Happy Nagasaki Day

Novels in dystopian futures frequently have a theme of regret. The characters look with a sad, regretful air at the decaying advertisements for the genetic code altering medicines that gave us all a transmissible taste for living flesh. But that's not really how it'll happen.

No, when American military researchers fire the first test of their neutrino rockets and a horrible chain reaction destroys most life on earth, the handful of remaining humans will not rise from the ashes with a horrified look of shame and solemnly reflect on their hubris. Instead, the president will emerge from his bunker smiling at his approval ratings as they peg the needle and he will assure the small, scraggy remains of the American public that despite this tragedy we will persevere. He will tell them that now is the time to band together. Yadda Yadda.

And then he will blame shoddy Mexican labor that had been hired at the insistence of his political opponent.

And we'll dig out pieces of rebar and boards with nails from the ruins, and march south to teach Them a lesson.

Undercover in the Asylum

I could find a few guys like this panhandling on Telegraph Avenue, I think. They'd be anarchists, not terrorists, though, so I guess I'm not a qualified FBI agent.

The FBI said the public was never in danger because its agents were aware of the man's activities before the alleged planning took place and monitored him throughout. Ahmed never bought any explosives and was never near carrying out a plot.

The most photographed subway stop in DC.

Almost Never... OK. Fine. Never.

Heh, I love Glenn and all, but this cracked me up:

It doesn't happen often, but sometimes, something you read is so magnificent on its own that there is nothing to say about it.

No, doesn't happen often at all. Certainly not in that post, in which he writes a full paragraph and then updates twice.

Own Goal

More Mattie. I suppose there is enough of him to go around:

All these countries are actually full of stupid policies—in Sweden a privately owned store can’t sell Tylenol and the United States invaded Iraq to eliminate a nonexistent nuclear weapons program—but we succeed nonetheless.

The lead in?

Karl Smith is fascinated “by the fact that Democracy seems to be a highly effective form of government despite an almost necessary implication that policy will be determined, or at least largely influenced, by the least knowledgeable..."

Kind of refreshing to hear someone call themselves a moron. I wish he'd take it to its next logical step and disengage from politics. Then we could get EVEN BETTER Democracy with 100% less irony.

I'm Moving Forward Like a Receding Hairline

Memory lane time, I guess, as I wandered over to Fatty Y's for the first time in ages:

It’s great that the violence is way down from its high ebb

No one ever says ebb except as in "ebb and flow" and this fucker STILL can't figure out its meaning.

Oh, and shit-face, the concept you're looking for is called "reversion to the mean." That and six more words would have replaced your entire post.

Ladies and gentlemen, the intellectual driving force of the modern left.

Let's Have A War! And Maybe Another One, Too!

We're sure McArdle fans have seen the ginandtacos item wherein Mlle. McA.'s firm beliefs vis-a-vis the invasion & continuing occupation of Iraq are deservedly mocked.

Settling for scraps, I went to the source, & noted this bit that no one else I've read has yet mentioned.

Thus, Eric Alterman is enabled to claim that the cost to the US taxpayer will be over $2t, even though most of the larger costs cited by Galbraith aren't going to be borne by Americans either directly or indirectly, but by Iraqi oil.⁶ That's the oil that will be able to flow freely for the first time in ten years because of this war -- and the revenue from which will flow to the Iraqi people for the first time in a decade.

The footnote:

⁶ Am I suggesting that the Iraqis should pay for occupation expenses? Nope. We can afford it, and there's something repellent about making impoverished Iraqis pay for a war foisted on them by an evil dictator. But most of that $2t, if it is any sort of a real number, will be stuff for Iraqis: roads, schools, hospitals, government buildings, power plants and sewers and all the good stuff that lets us live like citizens of the 21st century. That stuff should come out of Iraqi oil revenues.

Our emphases. She knows from "real" numbers, doesn't she? And how's all that "get the oil money to the Iraqi people" worked out, seven yrs. into the occupation? More electricity, to run all the "good stuff?" Well, no.

What a horrid, awful, fucking bitch. From what dark, disturbed part of her ugly mind did something like: "there's something repellent about making impoverished Iraqis pay for a war foisted on them by an evil dictator" come? Foisted on them? Or is she referring to Bush when she types "evil dictator?" The "foisting" was done by people like her, stenographers for the unelected gov't. of the usurper Bush.

Elements of Style©: How could a graduate of Podunk State Normal School, let alone an English major from Penn, type "stuff" twice, & "good stuff" once, in any context, let alone in two sentences?

And an outro from DougJ at Balloon Juice:

Doubt this will make it into Conor Friedersdorf’s li'l round-up of mistaken Iraq War predictions.

Probably not. Fuck Friedersdorf, & the horse he rode in on. Remember this?

Tell us, Friedersdork (He really shouldn't type under his own name.) how's that True/Slant site where you used to type working out for ya? We still exist. You got fucked by a corporation. Learned anything yet?

If he's still on the "under your own name" thing (What possible difference does it make? Malignant Bouffant isn't anyone else's name, & it bloody well is my own name.) he can shoot me a fucking email, we'll meet somewhere, & just before I cram his teeth down his throat, I'll let him know what my legal name is, & who's a "coward."

(Really, what is he talking about? Should I reveal my legal name, address, 'phone # & other contact info to prove something? Something along the lines of how many hateful lunatics read McArdle & would try something physical if they knew where to find me? What's your address, Conor, if that's your own name? It isn't, of course, it's his parents name for him, & like the pathetic sheep he is, he accepts it, along w/ the conventional wisdom he swallows whole. Asswipe.)

PUPPIES!!!!!

The usual suspects have noted that Megan is upset over some dogs getting shot in a drug raid. She claims to have quaked with rage.

If only we could get her to quake with rage over other deaths... maybe some of the ones she had a hand in encouraging?

It's the Downtown Local - RUN

A bus full of people. Really. 50 suicide bombers on a Greyhound; That's what you thought was going on?

Let's Go to the Video Tape

Shocking developments. America has received private word from a confidential inside source that when you decide to invade an entire fucking country, you sometimes end up shredding civilians to pieces.

AP has independently confirmed this reports with important people close to the situation.

Duh and no fucking shit could not be reached for comment before press time, but various logical fallacies, moral deficiencies, and completely predictable occurrences noted that "America is a retarded, self interested child who shows remorse only when caught covered in chocolate standing next to the shattered jar."

Megan Discovers Google, Not How to Use It

This is just amazing. She takes shallow-pretension to a whole new level. Is there a good word for when you try to be probing but fail to get out your front door, let alone under the surface? Educate me, minions!

Oh, right, the dumbass:

Here's one indicator that doesn't look so good: my Google News feed around 7 am this morning. (Followed by a screen shot of the top stories.)

Wow, did she call her mother, too, to make sure her poll had a representative sampling?

That's how a machine ranked the stories, based on reader response. The Gates story is sucking up the public's very limited attention span for health care.

Right, and the second article is about ObamaCare, central to the point of the universe, I s'pose. Even if it weren't, who the fuck thinks that this constitutes research? Does she have a weather blog somewhere which tells you what she saw out her window when she woke up?

I was already pretty skeptical that this was going to do much good. Outside of elections and wars, it's hard to get people to watch a presidential address at the best of times. Late July is not the best of times. You don't want to counterprogram a wonkathon when people can flip to "So You Think You Can Dance" or wander outside to drink in the summer evening. Maybe it will move the poll numbers, but frankly, I'd be surprised.

Um, right, it was short sighted of liberals and Obama to never ever ever mention health care until this summer. Everyone knows that if it don't got 'splosions no one will watch it in July. Why did Obama have to dick around messing with that whole "economic disaster" thing his first few months? Totally lost the momentum. Man, he sucks at making decisions crucial to people's lives playing the game.

So I think the left-wing pundits worrying about the performance are missing the point. The performance was, in fact, not all that good, especially by the high standards Obama set during the campaign. But I'll be shocked if the overnights beat Law and Order reruns. More than one journalist of my acquaintance skipped the thing. If a press conference falls in the summer doldrums, and nobody watches it, does it really matter?

Alas, do these things matter indeed? Obama should have just kept his mouth shut instead of trying to speak to hundreds of thousands (millions?) of people.

C'mon, Obama, your day is done. Give it up. No one wants health care. The country is conservative again. Just declare war on Iran and make things easier for all of us. THEN people will get behind you. We're always up for a good war.

brad adds:

In her screenshot, the number of stories about Gates is 2670. The number of stories about ObamaCare is 10,272. Ahem.

Duh, We Were So Impressed w/ Ourselves We Forgot a Title (Added 22 August '08 @ 1031 PDT)

Mme. McArdle checks in on the drinking age, or, as she refers to it: "The age of responsibility."

I'd lower the drinking age to 16, as in Europe, but require licenses to show that you haven't had a DUI.

Yup, lower it to 16 so that any 13-yr.-old will have ready, easy access to as much booze as they can afford. Oddly enough, drunk driving isn't the only concern w/ alcohol use & consumption. We can also note that the Euros had a culture w/ a sensible, relaxed approach to drinking long before any laws to control the drinking age were enacted. America's idiotic (or super-egoist) Puritan origins didn't & still don't allow for that, of course. Imagine a middle school course in "responsible drinking." It'd be almost as bad as "sex ed," where they teach the little ones to be gay or whatever.

In my day (said the wretched old weasel) 1969 & 1970 in Paris, the driving age was 18, for one thing. The booze laws were along the lines of anyone over 12 in a bar w/ their parents could drink wine, & there were varying stages of age, Mom &/or Dad being w/ you, & what exactly you could drink, but if my aging memory serves once you were 16 or 17 nothing was stopping you from drinking what you will w/o chaperons. These were regulations posted in bars, & entitled something along the lines of "Public Drunkenness, Minors & Something or Another."

Just plain buying liquor in the super market was open to all, as, I think, was whatever went on in the home. Here in the United Snakes I believe in many jurisdictions giving junior a half glass of wine is just plain illegal & bustable, though of course seldom enforced. I eventually stopped being surprised at the sight of an eight-yr.-old buying a litre or two of vodka (I hope for a parent) in the supermarket.

I've no idea what up w/ today's Europe (or much of anything else) but Megan is wrong here, believe it or not. I wouldn't be opposed to raising the drinking age to 25, to keep it out of the hands of those under 21. Frankly, as people live longer, & adolescence seems to stretch out forever, maybe the age of majority should be returned to 21, & no one under 30 (Or 35 even. After all, no one who can't serve as president should be forced to kill babies for oil cos.) should be allowed to enlist in the military.

Yes, she did drag this one out:

It's appalling that someone can go get killed in Iraq, but not buy a beer.

The missing word is "legally." Or we could dump the last clause entirely. Then we'd get:

It's appalling that someone can go get killed in Iraq.

Well, isn't it?

Elements of Style©: As opposed, of course, "to stay get killed in Iraq." I'm glad that was cleared up.

Even When She's Right, She's Wrong

First, we get hit with disturbing sexual inneundo in her post title "No, really, I'll pull out." I haven't been this permaflaccid since Bob Dole was pimping for Viagra. Seriously, I think my dick just shrank all the way up inside my body cavity.

Megan spends the post explaining that she thinks the possibility of a timetable for withdrawal being set while Bush is still in office is better for McCain than it is for Obama:

I'm puzzled by war opponents who think that voters will suddenly love Obama for having been "right all along". Assuming arguendo that this is true, the psychological logic is off. Most Americans supported the war. Do you become more endeared of your spouse when it turns out that you really should have taken that left fork thirty miles ago? Most people prefer folie à deux.

Unfortunately, she may be right about this. Of course, that doesn't make her any less incompetent.

Rather than feeding the early war proponents the same self-centered bullshit they've been filling up on ever since it became clear how stratospherically wrong they were, she could've pointed out that this isn't the best way to make a decision. How about actually conceding that Barack may have gotten it right because he has better-than-average judgment? Naw, after all, who wants the leader of the free world to be smarter than Dick, John, and Jane? Maybe she might point out that McCain was one of the earliest proponents of the war and his voice, filled with warmongering and lies, was one of the reasons so many Americans were fooled? McCain wanted us to invade Iraq BEFORE Bush started pushing for it, for fuck's sake. Why not point out that, while a lot of us were wrong along with him, he was the first to be wrong. His wrongness was a deciding factor in the wrongness of all those who trusted him to be right!

But, naw, that's too "complex" and the rubes won't get it. Stick to the cynical observations, Megan. It's not like you have a unique position of being a somewhat well listened to voice that might actually sway a few people to realize the folly of voting for the guy who was just as dumb as they were. Just go ahead and encourage them to vote for the guy that steered them wrong in the first place. Carry on, Megs. You're doing God's work.

Those Damn Empires

Megan's piped up a few times now about the conflict in Georgia. Cleverly, she's referenced the same song in the titles of two of her posts. Seriously, she's not even phoning it in anymore. She's smoke signaling it in.

There's a smattering of stupid in all around, but the main underlying idiocy and bias is her deeply furrowed brow over those pesky pinkos (uh.. shit, what color are they now? Whatever, they'll always be commies!!!!!!!!) trying to rebuild their empire.

So let's compare and contrast a couple of conflicts and Megan's views on them.

If a country wants to invade another country thousands of miles away, that has no shared ethnic or cultural background, has made no direct threats in decades, and coincidentally contains large amounts of a very precious resource, invading it is ok. That's not empire building. That's just fighting the good fight

On the flip side, if a country that borders you -and contains two regions cultural and ethnically similar to you that have declared autonomy and indicated a strong willingness to become a part of your country- sends their army into one of said disputed regions, well, you're just a damn power hungry lunatic for thinking that you can send troops there yourself! How dare those Russians try to force those South Ossetians and Abkhazians to join the country that they want to be a part of! Where will they stop? HAVE THEY NO SENSE OF DECENCY?!?!?!?

I guess, then, that Megan would be OK with Russia invading Mexico or something.

Now, before someone points out that I don't know what I'm talking about, let me admit that I may not know what I'm talking about vis-a-vis the Russia-Georgia conflict (Though, from what little I've read, no one knows what the hell is going on in the Caucasus). Furthermore, I'm not entirely sure that Russia hasn't done a number of things wrong during this conflict. However, Megan's accusations that Russia is attempting to rebuild its empire is based on a combination of jack and shit. I got curious about the situation and actually read a couple of articles, almost all of which indicated that South Ossetia and Abkhazia would both love nothing more than to be absorbed by Russia and at the very least want nothing to do with Georgia. So, once again, Megan doesn't know what the fuck she's talking about.

Shocking, ain't it?

For a bonus kicker, she expresses dismay that America should ZOMG DO SOMETHING BEFORE THE RUSSIANS ARE KNOCKING DOWN OUR DOORS AGAIN!!!! About what exactly should be done, she remains unsurprisingly silent. Blind ideology is her thing, not actual solutions to problems.

I think I have an idea, though. It involves our armed forces. Guess what it is? That's right; let's start another war! YIPPEE! It's been a while since we killed us some Ruskies! Nothing says "doing something" like an F-16! Hoooo doggie!

Another County Heard From

Dear Nutty:

Just some observations & points of fact.

The immediate point: There is a difference between your Quaker ancestors & (perhaps) unthinking acceptance of their creed & dogma, & the actual ancestry of Mr. Yglesias. You can always give up on Quakery, but Matt is cursed/stuck w/ his ancestors, & whether or not they "haven't managed to grow out of nap time yet" (And if they're his "ancestors" they probably won't have many more chances to grow out of anything, most of them being dead, & the rise of air conditioning probably making the siesta less common – or is it their fault they weren't the first nation to be able to afford AC?) doesn't really have much to do w/, well, anything, let alone Yglesias's stupid positions.

And while this reporter doesn't keep up w/ the exact ethnic extraction of the entire blog-o-sphere, he's not sure that nachos are from anywhere but Mexico (or Tejas-Mexico) & he doesn't think Matt Y. is of Mexican extraction.

Nutella, you sound awfully angry for a pacifist.

I wish that I weren't a fucking pacifist so I could go knock on your door and do some preemptive warring on the intellectual void that is your little section of the blogosphere.

Isn't the idea not to have thoughts like that in the first case, as opposed to this "Why I oughta – oh wait, I'm a pacifist" approach. Is it cool w/ the Quakers to scream & shout vitriol about people's actual genetic background, as opposed to their stupid beliefs?

Or, give our founder a break & start your own web log where you can let the real (?) NoT out. I was doing that before signing on here, & calling for various rabid weasel's widowed mothers to be assaulted (euphemism) w/ a splintery broomstick, as well as the usual calls for the violent, un-Constitutional overthrow of everything & daring Russia & China to come at me w/ a cyberattack are merely where I get started. It's great therapy, & I must head there now, & not devote further time & effort to this unholy mess.

Yours in the spirit of progressive self-criticism,
I remain, as B/4,

M. "Chas." Bouffant

Elements of Style©: Spell check is your friend. As a person of (only partial, I'm glad to say – self-deprecating humor there, no one else need take umbrage) Italian descent, I am offended to see "wops" all in upper case. And "kikes" w/ a "y?"

Seriously, go the Fuck Back to South America you Fat Asshole

brad says

As much as I fucking hate saying this, if Matt Yglesias sees this, I am sorry. This post is not reflective of the tone I want on this blog. I agree with Nutella's underlying sentiment, but I don't approve of how he expressed it. I will say more when I can.

Nutella explains
If it needs to be spelled out, fine, the use of chauvinistic language on my part is ALWAYS a joke. I used it at different times for different reasons. Here, the main reason is to show what a chauvinistic asshole Matt was being by turning the tables. I think it's perfectly fair, especially considering all the racism that seethes underneath so much of what these pro-war shitheads used to make their decision to invade "Brown People Land."

I know the stupid fat fucker is techinically off our turf now, but Mr. All-Lard-And-No-Brains has decided to mock my other religious background. Our dumpy friend, still unable to reconcile his own mental retardation, is going at it again about how being anti-war from the start doesn't mean you're a genius.

I think it’s true that the mere fact of having been against the war isn’t necessarily indicative of brilliant judgment (Quakers and such who just oppose all war as a matter of principle aren’t really showing judgment in particular cases)

You fat bloviating asshole. Your stupid ass ancestors haven't managed to grow out of nap time yet and you think you get to talk down to mine?

I'm tenth generation Quaker-American on my mother's side. In the over TWO HUNDRED FIFTY YEARS my family has been here, let's do a quick run down of how well our "just opposing all war" has done as compared to your ZOMG THEY ATTACKED!!!!11! SOMEONE DO SOMETHING BEFORE I PEE MYSELF ideology.

Let's see, things Quakers got right:

Opposed all of the ridiculous bloody wars throughout history, almost the entirety of which were needless.
Were the only early settlers of America that DID NOT steal from and slaughter wholesale the Indians.
Were the earliest, most fervent, and most proactive of the abolishionists.
Early pioneers for humane treatment of the disabled and mentally ill.
Leaders of women's suffrage movements.

Things the Quakers got wrong:
WWII
The Revolutionary War (arguably)

What the fuck have your people done? Well, yeah, Nachos are pretty tasty, you're right. However, those of us who don't think of eating as a religious experience put a little less weight on that than you do.

So, Matt, please, take me up on my most recent enjoinder to go fuck yourself, you pseudo-liberal, shallow, self-important piece of shit. I wish that I weren't a fucking pacifist so I could go knock on your door and do some preemptive warring on the intellectual void that is your little section of the blogosphere. You and your idiotic clique have been so unanimously wrong about everything. How the hell do you take a pay check for your "thoughts" in good conscience?

Oh, that's right, you have none.

It is absolutely fucking "good judgment" to be a pacifist. War is the worst fucking thing that people do to each other. The horrible efficiency with which we can kill each other nowadays makes that a million times more true than it ever has been. The only time War should even be considered is in the face of genocide. This is the simplest god damn judgment you can make, and the fact that you and your idiot friends are incapable of making it shows what complete idiots you all are. Every pacifist on earth has proven themselves to be smarter than you are, Matt, and don't EVER fucking forget that.

The pacifism of Quakerism is based on the belief that all humans are equal. It's based on the belief that God is in every living thing on earth. If that's bad judgment, then you're an asshole. Well, then you're EVEN MORE of an asshole.

Good morning!

It's time for stupid! Gotta start the day off right! Let's to turn to our econo expert to see what insights into the markets she has!

Oil falls free

Twenty dollars to whomever can tell me what in the fucking hell that title is supposed to mean. And, to go back to an old haunt, when the fuck is she going to start capitalizing titles? She finally got brow beaten into knocking off the obnoxious "block quoting herself" shit (You're welcome Megs), so there is some hope. But the shift key.... it's really not that far away. Right there, by your left and right pinkies. Come on, baby, give it a whirl!

I think we can officially say there was a sizable speculative premium in oil, given that major troubles in one of the world's major oil-producing regions did little to halt its fall.

Really, queen dipshit? That's how we know? I thought it was because oil surged upwards like 1000% in about 4 days and then plummeted downwards another 500% like two minutes later. No, that's not speculation? Hmm, okie, I guess it's a good thing there is another war in the Caucasus. Those are always the best economic indicators.

On the other hand, if that speculative premium was $40--the mid-to-high range of analyst estimates--then we're close to having wiped it out at this point. Don't start pricing minivans just yet.

Wait, you mean the speculation didn't just start on it's own as if by magic? Are you telling me that people started betting that oil was going to go up in price because it was actually going to go up in price? GOD DAMN IT WOMAN! HOW MANY TIMES HAVE I TOLD YOU TO SLOW DOWN AND STOP BLOWING MY MIND!!!

She is such an idiot. She is telling us now -weeks after it became clear that oil was overpriced- that there was speculation involved. Just like when she told us it isn't is isn't a recession(that's the current diagnosis, right?). Plus, Mrs. Insight is telling us not to get too excited, cause oil is still pretty expensive. THANKS MC BRILLIANT. We all fucking noticed that oil is still FOUR FUCKING TIMES HIGHER than it was like, 6 years ago, and that gas is still AN ARM AND A FUCKING LEG PER GALLON.

Even if oil were to miraculously go back down, it would still be idiotic to go back to our gas wasting mentality. Have you noticed how we got hit the hardest by the recent price increases? You think that might have something to do with the fact that other countries learned their lesson in the 70's??!??!?!?!?!!?

SO....FUCKING....STUPID.... AHHHGHHGHGHGGHGHGHGHGHGHGHHGGHGHGHGHHGHG!!!!

I hate economics and I could do her "econoblogging" better than she does. Who the fuck was in charge of hiring her? They need to be fucking hung.

Do You Have Any Ideas Or...Oh, Just Forget It

Megan weighs in on the latest example of why humanity should be erased from the planet before it really hurts itself.

Except that she didn't say anything new, or do anything but explain the obvious to us. The quote from hilzoy ("Hilzoy views McCain's desire to allow Georgia into NATO as sheer madness:" Mlle. McA. can't even do a link properly. Miss, this is not your own crummy recipe blog for your galpals, it's supposed to be for the admittedly degenerate web presence of a once important & prestigious American magazine. Try to give two shits about it.) by itself would have provided a public service, but Megan's addition is just nothing.

Another way to look at the question is: are we going to allow Russia to reassemble the old Russian empire? At its heart, that's what this is about. Maybe we should; maybe it's none of our business who Russia decides to invade, or what puppet governments they decide to prop up, so long as they don't share a border with Germany.

I don't mean that sarcastically--I can make all sorts of arguments in favor of this attitude. On the other hand, it has obvious, dramatic costs, including the fact that Russia's imperial ambitions are unlikely to stop at the Georgian border.

Well, if you ask the question, shouldn't you make some attempt to answer it? Guess not.

If this war ends up with Russia occupying Georgia, NATO will probably be worse off than it would have been if it had let Georgia join--though to be sure, the US might still be better off. I don't know how likely such a scenario is. But it's been clear for a long time that Russia's goal is to regain its former imperial borders, effectively if not nominally.

That's it. Although the last time I checked (sometime after the break-up of Czechoslovakia) the United Snakes were part (& a pretty big one) of NATO. How NATO could be "worse off" (ugly, stupid phrase, by the way) but the USofA somehow in better shape is beyond this reporter. Especially as US foreign policy toward Georgia, as toward most of the states in Central Asia that have or are near OIL, is to send the US military to train their militaries, & then to sell them weapons & equipment while promising that the US paper tiger has their backs. The military-industrial complex is going to be losing client-states. Can't have that.

So, Megatron, do you have any ideas or suggestions? Where exactly do you stand on this? Yes, it's been obvious for a while to all but perhaps soul-searcher Bush that Putin & the new Russki P. M. want to be big men on the world stage again, but how are "we" to stop them, if "we" should at all? But Megan "can make all sorts of arguments in favor of this attitude," & apparently any other "attitude," w/o coming to any decision.

Megan is a Liberal!

How do I know? Well, she calls Noam Chomsky a liar.

After all, that is what liberals do to signal to the center and right that they aren't entirely batshit crazy with their ideals of social justice and hatred of state sponsored murder. Maybe Chomsky embarrassed these folk way back in the early sixties when he realized, along with one other intelligent person, that invading Vietnam and burning the skin off Vietnamese children was fucked up and the argument that supporting the RVN would kill all the Soviets and Chinamen was sans merit. Well all the liberal hawks forgot those lessons, and that amnesia was partly induced by drawing up Venn Diagrams where brilliant and principled scholar Noam Chomsky was relegated to his own little circle with Alexander Cockburn and the Counterpunch Bunch far apart from The Hateful Triangle of the military-industrial complex, frightened liberal journalists, and Arab hating neocons. Not to worry, Liberal Hawks--you can redeem yourself (by yourself, and for yourself) simply by being against the Vietnam war post facto. Or even better, wipe that Yglesias off your donut and support the Iraq war and then let careerism steer you back on the path of moral righteousness. Who the fuck cares as long as your word count is up and the check is in the mail.

I'm sure these people will be fine with it:

What's funnier than a car crash?

NOTHING!

Thanks, Megan! That joke really started my day off right!

brad adds:

I dunno, that whole Heath Ledger dying bit was pretty goddamn funny...

if you're an asshole.
Don't joke about Swayze, tho, Megan liked his work.

Don't Be Sorry!

Sullivan demolishes McArdle.

Sully quotes Megan's defense of war crimes:

...when you choose war, you choose war crimes--and that this is true regardless of why you are choosing the war. You may be going to war for reasons that even the staunchest of libertarians would support, like defending your territory from violent attack. Just the same, if the war grinds on for any length of time, you will get people violating the Geneva Conventions, doing obscene things to enemy soldiers (dead and alive), and launching attacks that would horrify the population if they were watching a third party do them. By the time you're a year or so into it, the public and the soldiers are reacting to the last attack and the mountain of dead, not to who started it. Dresden would have been unthinkable in 1939; by the time it happened, anything was justifiable if it saved Allied soldiers.[...]

The point is, these things are part of the cost of war, not of the cost of "wars started by the Bush administration" or "wars with bad motives" or "wars we don't like".

Sully responds:

I'm sorry but this is preposterous, uninformed, ahistorical. The United States has managed to go to war for two centuries without the president authorizing and monitoring the torture of prisoners. The Bush administration's legalization of torture and withdrawal from Geneva is unique in American history. Yes, wars will lead to individuals committing war crimes in the heat of battle. Yes, it carries a horrifying logic. But an advance, pre-meditated decision by the president to engage in war crimes is new and unprecedented. Bush really is uniquely awful as a president in this respect: an indefensible war criminal, who has permanently stained the country he represents and betrayed the soldiers who expect decency and lawfulness in their commander-in-chief.

Don't be sorry, Sully, you misogynist. Of course McArdle's argument is preposterous, uninformed, and ahistorical. That is the sin qua non of her writing. This has got to be pretty embarrassing for Megan. Sully really didn't pull any punches. Has he ever said anything good about his colleague? No, I don't think so. No wonder he's paid about five times her salary--its the only way Mr. Harvard Ph.D. could stomach being on the same roster as Megatron.

I feel, in some small way, that we are winning.

(Note: My typical writing style of constructing egregiously long sentences full of daisy-chained clauses has been replaced by a poor imitation of Andrew "staccato" Sullivan's prose. I assure you my next post will have more semicolons, dashes, and commas than this.)