five people do exactly as they wish" thing), and who also approves of the Republican attempts to remove the filibuster as a parliamentary tool in the Senate needs to immediately admit that they are merely flacking for the GOP, and then never speak in public ever again. This includes the internet.

Property Rights

Tangling with libertarians is occasionally amusing, but usually annoying and frequently infuriating.

However, like the urge to constantly tongue a sore tooth, the urge to listen to them and occasionally argue with them is a powerful instinct of mine, for reasons that are quite beyond my ability to explain.

And so, in response to a minor side-discussion in the comments section for a D²-inspired post over at DeLong's site about whether property is a natural right (as in, something that you have unless it is taken away from you, such as life or free speech) or something granted to you by the government, I sat back and thought for a few minutes, and came up with my own tentative answer.

It seems that the entire concept of "property" cannot exist without government, because without some sort of official body that has the ability to recognize and help enforce your claim to a certain plot of land, property is nothing more than that bit of land that you are physically capable of preventing others from trespassing upon, which would render any claim to a certain piece of land dependent upon your presence within or in close proximity to that piece of land. "Ownership" of land, in that case, would be impossible; the nearest equivelent would be temporary control of a piece of land, a control that would be invalidated whenever you left that land without leaving behind someone to protect it in your absence.

I'm trying to decide how much this can be extended beyond land ownership to ownership of other things (food, tools, donkeys, etc.). As I now need to immediately run an errand, I will have to discuss that a bit later.

For My (Three) Right-Wing Readers...

Why America is so great:

Because we're not France! HA HA HA!

Suck it, Froggies. Have fun waiting ten days for your Independence Day, losers.

See? It's funny because France sucks.

Turnabout, Fair Play, and Watching Their Asses

What a wonderful thing to read about on the Fourth of July...and how appropriate.

From Wired:

"Researchers at the MIT Media Lab unveiled the Government Information Awareness, or GIA, website Friday. Using applications developed at the Media Lab, GIA collects and collates information about government programs, plans and politicians from the general public and numerous online sources. Currently the database contains information on more than 3,000 public figures.
The premise of GIA is that if the government has a right to know personal details about citizens, then citizens have a right to similar information about the government."

Can I get a "Hell yeah!"?

(via Slashdot)

Very Very Geek

After walking out of the video store a few minutes ago, I realized that I had just rented a Star Wars movie and a Star Trek movie while wearing an old drama club t-shirt.

At least I didn't have my bagpipe CD blaring out of my car, as I tend to do from time to time.

Terminator 3

~Spoiler Free, assuming you've seen the trailor and Terminator 2~

There are a lot of movies that are generally good but are ruined by their endings.

Terminator 3 is not one of these. It is, in fact, the exact opposite- a generally mediocre film (albeit with superb, cutting edge special effects) which is made great by its ending.

I was very, very afraid when I went to go see this movie. I didn't see how it could possibly live up to Terminator 2, which I consider to be a true action/scifi masterpiece.

Terminator 2 was as damn near perfect as an action movie can get. Great plot, great dialogue, great characters, great acting (an unfeeling robot is, after all, the ideal role for Arnold), great action sequences, and great special effects, all rolled together with a damn good orchestral soundtrack and an ending that conveys hope in the face of fear that still makes my spine tingle.

Why would someone fuck with that and make a third installment that couldn't possibly live up to its predecessor?

My fear grew much worse when I realized, during the credits, that James Cameron -- writer and director of the original Terminator and writer, director, and producer of T2-- apparently had no role whatsoever in T3. This was a Bad Sign.

Fortunately, my fear was unwarranted, and this is definitely a movie I would recommend to people who like this sort of thing (although not the squeemish, due to one particularly memorable scene).

As today is the first day of general release for the film, I will include no spoilers, but rather a rundown of the important aspects of the movie:

Overall plot - Feels somewhat stale- "Oh no, SkyNet has sent an evil robot into the past to eliminate John Conner! Again! And the Resistance was able to send back a lone protector to defend him! Again!" Seriously, if I'm ever in charge of sending an assembly-line robot back in time to defend the leader of my people from a super-robot that's trying to kill him, I'm sending back a hundred Arnolds, so they can all gang up on the super robot, straight up Agent Smith style.

Also, the film is not divided up into several acts; you know, lulls in the tension so everyone can get up to speed on what's going on, and rest up into between battles. Consequently, the movie seems like it moves along unrealistically quickly. "Oh, we have to go here? Okay. Oh, we have to go there? Okay. Oh, we have to go there? Okay."

The ending, however, as I've said, makes up for it, in spades. It was not what I expected, at all.

Characters/Acting- First thing's first. I want to sleep with the lady Terminator. She can kill me afterwards, I'm cool with that. But man, whoever that girl is, she is extremely hot.

But that doesn't mean she made a great Terminator. Oh, she was all right, but I just couldn't shake the feeling that she was an actress trying really hard to act cold and tough. As far as scary goes, she doesn't hold a candle to the T-1000 from T2 which, as played by Robert Patrick, was frightening because of how human he acted when he needed to, and how smoothly that transitioned to robotic indifference when the need for pretenses was over.

The kid who played John Conner annoyed me for most of the movie. It was only at the very end that he started doing a decent job. However, I don't think the actor can really be blamed- he wasn't working with a really great script.

Claire Danes: she's still attractive, she's still a good actress, and she makes some truly bad lines come off not nearly as poorly as they could have. Props to her.

And, of course, Arnold: the more human they try to make his character, the worse he does. Fortunately, there wasn't much emotional conflict for him in this movie, and when there was, it only lasted for a minute or two.

Dialogue - The making and the breaking of all movies. No one notices average dialogue, good dialogue cannot usually salvage a bad movie, and bad dialogue makes a good movie excruciating.

With that in mind, we here at VVH judge the dialogue to be: Average, with a few bad lines to spice things up. The references to the first two movies were a nice try, but fell flat and ended up temporarily "breaking the spell," which is a bad thing.

Special effects - Damn.

The effects definitely did not disappoint. While none of them had the jaw drop factor of the Hundred Agent Smiths scene in Matrix Reloaded, this movie finally perfected several common movie effects that, until now, have always looked fake. no matter what movie they were in.

For instance, when a rocket-propelled grnade hits the Terminatrix, it really looks like it hits her, as opposed to an editing room parlor trick. And when she and Arnold start throwing each other around, it has a speed and violence that look damn convincing. For the first time, when Arnold tossed her through a large tombstone, it didn't look like the tombstone was a breakaway prop- it had a look and feel that really made you believe that a pair of thousand pound robots were tossing each other through solid rock.

This is one of the key areas of computer generated effects, and one that, until now, hasn't been particularly satisfying: the interaction between live actors and CGI objects. We are coming damn close to the point at which it is impossible to tell at which point in a particular shot the actual actor and the prop are replaced by computer generated images that then do whatever it is that happens, and then when they switch back to the actual actor and the prop.

So. The bottom line is, go see this movie. It's worth it.

Apocalypse

I have blogrolled a Republican.

As in, someone who reads National Review Online and supports George Bush. Without laughing.

Go say hello to Max, who has been a VeryVeryHappy honored correspondent since mid-February, when I introduced myself to him by trashing one of his posts and he responded with class and good humor.

His is a smart Rightie college blog, and while he is of course Wrong About Nearly Everything, I don't hold it against him, and neither should you. Besides, I suspect he would say the same thing about me.

It seems to me that, in the interests of true bipartisanship, I should approvingly link to his Ann Coulter post. He says nice things about Jonah Goldberg, but the thrashing he gives to Ann more than makes up for it.

So. Party on.

Explanation

For those of you curious as to why my contribution to Appropriate Michael Savage's Name For Your Own Purposes Day is broken up into two posts, the explanation is simple: Blogger frickin' sucks. For whatever reason, it won't allow me to publish the whole thing as one post (this after not allowing me access to my own damn blog all day yesterday while they fiddled around with their user interface).

Hence, two posts. Sorry for any inconvenience.

Riding In Cars With Weiners, Part 1 of 2

~A Real^* Conversation With Michael Savage~

(Dedicated to Neal)

I’m still not entirely clear about the circumstances that led to my driving through the middle of Chicago in a rented convertible with Michael Savage riding shotgun.

I was driving through Wrigleyville on my way to the Cubby Bear to meet some friends. As I sat at the light at Addison and Clark, I started to hear what sounded like an angry mob.

Assuming that a Cubs game was going on, I ignored the sound and casually turned my head to get a better look at the girl in the car next to me and a little behind. To my surprise, I saw that the sounds of an angry mob were in fact emanating from an actual angry mob that was making its way up Clark, chasing what looked like Dom DeLuise if Dom had been a KGB agent out of a noir spy thriller.

I was weighing the risks versus the rewards of blowing the red light to get out of the way when the round black-clad gentleman leapt into my backseat from behind, cannonball style. He shoved his face between the two front seats and said, “Rat stinking pinko verminist journalists!”

“Is that who those people are?” I asked.

Instead of responding, he heaved himself up and into the passenger seat, his legs dangling out the side of the car.

As he tried to right himself, he frantically motioned for me to drive. I was about to lean over, open the door, and shove him out when a hardcover book sailed right past my head and cracked the rearview mirror.

“Dammit! This is a rental! You’re paying for that, jackass!” I screamed at the mob. Then I saw the cover of the book, and I understood.

“You’re Michael Savage!” I accused my new passenger, who had managed to pull one leg into the car while at the same time wedging his head under the ashtray.

“I am a visionary,” he grunted, grabbing his headrest to pull himself up.

I started to kick him in the ribs, trying to force him out.

“Get out of my car! Crazy people are not welcome here!”

Since I was sitting down, I wasn’t getting much leverage, so he managed to grab my leg and hold on.

I started to panic, because the mob was closing in. I repeatedly tried to pull my leg back to hit the gas, but his fear gave him strength, and he desperately clung to the leg with all fours, resembling nothing so much as a massive black-coated mutant Chihuahua in heat.

When I woke up that morning, I hadn’t planned on having my leg humped by Michael Savage while a kill-crazy mob howled for his blood, but sometimes life gives you little surprises like that.

After careful consideration, I decided that I really didn’t want my friends and family to open up the papers the next day to find the headline “Young Man Performs Deviant Act With Right Wing Radio Host In Public, Torn Limb From Limb By Righteous Citizens” with my driver’s license photo next to it. That’s a bad way to go out.

So I hit the gas with my left foot, and away we went.

After much swerving and avoiding of pedestrians, we were out of sight and far away from the mob. I pulled over.

“Get off of my leg.”

His only response was a hog-like grunt and a snarled “Pinko!”

Given the circumstances, I wasn’t thrilled about having this man associate my leg with the color pink, so I grabbed the tire iron that was conveniently laying on the floor of the backseat and proceeded to pry him off of me.

Once we were both situated in our own seats with a comfortable two feet of space between us, I asked him what had started the riot in the first place.

“Damn judges side with the perverts instead of the boyscouts.”

Deciding that this was the most coherent answer I was going to get from him, I left the matter alone. I was thinking about calling the police, but with a speed that I would not have thought physically possible for him, he grabbed the tire iron from me, waved it in my face, and demanded that I start driving again. I did.

“You have to escape, huh?” I asked.

“There is no escape,” he replied, “Today in America, we live in a she-ocracy where a minority of feminist zealots rule the culture.”

“I see. So, what is it you want me to do, then?”

“Go to your nearest CD store and buy some crack music. Just put some crack music on about raping women, killing police, and burning down houses.”

“Um…I have Disco Inferno on a CD right here in the car. Is that close enough?”

He was distracted then by something we passed, so I decided to comply with his request, trying to soothe his nerves. I popped in the CD.

“Look at the bisexual clothing stores,” he sighed, “Look at the multi-colored condom stores. Look how the young mallrats rush to assume the Calvin Klein waif-on-drugs or Abercrombie & Fitch lesbo of the month club persona.” He sounded tired, like the weight of the world was on his shoulders.

“Back when America was still moral and whole, our meatballs were big, soft, and tasty. Today, thanks mainly to the Demoncats, the libs, and the Commu-Nazis who rule the courts, America’s meatballs are small, hard, and tasteless. In other words, we have replicated the Swedish meatball, which is what Socialism brings.”

I definitely did not want to be discussing balls of any sort with this man, so I tried to change the subject.

“How about that Pledge of Allegiance, huh?” I said.

Brandishing the tire iron, he muttered something about the “Ninth Jerk-it Court of Schlemials.”

Thinking of how heavy that tire iron looked, I laughed nervously, and tried to sound convincing when I said, “That’s a good one.”

“Comedy is what I sometimes do,” he shrugged. “That’s what God gave me the gift for.”

“Sure did!” I said, too loudly.

He looked at me suspiciously, then continued.

“You know, the kind of stuff you see at comedy workshops, where they talk about bodily functions – that’s not comedy. That’s just stupid vaudeville. That’s what passes for humor and comedy.” He paused. “It’s like one of those Turd World countries.”

I thought perhaps he was being ironic, so I chuckled.

Bad move. He started hitting the dashboard with the tire iron, screaming about “certified, dyed-in-the-dung liberals.”

Burn, baby burn… went the radio.

Riding In Cars With Weiners, Part 2 of 2

“Hey, man,” I yelped, “I’m not one of those crazy liberals. Those guys suck!”

“LIBERALISM,” he screamed, spittle flying, “Like a backed up toilet, offends me!”

Oh shit I thought. He’s going to kill me.

“Your Nazi liberal friends will tell you that if only the Jew would die, the world would be a better place!”
“Actually, Mike, I don’t-”

“Hitler is alive and well!” There was no stopping him. “Only he speaks Arabic and wears a headscarf! And this time, he has the American liberal media on his side. They don’t know it…Or do they?!?”

The music wasn’t helping. I turned it off, and Michael grew calm again. In a quiet voice, he told me that the liberals were everywhere.

I stopped at a red light, and he turned his head to scan the area, as though some liberals might jump out at him at any moment. After a few seconds, he nudged me, and nodded towards a group of pretty girls who were walking down the street.

“On February 14, 2002,” he began, sounding disgusted, “Secretary of State Colin Powell trotted out a line from the liberal playbook, telling an audience of teenagers on MTV to use condoms!”

The fact that Michael Savage prefers bareback is not something I wanted to know.

After whispering something that sounded like “little sluts” under his breath towards the girls, he went on.

“Women are afraid of angry men,” he said bitterly, “Particularly in this homosexualized, feminized America. An angry man frightens a woman. If a boyfriend can’t be like a girlfriend – with the exception of a male appendage,” here he grabbed himself for emphasis, “she doesn’t want him. If a boyfriend can’t be like a sister putting on nails with her, she’s offended by him.

“I can’t help but have a fantasy…”

Internally, I started screaming.

“I imagine that women like those three little swingers are sent to one of the Muslim Fundamentalist countries, where they’re taught some of the sobering, Old Testament truths about their behavior.”

He was sounding way too excited about this. I tried to put a few more inches between us.

Desperate, I tried to change the subject again.

“Man, how about those Bulls? Do they suck or what?”

He ignored me and continued gazing longingly at the girls.

Queasily, I noticed his hand hadn’t moved away from his crotch.

Dreamily, his eyes half lidded, he whispered, “You can masturbate in public.”

I froze. Nothing moved but my eyes as I searched the street for someone, anyone, who could save me.

Dear Lord, I mentally prayed, Please kill me now.

“You can rub against a sheep in public.”

Nevermind, Lord. Kill him.

Then the light turned green, and I automatically punched the gas.

“NO!” shouted Savage, the spell broken. He started slapping his own wrists and babbling about being a bad boy. He kept saying he was sorry, that he wasn’t really going to do it.

“I’m a very good writer. A very good writer!” He grabbed my shirt, pleading for me to understand, to forgive.

“My chicken is no Bill Clinton!” he whined, “My chicken is mine!”

After a few minutes of this, he got a hold of himself, and reverted back to his arrogant, worldly façade.

“Don’t get me wrong,” he chortled, “I’m all for dating, and I know how young guys always want to know how to pick up women.”

He continued on as though the last five minutes hadn’t happened.

“But with the changes in the culture, you’ll need an old fox like Michael Savage to give you some tips.”

I would rather stick my penis in the cigarette-lighter socket.

“There are a lot of little sex shops around, and I’ve poked my head into a few of them from time to time.” I nearly swerved off the road. “Remember, I’m a social commentator!” he quickly added.

Apparently, he decided to change the subject.

“My book is selling big in Nevada.”

We drove in silence for a while then. Eventually, driving south from the Loop, we came upon a rather unpleasant section of town. Unfamiliar with the area, Savage started talking about the different people he saw walking around. I kept trying to turn around, but he was having none of it.

We hit another traffic light. I looked around, and noticed that several young men wearing similarly-colored clothing were approaching the car. One of them pulled out a gun.

Savage didn’t quite seem to grasp what was going on.

“I want to see kids running around with guns going ‘B-b-b-b-bang, you’re dead’!” The young men seemed momentarily taken aback by this.

He continued, “You know, instead of putting on a dress and an earring.” Several of the young men reached up to touch their earrings, and their expressions darkened. “For ten years, kids were told to be sensitive, you know, come to school in a dress.”

At this point, I realized that I had to do something fast.

While Savage was looking the other way, I grabbed the tire iron from him, and in one smooth motion opened his door and shoved him out.

With a roar, he started yelling at everyone in sight, accusing them all of being liberals and red diaper doper babies.

I slammed the door shut, and started screaming at him, “I’m not sharing my ride with a dirty Vice cop! Damn undercover bastard! Cop! Cop cop cop!”

Like magic, everyone’s gaze focused on Savage. They did not look happy.

Finally realizing the gravity of the situation, Savage got on his knees and started shaking his folded hands at everyone.

“Back!” he screamed, “Prayer frightens the Lefties!”

Fuck this, I decided, and hit the gas, watching Savage shrink to a tiny, insignificant speck in the rearview mirror.

Just the way he should.

* Every line attributed to Savage is an actual quote taken directly from either his radio show or his ridiculously poorly-written book, The Savage Nation. Some lines may have been taken slightly out of context. Possibly.

Ann Coulter's New Book Treason

Dude, seriously, fuck it. I don't even care anymore. It's like watching a bad movie over and over again, but getting pissed off at the bad guy everytime.

"Motherfucker! Why'd he have to go and break Jean-Claude Van Damme's brother's back like that? Again?"

Heroes

[Removed because it was just too damn depressing, and we're all very happy here]

The Dean Post

Why Dean?

Well, it's still early, so I of course reserve the right to alter/modify/completely reverse any position I lay out in this post, but here are the ups and downs of it:

Guns - Dean's position on second amendment issues puts him in the strongest position a Democrat can hope to be in regarding this issue. While it would be naive to think that the NRA is going to endorse him and campaign for him, it is possible -- given Dean's stance and just a touch of luck -- that rural, single-issue gun voters won't be scared into a massive turnout on election day. The Governor is not coming for their guns, and so hopefully a good portion of them will sit this one out. While this obviously isn't going to turn Red states like Nebraska and Alabama Blue, it can help a lot in retaining big number Blues like Michigan and Illinois and gaining Reds like Ohio, all nominally industrial states with large rural populations that prevent Democratic dominance.

Gay Rights- After several months, Kevin Drum has won me over to his side in thinking that gay rights can be an effective stick with which to hit Bush. Civil Unions, which will, in this campaign at least, be strongly associated with Dean, are the perfect tool for both ensuring proper rights for ten percent of the population that has traditionally been neglected or actively oppressed, and for making the far Right look extremely bad.

Like Kevin, I say force Bush into a corner by making him either support Civil Unions, enraging his base, or oppose them and alienate the swing voters who, even if they aren't big fans of homosexuality, can at least appreciate the granting of equal rights to fellow citizens.

Like I said, framing is critical on this issue, but if it can be done right, it can be a winner.

Energy - Dean has it, and in much higher quantities than Kerry, Lieberman, and Gephardt. I'm willing to cut Kerry some slack here, as he is still recovering, to some degree, from major surgery. But, from what I've seen, even at full strength, he can't match Dean here.

In a time when Americans are looking for a strong (dare I say "bold"?) leader, perceived vitality will be key, and I just don't see anyone besides Dean and Edwards putting out enough wattage to beat Bush.

Straight Talk - The quality that made McCain the darling of the media in 2000, and one of the primary qualities that makes me favor Dean over Edwards. While Dean hasn't so far been quite as accessible to the media as McCain was, that can (and should) change. Also, this is where the conventional wisdom "Dean has chronic foot-in-mouth disease" comes in. While a lot of Democrats seem to view this as a weakness, I see it as a strength.

After all, he hasn't said anything offensive. At worst, he's been mildly insulting to his opponents, and this many months before the Primaries, nobody really cares that much. So there's really not much downside to it. On the other hand, this tendency of his is the perfect remedy to the single most harmful perception of the major Democrats: that they are phony.

A lot of reasons can be cited for Gore's loss in 2000, but I don't think there's much disagreement that the storyline of "Al Gore: Liar" was particularly devastating. As we've heard so many times before, that's why people liked Bush so much- he's a straight talkin' dude (a meticulously maintained perception).

What those of us who are paying attention now view as an inability to shut his mouth, a lot of people during the general election will view as Dean speaking his mind without artifice.

This is so critical, I cannot emphasize it enough. If the Democratic nominee is seen as fake and manufactured, he will lose. It's that simple. It's not fair, but the reality we have to face is that the Democratic nominee automatically is at a disadvantage in the "genuine" category, and Howard Dean seems to be the best equipped to deal with that.

Grass Roots - Of all the candidates, Howard Dean has so far been the most successful at developing a grassroots following, and has been most effective in using the web as a campaign tool. While this does not guarantee victory (remember that McGovern had a spectacular grassroots operation in '72), it certainly helps fill a gap that Gore had in 2000. "Gore Meetups" would have been a joke, and a very bad one at that.

The key is passion; Gore did not inspire it, Dean does. And far from being a liability, a legion of passionate Dean supporters can create a very good storyline in the media. I am firmly convinced that Dean's fortunes will increase dramatically once a critical mass of journalists see Dean pack house after house with fervent supporters. Once that becomes a storyline, it has the potential to snowball into something big.

Good Looks - This shouldn't be a factor, but because of the way the media works, it is, and Dean's only rival here is Edwards. The other contenders look old (Kerry, Lieberman, Graham) or plastic (Gephardt).

I'm not saying that the election will be decided on sex appeal, but being a good looking guy certainly can't hurt.

***

So, what about Dean's biggest perceived weakness, national security?

Again, this is a weakness that I think can be turned to his advantage, primarily by selecting Wesley Clark as his running mate (and Gary Hart for National Security Advisor, perhaps...). This way, he has the advantage of having a decorated General to fill in any perceived gaps in national security expertise, while at the same time avoiding the "opportunism" label that the GOP is already hurling at any Democrat who voted for, or otherwise supported, the Iraq war but is now demanding an accounting of the WMDs.

All of these issues are, of course, a lot more complex than I've indicated. Each one of them could, in fact, be the subject of its own post. There are also a few other reasons I like Dean that I want to look into a little more carefully before I write about them like I know what I'm talking about. For now, though, this will do.

The floor is now open for dissenting opinions.

Update: I should make clear that, of the six candidates who have even a microscopic chance of winning the nomination (Kerry, Dean, Lieberman, Edwards, Gephardt, Graham), the only ones I am actively against are Lieberman and Gephardt; Lieberman because he is too indebted to his corporate masters (whatever did end up happening with that silly little Enron investigation, eh Joe?), Gephardt because unless the sun rises at midnight and the lion lays down with the lamb, he will not beat George Bush.

Unless Graham does something really spectacular really soon -- something like making public concrete proof that Bush lied about Iraq -- he will remain the marginal candidate that he currently is, so I'm writing him off.

Also, contrary to what a previous post may have implied, I actually like John Kerry. I just don't think he can win. Right now, his public persona is way too reminiscent of Bob Dole, and unless he does something spectacular to change that, I think it's going to sink him; if not in the Primaries, than in the general election for sure.

So, for me, it's Dean or Edwards. As I've stated before, I think Edwards needs to establish some heftier credentials before he can make a serious run, so Dean it is. If Edwards has a fantastic summer, that may change.

But I guess we'll see, won't we?

Passion

I'm doing yardwork today, and so I will have to write my promised Howard Dean post later tonight. However, before I do that, I wanted to address an ugly phenomenon that I've noticed in regards to Howard Dean's detractors.

It seems like any time one enters into a discussion here in the blogosphere about Dean, you get a lot of people who accuse Dean supporters of a fanaticism that turns people off and blinds them to "reality."

I want to settle this right now, before I get written off in some people's minds as a witless Dean supporter.

I am not blindly, passionately devoted to Howard Dean. I am not blindly devoted to any candidate, nor will I be.

What I am passionate about is removing George Bush from the White House. What I am passionate about is regaining a Democratic majority in Congress. What I am passionate about is preventing the Federal Judiciary from becoming a franchise of the Federalist Society. What I am passionate about is moving the Democratic Party, not to the far Left, but away from their current quasi-Republicanism. What I am passionate about is a politics that does not cater to the whims of "dumb brutes and rich people," in Hunter Thompson's words. And what I am passionate about is returning the word "liberal" to its roots as a label worn with pride, rather than the derogatory epithet it has become.

Therefore, I will support whichever candidate I think has the best chance of either achieving these goals, or making significant progress towards them. Right now, for various reasons, I think Howard Dean is that man. That might change, and it might not. If I thought Kerry could do that, I'd support him. If I thought Lieberman could do it, I'd support him. If I thought Sharpton could do it, I'd support him. Hell, if by some strange practical joke of the gods, Jesse Helms looked to be in a position to do it, I'd support that old son of a bitch.

So, by all means, let's all have a discussion about which candidates have the best chance to achieve our goals. That's the whole damned point of the Primaries. But the lashing out and the evil rhetoric against Dean supporters for displaying passion, an absolutely critical quality that has largely disappeared from the modern Democratic Party -- and one that the Republicans, for reasons fair and foul, have in spades -- is wrong-headed and needs to stop.

Update: With the news that Strom Thurmond has died, I changed an offhand reference to him in this post. Speaking ill of the dead and all.

When Your Dad Is Running For President...

You shouldn't break the law.

NBC News has confirmed that Howard Dean's 17 year old son has been arrested...it looks like for burglary or robbery (I just caught it on MSNBC, can't find the story on the net yet).

What the fuck was this kid thinking?

Son. Of. A. Bitch.

Rick Perry has called for a special session on redistricting.

He says that "The recently completed regular session clearly demonstrates that legislators -- regardless of political party affiliation and philosophy -- can work together to address issues important to Texans."

Uh huh. That's why the Democrats had to leave the state to keep from getting screwed with their pants on.

Me and Texas are no longer friends.

We Have Money But Give Us More!

Why, exactly, is NRO soliciting contributions? Don't they realize that real conservative publications get their funding from Richard Mellon-Scaife?

Did someone piss off one of their sugar daddies, or does Jonah need a new transmission for his car, or what?

Or perhaps it's a sort of high-concept electronic word art piece. Maybe they already have plenty of money, but are saying they deserve more, at the expense of regular people who don't have as much, in which case it's a brilliant illustration of conservative tax-cut ideology.

Genius!

I bet it was Kathryn Jean's idea...

Conspiracies

I was greatly amused by the list of things people in America believe that Bob Harris currently has posted up at Tom Tomorrow's site. There are some real crazies living amongst us. But we knew that.

However, one number actually disturbed me quite a bit. According to the numbers Harris cites, only 10% of the population believes that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone.

Let's think about that for a minute. That means that 90% of us think that Oswald didn't act alone. The Warren Report, however, which was the result of the official government investigation, says he did.

9 out of ten people don't believe the government's official version of the assasination of a democratically elected President. For fuck's sake, more people believe OJ's version of Nicole's murder than believe the government's version of Kennedy's.

My question is, if so many people think the official version is wrong, why is it that anyone who talks about anyone other than Oswald being involved is automatically accused of conspiracy theorizing?

I'm not going to get into the assasination right now, because it's late and I'll just end up driving myself crazy, but make no mistake- Kennedy's assasination, coming as it did during a critical point in the balancing game that was the Cold War and arguably being a major cause of the social upheaval of the late 60's, was one of the most significant events of the 20th century, with ripple effects that will continue to be felt, at least indirectly, for a long time to come.

So if none of us believe what we are told about it, why aren't more people concerned about getting the full truth? Is it fatigue? After so many years of so many different theories, different versions of evidence, and different suspects, we all just say "Fuck it" and ignore it?

I'm just as guilty of saying "fuck it" on this subject as anyone, but doesn't that strike you as extraordinarily dangerous?

VeryVeryHappy Poetry Corner

Kevin Drum has decided to tweak D² Digest's angry post about the many flaws of haiku as an English poetry form.

As I always appreciate a good tweaking between friends, I approve.

D²'s post is a stunning example of intellectual elitism, and is also completely correct. I approve of it, too!

And so, to show my admiration, I present two politically themed poems - a haiku for Kevin, and a limmerick for D² (a form which he suggests is much more challenging):

Bright sun before rain.
Deceiving us all, we're wet.
Republicans suck.

There once was a rich man named Bush.
His election was akin to a putsch.
He now screws all the poor folk,
His reign's like a quick poke
From a sharp stick straight to the tush.

I. Am. Awesome.

Presidential Issues

Uh oh. I let slip that I am in favor of the (admittedly far-fetched) Dean/Clark ticket.

So let's take a closer look at that, eh?

First, in this post, a rundown of candidates whose names are not Howard Dean:

John Kerry- Can't win. Sorry. He very well might win the nomination, but if he does, I will be digging a very deep hole -- filled with cheap booze and old science fiction novels -- in which to spend the next four years, because George Bush will reign until 2008.

Why? For one very simple reason - John Kerry is boring and looks too damn old.

Simplistic, juvenile analysis? Yes. But it is absolutely correct.

Say what you will about Bush, the man is quite the young buck, as Presidents go, and his handlers are very careful to present him in small, easy-to-swallow bites to keep him seeming fresh, interesting, and exciting. You and I thought the carrier landing was excessive, but a good chunk of the populace loved it, and not just the die hard Republicans.

Kerry just cannot win against Bush’s vitality.

It's too bad, then, that Kerry, as the pseudo-front runner, is wrapping up a lot of the big campaign guns - particularly Rand Beers, who could potentially do a lot of damage to Bush while bolstering Democratic National Security Street Cred (DNSSC).

Hopefully, Kerry will get bounced out of the primaries and gracefully hand off all his weaponry to the nominee.

Joe Lieberman- Can't win. Same problems as Kerry, with the additional stench of loser carrying over from 2000. The only Democrat less trusted by the base is Zell Miller, and Lieberman's handling of the Enron investigation makes that distinction deserved.

John Edwards- The way I see it, Edwards is the only guy besides Dean who has a chance at beating Bush. Unfortunately, he has, up to this point, been a disappointment. As Kos has noted in the past, he has occasional brilliant moments followed by a week or so of mediocrity. This is no good.

Actually, for a young guy who's a relative newcomer to national politics, he's done pretty well. Unfortunately, all of the "next Clinton" talk has led to over inflated hopes – both on his part and the media’s -- which have in turn made his actual performance to date a failure in terms of expectations. Bad. Bad. Bad.

Another big chink in Edwards' armor is the fact that he was a trial lawyer only a few years ago. Now, you and I know that that does not necessarily make him a bad guy; in fact, given his record of going after major corporations on behalf of wronged individuals, it can be a big plus. The problem, though, is that people dislike lawyers, especially ones that sue. Yes, the perception of trial lawyers all being greedy thugs who help lazy good-for-nothings get rich with frivolous lawsuits is manufactured by the tort "reform" crowd, but that doesn't make it go away. Basically, in order for Edwards' previous career to be a factor in his favor, he needs to continue to "fight for the little guy" in the Senate for a few more years, so that journalists and other storyline-makers can draw a parralel between his two careers, with fighting people who take advantage of others as an overarching theme. Otherwise, the GOP can just point to him and say “trial lawyer,” and the jig is up; go home, no White House for you.

I like John Edwards. I think that, given a bit more experience and a more extensive Senate record, he could be a real contender. In fact, I'm looking at him a little like Gary Hart in '84- a young guy with good ideas and charisma who just needs a few more years of experience and a higher national profile (assuming Edwards avoids any Monkey Business-type flameouts).

So this run is good for him. Let him learn the ins and outs of national campaigning, and let him build up that all-important name-recognition. He's one of the few national figures in the Democratic party who's young enough to still be in his political prime in 2012 if another Democrat wins the Presidency next year. On the other hand, if the gods throw tomatoes at us and Bush wins next year, then Edwards will be ready to roll in 2008. Either way, this is a practice run for him.

Dick Gephardt- Can't win. Unions like him, he has a lot of legislative experience, blah blah blah. So did Hubert Humphrey and Walter Mondale, and those two got beaten like the family mule.

The fact is, any Democrat smart enough to know who he is is also smart enough to know that he was the top Democrat in the House during a time when the Republicans ruled the House with an iron fist. Dick couldn’t keep the GOP from growing in power in the 90's (save for that little hiccup in '98 when the country decided it hated Newt), and everyone knows it. More than that, he presided over the 2002 midterms which, in terms of the House, were quite a drubbing for the Democrats. And no matter what The Note says, he still gives off a faint whiff of Loser from that election.

Yes, he has a nifty health plan, yes he is raising some good money, yes he has good support in midwestern blue states like Michigan, Wisconsin and Illinois.

Doesn't matter. He has too much baggage, too little personality, and the unions simply can't get out the vote like they used to. God help us if he wins the nomination.

Bob Graham- Who?

Al Sharpton- Can't win without help from extra-terrestrials, and only then if they have death rays and are willing to use them.

But so what? Al certainly talks a good game, and my initial fears of the Republicans accusing the Democrats of racism for discounting him as a contender in the primaries have mostly faded away.

He's an entertaining guy, and from what I've seen and read of his speeches, he manages to make interesting some of the larger messages the Democrats have been trying to push (the Kool-Aide line about Bush’s tax cuts was classic). He is able to phrase things in a funny, memorable, sound-bite way, a skill that seems to be sorely lacking among Democrats.

He will never be President, but I say let him bash Bush to his heart's content. A few funny lines, if picked up by the media, can be devastating, and if they come from Al, the nominee can avoid any blowback that might result from negative reaction to what he says.

Al can be our wrecking ball.

Carol Mosley-Braun- Can't win. She's simply too marginal a figure. Honestly, I don't know what possessed her to declare, unless perhaps she is trying to score some points and raise her profile for another run down the road.

Dennis Kucinich- Can't win. I'm going to get flack for this, but someone needs to state the obvious.

He's too damn funny looking to win.

Again, it's a stupid, juvenile thing to say, but it's true. Compared to someone of Bush's good looks and vitality, Kucinich doesn't stand a chance.

Even if he was the most brilliant candidate imaginable, with a platform that could win over the entire country, he would still lose. For good or ill, television is a critical component of any modern campaign, and Dennis does not look good under the lights. You think they made fun of Dukakis for looking a little strange? You ain't seen nothing.

***

Having gone through all that, I'll talk about Howard Dean and Wesley Clark, and why I believe they could be a winning combination in my next post after I get home from class tonight.

Security Issues

I'll go over my currently-preferred Democratic ticket in another post (it's Dean/Clark), but first I want to try out an idea I've been kicking around since January.

Whoever gets the nomination should quickly snap up Gary Hart and tell everyone that he will be their National Security Advisor if they win.

Now, granted, National Security Advisor is not an office you usually see a Presidential candidate talk about filling on the campaign trail; it certainly is never a major campaign theme. If they give any thought to it at all, people usually rely on the perceived national security credentials of the candidate, and assume that they will fill the various government posts with like-minded people.

However, for an election that will be as much about national security and terrorism as it will be about anything else (and let's not fool ourselves into thinking that it will be all about the economy, eh? Played that game in 2002. Didn't go so well), it seems like it would not be a bad idea to shove every bit of security street cred the Democrats can muster in everyone's face.

Even though I never mentioned it in this space, I actually like Gary Hart a lot. Unlike other Hart supporters, though, I didn't actually want to see him make a Presidential run (I'm looking at you, Ezra). Here's an excerpt from an email I sent to a friend of mine discussing Hart's potential candidacy:

If I were a Republican, I couldn't pick a better Democratic candidate. Not because his ideas are worse than those of the GOP. They're better. Not because the majority, if they understood, wouldn't support Gary Hart in a second over any Republican. They would. But because the GOP political apparatus is geared primarily toward massive smear campaigns and character assassination, and Hart has a giant bullseye on his chest. This is what these people do. Take, as only one example, Bill Clinton. A man who I have mixed feelings about, but, regardless, was a brilliant and very competent President, with a relatively minor character flaw. Over the years, the GOP has succeeded in painting him as a cesspool of immorality and vice, who set a "moral tone" which caused everything from the Columbine shootings to the Enron-led fraud epidemic. I am not making this up: They blamed Enron on Bill Clinton getting a blowjob.
Clinton at least had the courtesy to try and hide the fact of his adultery. Hart paraded it in the country's face, a particularly brilliant move given the power of the various televangelist empires at the time.

Fortunately, Hart decided against a run at the Presidency. When he did, though, he made sure to emphasize the fact that he still had a great desire to serve the American people in some capacity. Some people have suggested that he should run for the Senate again- an interesting possibility that would ultimately be doomed, for much the same reason as a Presidential run. People care where politicians stick their widgets, even if it was 16 years ago.

But Gary Hart's biggest strength this time around -- national security and anti-terrorism -- is both a desperately sought-after commodity in the Democratic party, and something that, in the proper office, can be divorced from an ancient character scandal. Nobody cares about the National Security Advisor's sex life.

For the nominee, making Hart the visible architect of their national security platform would be an ideal theme-crafting move.

We all learned in 2000 that the prevailing themes among journalists can make or break a candidate (Al Gore and the internet, anyone?). By bringing Hart onboard as an important side-figure, the Democrats can capitalize on the media's perception of him as a terrorism-psychic and a national security guru without being weighed down by his baggage.

Things That Annoy Me, Part 273,635

I really wish blogger-types would stop using "meme" as a synonym for "theme."

Yes, yes, a lot of people actually do use the word properly, but it has become so damn fashionable that I can't use it myself without feeling pompous.