tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12843455.post6021567059418513959..comments2023-11-04T03:33:38.419-04:00Comments on You Are My Minions: Sarah Palin Is Bugfuck CrazyLandruhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11954074164878242561noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12843455.post-75563934066718534712009-07-06T11:55:19.977-04:002009-07-06T11:55:19.977-04:00Anonymous Liberal does a very nice takedown of Sar...Anonymous Liberal does a very nice takedown of Sarah Palin <a href="http://www.anonymousliberal.com/2009/07/emperor-has-no-clothes.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>Whispershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03800223850991540829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12843455.post-62199645056120281442009-07-04T20:22:14.328-04:002009-07-04T20:22:14.328-04:00You did a terrific job of covering Palin -- less s...You did a terrific job of covering Palin -- less so on Sanford but I think that is a male/female dimension thing -- and Whispers deserves an in-person discussion of his perceptive and cogent points, so I'll stick to my road to Damascus conversion.<br /><br />And no, Bill didn't give me herpes. I don't have sex with right-wingers.<br /><br />The video I posted of the Savior made me realize that his fatal flaw is that he is an "F" as in a Myers-Briggs feeling type. And, of course, their feelings are all about them. (Bill was just a phoney actor; Barack is a sincere feeling type. ICK!)<br /><br />Digby said it well today when she referred to his current effort to get all Democrats to agree as "simplistic kumbaaya bullshit." And that is the main thing he is about. That's why he wants everybody to agree, not because it is a practical political strategy but because it is so much nicer when we all get along.<br /><br />*spit*<br /><br />Feed Whispers.Sashahttp://sashaundercover.blogspot.com/2009/01/excuse-me-for-moment-but-this-is.htmlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12843455.post-32584304030238872502009-07-04T08:40:28.830-04:002009-07-04T08:40:28.830-04:00No, it's our fault. We haven't fed you in ...No, it's our fault. We haven't fed you in days. You've got nothing but cereal and peanut butter in your bloodstream.Landruhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11954074164878242561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12843455.post-37313671672952518692009-07-04T01:33:00.484-04:002009-07-04T01:33:00.484-04:00A bit more about KSM: we really have no idea what ...A bit more about KSM: we really have no idea what KSM was guilty of or not guilty of. That's part of the problem with a torture-driven interrogation process. Allegedly, KSM has confessed to the beheading of Daniel Pearl, even though independent analysis suggests that he was nowhere near that act. Seeing that KSM was waterboarded a few hundred times, I don't doubt that he confessed to a lot of things he didn't do. But, conversely, he may have actually been guilty of a lot of things he was accused of. That's part of the problem with torture - it's crap from an epistemological standpoint. The purpose of good interrogation is to find out the truth. The purpose of torture is to elicit confessions.<br /><br />This comment grew too large. It grew too large and should possibly be posted at my own blog, but really it seems so obvious to me that I don't bother.<br /><br />I probably should bother. But I'm so self-absorbed that I often fall into the trap of thinking that things that are obvious to me are simply obvious in general. <br /><br />But the problem is figuring <i>which</i> of the things that I consider to be obvious to me are not obvious to the population in general. <br /><br />I've learned to add<br />- spatial reasoning<br />- more generally, things mathematical<br />- musical tone identification (I'm a human tuning fork)<br />to this list, but it's harder to feel that level of confidence for things political.<br /><br />Also, I feel constrained that a lot of my opinions are opinions, not logically derived facts. But dammit, I've been <i>right about every major issue</i> over the past eight years!<br /><br />Thor bless the Internet. People who think the current situation lacks enough negative pressure on leaders who are doing truly idiotic things need to keep a historical perspective on things. (Not to mention a geographical perspective.) When Stalin or Mao made a major screw-up, they simply jailed anybody who had the temerity to point that out. And yes, it is fair to point out that Bush's failure to be as complete of an asshole as those guys could be seen due more to the system we have than to any particular virtue that Bush himself has. [Or...Bush would have fit very nicely in a banana republic setting, had that been where he'd been born.] But we do live in a system where at least there is some curb on the potential for decades of horrible mismanagement a la Bush-Cheney. <br /><br />OK, I've completely lost my point here. Maybe I should be blogging more.Whispershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03800223850991540829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12843455.post-89960731862929713252009-07-04T01:21:18.194-04:002009-07-04T01:21:18.194-04:00Here's my $.02 about Palin's fall: good r...Here's my $.02 about Palin's fall: good riddance. I know a lot of liberals/intellectuals are crying, saying "she was so incompetent and corrupt that she would automatically bring down the GOP". How can people be so arrogant after 8 years of Bush's blunders? Good governance doesn't happen automatically, and the fewer idiots on the public stage, the better. (This is part of why I was so happy to see George Allen shoot himself in the foot.)<br /><br />The ruling theory of the day in the Democratic party appears to be "you have to be nice to the stupid people or nobody will vote for us". Sadly, this has led to a complete paralysis in Congress as wet noodles like Harry Reid and the Treacherous Five bargain away Democratic principles in a pre-emptive move that makes the Polish Cavalry of 1939 look fearsome by comparison. <br />(Who are the Treacherous Five, you ask? People like Kent Conrad, Joe Party of One, Blance "I Love Walmart" Lincoln, Ben Nelson, Kay Hagan, Arlen Specter and/or the unfortunately named (and poorly spelled) Mary Landrieu. You know, the Democratic Senators who rake in corporate contributions and try to figure ways to scuttle the liberal agenda without attracting too much attention. Of this lot, Specter is probably the smallest problem, because he is so self-interested he might actually do what Democrats of PA want him to do. (In contrast, Lieberman continues to thumb his nose at the Democrats of CT - thank you Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer for not backing Ned Lamont!)<br /><br />As for Obama, I like him about as much as I ever did. Well, that's not exactly true. Let's just say I'm not surprised that he's gone along with so much of the Bush agenda when it's come to secrecy and foreign policy. I never illusioned myself to believe he would wave the magic wand and clean up DC to the point where it would meet with my approval. <br /><br />Mostly I preferred Obama over Clinton (and esp. McCain) based on my feeling that he would at least be <i>competent</i>. He may lack political courage (more likely he is a bit short on principles) but at least we can count on him to do the competent thing <i>when it is a politcal no-brainer to do so</i>.<br /><br />Why is he being such a jackass on the detainee issues?<br /><br />a) he's going to do everything he feels he has to do to avoid releasing KSM. From a due process standpoint, there is little reason to continue to hold KSM. But there's ample reason to think that any line of process that led to releasing him (such as, say, a fair trial that threw out all the evidence the government has because it was obtained via torture) would be political suicide.<br /><br />b) he doesn't have the belly to take on either the military or the CIA black ops crowd head-on. <br /><br />b) is disappointing but hardly surprising, as Obama is far more concerned with maintaining his 63-65% approval rating than he is with rocking the boat on secrecy issues. <br /><br />Having watched Clinton sell out the gays so quickly in his first administration, it is not surprising to see Obama do the same thing. It's unfortunate, because it really isn't 1994 any more (not to mention 1984). A tiny bit of leadership on this issue would have gone a long way.<br />For example, all he had to do was keep one of these gay Arabic translators on the job. And then anybody who questioned his decision could have been justly criticized for putting prejudice ahead of national security.<br /><br />Oh well. Really, it could be a lot worse. <br /><br />At least I'm no longer completely ashamed of the country when I go abroad. Let's face it - Bush and Cheney really set a pathetically low standard there, didn't they?Whispershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03800223850991540829noreply@blogger.com