Tuesday, July 05, 2005
They are more like our enemy, Part II.
Last night I wrote "How the Islamic crazies are like the Right"
to hammer home how fundamentalist Islam has more in common with the
radical religious right, the American Taliban, than it does with the
This is a key point-- it was easier for the
Right to tie the American Left with our previous boogeyman, the
communists, since we technically were nearer to the extreme left than
But today, things look quite different. I
started the ball rolling on similarities on that previous post. Here
are more similarities, as submitted by readers:
Al Qaida/Taliban: World domination - do it our way or we attack
American Taliban: World domination - do it our way or we attack
Liberals: Peace and international cooperation
Al Qaida/Taliban: Executing Minors OK
American Taliban: Executing Minors OK
Liberals: Find this to be a barbaric and embarrassing practice
Al Qaida/Taliban: Hate it... kill it
American Taliban: Hate it... ban it
Liberals: Laugh at it... boycott it
Al Qaida/Taliban: Belief in their own infallibility
American Taliban: Belief in their own infallibility
Liberals: Willingness to consider other viewpoints
Al Qaida/Taliban: God is on our side and will help us kill our enemies
American Taliban: God is on our side and will help us kill our enemies
Liberals: God may or may not exist and will not help us kill anyone
Stem Cell Research
Al Qaida/Taliban: No Stem cell research
American Taliban: No Stem cell research
Liberals: Stem cell research
Al Qaida/Taliban: God choose Osama Bin Laden to defeat the Great Satan
American Taliban: God choose George W. Bush to lead us
Liberals: God didn't choose anyone
Use of Force
Al Qaida/Taliban: As a means of propagating a world view
American Taliban: As a means of propagating a world view
Liberals: As a last resort
Bush's War in Iraq
Al Qaida/Taliban: Love it!
American Taliban: Love it!
Liberals: It's a disaster
Al Qaida/Taliban: Control of the Press
American Taliban: Manipulation of the Press
Liberals: Freedom of the Press
Al Qaida/Taliban: Anyone who disagrees with us is an infidel and must be silenced
American Taliban: Anyone who disagrees with us is a traitor and must be silenced
Liberals: Anyone who disagrees with us is in for a spirited discussion
Al Qaida/Taliban: Conform or else
American Taliban: Conform or else
Liberals: Embrace diversity
Al Qaida/Taliban: You're either with us or against us
American Taliban: You're either with us or against us
Liberals: We're all in this together
Al Qaida/Taliban: Death to the infidels
American Taliban: Kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity
Liberals: Live and let live
Al Qaida/Taliban: Obedience to authority
American Taliban: Obedience to authority
Liberals: Critical reflection
Al Qaida/Taliban: Universe and man created 6,000 years ago by God
American Taliban: Universe and man created 6,000 years ago by God
Liberals: The Universe began as we know it at least 14 billion years ago, maybe more
Al Qaida/Taliban: Subservient to will of its leaders
American Taliban: Subservient to will of its leaders
Liberals: Will served by Representative government
Al Qaida/Taliban: Life is scary and uncertain, seek refuge in moral absolutes and scorn those that threaten those absolutes
American Taliban: Life is scary and uncertain, seek refuge in moral absolutes and scorn those that threaten those absolutes
Life is scary and uncertain, seek refuge in accepting that respect for
our fellow man and the individual choices he/she makes is eminently
Al Qaida/Taliban: A woman's place is in the home
American Taliban: A woman's place is in the home
Liberals: A woman's place is wherever she wants it to be
Al Qaida/Taliban: Marriage is only between a man and a woman
American Taliban: Marriage is only between a man and a woman
Liberals: Marriage is between any two people who love each other
We could keep this up all day, I suspect. Remember, the point isn't
that the American Taliban is just like Al Qaida (though given the
chance...), the point is that there's no reason that liberals would
ever "root" for Al Qaida or the Taliban or any of the crazies in the
Islamic fundamentalist world.
The reasons we hate the American
Taliban are the same reasons we hate fundamentalists of all stripes --
they seek to impose their own moral code on the rest of society, and do
so with the zeal and moral absolutism possible only from those who
believe they are doing "God's work". [Daily Kos]
Dressing Up The 4th.
A number of you wrote urging me to post this image. I thought I would,
along with this very incisive description from Eric, a BAGreader and
professor: [This photo] appeared on the NY Times website front page on
Calling All Squad Cars.
I was quite taken aback by Bush's appearance and demeanor in the pre-G8
summit ITV interview with Trevor Macdonald, or at least by the portion
I saw of it. For one thing, a transcript doesn't do justice with the
Our Latest Enemy
Yes, NewsMax picked the 4th of July to let it slip that there's a Simmering Feud Between the U.S. and Canada.
I assume that in a couple of weeks, the President will announce that
“The people of the United States will not live at the mercy of an
outlaw regime that threatens the peace with socialized medicine, gay
marriages, and maple syrup.” Condi will say that we'd better invade
them now, because we don't want the smoking gun to be a hockey stick.
Dick Cheney will remark, "I think it's not surprising that people make
a connection between
Mariah Carey Celine Dion and
9/11." And Rachel Marsden will promise us that our troops will be met
with sweets and flowers -- because she's already decided which side she
Anyway, here's part of
the NewsMax story, which is mostly about the feud between Bill O'Reilly
and Canada, but I guess any feud that involves Bill is America's feud:
before Canada's ambassador to the United States announced he was
declaring war on the "Fox factor" and what he says is Fox News'
anti-Canadian bias, a cold war between the news network and our
neighbor to the north had been under way.
Fox, perceived as strongly in support of the Bush administration policies in Iraq, had become anathema to Canada's ruling elite.
Fox, perceived as strongly supportive of most Bush administration
policies (and also tabloid reporting), has become anathema to lots of
people. So, I don't think it's worth going to war with our neighbors to
the North just because they only let Fox News be broadcast to digital
cable subscribers. Why should innocents suffer? (And by innocents, I
mean people who don't want to watch "Hannity & Whosit" and "Fox 'n Friends 'n Bimbos.")
Anyway, here's the Rachel Marsden portion of the article:
Writing in NewsMax.com earlier this year (Fox News Enters the Canadian Media Henhouse), Rachel Marsden, a public affairs and communications strategist, columnist and talk show host [and serial stalker] who
has worked in politics and media in the United States and Canada, gave
these examples of the way Canada's leftist Canadian Broadcasting Corp.
(CBC) portrays the U.S.:
aired a rabidly anti-Bush documentary entitled "The World According to
Bush" – not once but three times – during the 2004 presidential
And that's presumably why very few Canadian citizens voted for Bush in the 2004 presidential election.
program also broadcast by the CBC right before the election was "The
Unauthorized Biography of Dick Cheney." The CBC Web site stated:
"Cheney's remarkable life story involves the relentless accumulation of
power in every form. ... [The CBC] will show how he accomplished this,
what it involved in terms of costs for others and what history's
judgement [sic] could be."
Not only did CBC
broadcast a program claiming that Cheney's life story involves the
accumulation of power in every form (oil, nuclear energy, coal, etc.),
but they had the nerve to use the secondary spelling of "judgment"!
the CBC commissioned and aired a documentary titled "Stupidity," in
which the message is that George W. Bush is officially a moron because,
according to the press release issued by the producer, "a group of
Canadian stupidity experts" says so.
Well, I think that
Rachel has proven that the CBC is anti-America, all right. Yup, they
aired three programs that seem critical of our Prez and VP, and
therefore, they (and their whole liberal country) must hate us. But
Rachel for one welcomes her new American overlords, and reminds them
that she could be useful in rounding up others to toil in their
underground stupidity mines.
For apparently she
isn't any too fond of her native land Per her columns, never will you
find a more wretched hive of scum and liberalism than Canada (at least,
the parts of it that she writes about). Her lastest column
deals with the stupid city of Toronto, and how it says it's going to
get tough on people who don't recycle, but instead of jailing them or
shooting them or something, the damned liberals in the city council
will just send them warning letters.
Hey, the Mayor should
at least talk tough about how the recycling scofflaws are evil doers,
how they can run but they can't hide, and how the city should invade
their homes, kill their leaders, and convert them to recycling. But
noooo, the city is just a bunch of wimpy liberals, and nobody at all is
going to get the death penalty for their pro-garbage crimes.
City of Toronto has descended into a quagmire in the War on Garbage and
now city council is calling in the troops. At least that’s what you
would believe if you’ve been following all the hyperventilation this
week suggesting the city will soon be imposing fines on people who
don’t properly sort their recyclables.
as all the jihadists would have done if liberal John Kerry had been
elected U.S. president last November, trash terrorists can chill out
knowing that the lefty-dominated council is in charge of fighting this
And, as President Bush implied, there are links between the trash terrorists and al Qaeda -- so, it's a time for tough action.
Or it it?
reality is that there will always be situations in which recycling is
more of a hassle than it’s worth: You’re doing some quick de-cluttering
and just want to open a big trash bag and dump everything in.
when you're cleaning up a murder scene, you don't want to be bothered
sorting the blood-soaked rags, rubber gloves, and murder weapon from
the body. It's much more convenient to just open a big trash bag and
dump everything in it.
You live in a small space and have nowhere to store your rotting compost.
They make you recycle your rotting compost in Canada? Man, their recycling laws are stringent!
walk by those big silver trash/recycling bins on the street and would
rather just drop your newspaper through whichever slot looks the
cleanest, rather than risk getting a dose of hepatitis from one you’re
actually supposed to be using.
year, thousands of men, women, and children die of hepatitis they
caught from dropping their newspapers into dirty recycling bins. Don't
let anyone YOU care about be part of that number -- join Rachel in her
crusade to, um, whine about liberals. Thank you.
Oh, and when
we actually invade Canada, we will fight them there so we don't have to
fight them here. Because if we had to fight them here, they'd probably
try to keep us from watching our beloved Bill O'Reilly, and might force
us to recycle our rotting compost. [World O'Crap]
Bush Advises Blair Not to Expect Special Treatment at G-8 Summit.
Bush Tries to Remake Image as Team Player
Warren Veith | London | July 5
LAT - President Bush, whose foreign policy is viewed in some countries
as ill-conceived and arrogant, heads to an international summit this
week intent on convincing the world that he knows the meaning of
consensus. Yeah, right!
Bush Advises Blair Not to Expect Special Treatment at G-8 Summit
London | July 5
WaPo - President Bush told British Prime Minister Tony Blair to expect
no favors at this week's Group of Eight summit of major industrialized
countries in return for backing the war in Iraq. Blair, who has made
tackling global warming and relieving African poverty the goals of his
year-long presidency of the G-8, will host fellow leaders at the
Gleneagles Hotel in Scotland from Wednesday to Friday.
Global savings glut, my ass...
What Global Savings Glut?.
What Global Savings Glut?Stephen Roach | New York | July 5Morgan
Stanley - Another new theory has been concocted to rationalize
unsustainable excesses. The notion of a “global saving glut” has been
proposed -- and quickly accepted -- as a new and important excuse for
mounting global imbalances. It is also thought to explain why interest
rates are so low -- resolving the great conundrum of our time by
stressing the mismatch between excess capital and limited investment
opportunities. Finally, this theory implies that global imbalances are
more benign than malign -- drawing into question the urgency for any
rebalancing. I don’t buy the global saving glut hypothesis, and here’s
Where Have All The Statesmen Gone?.
...it's probably perfectly understandable, given the sharp,
whiney, partisan tone that American politics has devolved to, that a
person just can't gain a high enough vantage point to be able to
discern anything resembling a true statesman in any of the blow-dried
blowhards that populate our political scene. The sorts of true giants
who endure in the history books only come along every occasional
generation or so, and things don't look too good for this one. It's a
little more surprising, perhaps due to lack of understanding, how
European leaders seem to fall into the same sort of trap, but it is
mildly amusing to watch how they diss and spin and fling the fecal
matter, both within their own borders and with their neighbors. '
Today's example is the relationship between France and Britain, never
alll that solid in the best of times but now even more rocky than
normal because of a spirited competition over...the Olympics. French
head honcho Jacques Chirac has fired the most recent shot, churning up
a little tempest across the Channel by riffing on British food and mad
cow disease... ...is this how adults behave now? Did I miss the memo? I
mean, the mad...
Rove has an easy out — which he'll no doubt ignore.
Over the holiday weekend, the investigation into the scandal
surrounding the White House and Valerie Plame took an entertaining turn
when reports surfaced that Karl Rove was, in fact, one of the leakers
who exposed the identity of an undercover CIA agent.
The e-mails surrendered by Time Inc., which are largely between Cooper and his editors, [...]
[The Carpetbagger Report]
Atrios writes about this Times article on Democrats putting question marks after statements and provoking hysteria, and says the following:
Democrats are not allowed to ask questions about...
well, as far as I can tell, anything. All questions of a nominee are
I think that's a bit off. Republicans are saying that Democrats are
more than free to ask certain questions. It's just that the sanctity of
the nomination process requires complete and total ignorance of any
reason why the President might have made the nomination, or what they
might do as a nominee. That, to me, seems perfectly acceptable. There's
no constutional requirement that Supreme Court justices actually be
qualified, and I'm perfectly fine with entrusting the highest court in
the land to whoever walks in off the street.
Oh, wait, you mean the President can know what nominees believe, even if Senators can't (cuz that's eeevil)? Well...well, that's fucked up. [Pandagon]
Out Of Touch.
The foreign policy establishment of both parties, but especially
Republicans, is completely out of touch with the public when it comes
to withdrawal. First, here is what the public thinks about withdrawal:
Gallup Poll. June 29-30, 2005. N=883 adults nationwide. MoE ±...
Stupid Questions to Judicial Nominees: Good for Ge...
Stupid Questions to Judicial Nominees: Good for Geese and Ganders
So on one of the chatalot Sunday shows, Democrat Senator Charles Schumer
that the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee would actually question a
nominee to the Supreme Court on his or her views on, well, shit, legal
issues. Said Schumer, "All questions are legitimate. What is your view
on Roe v. Wade? What is your view on gay marriage? They are going to
try to get away with the idea that we're not going to know their views.
But that's not going to work this time."
To this Republican Orrin "Behold My Mormon Scowl
of Repressed Libido" Hatch said, "Any member of the committee can ask
whatever they want, no matter how stupid," adding that nominees had
been pressed to give their views on potential judicial matters, "but
never to the degree" Schumer hinted at. Later, on some other
who-gives-a-shit talker, Republican baboon Jeff Sessions pronounced
such questions on specific matters "highly objectionable," saying, "You
cannot ask a judge to prejudge a specific matter."
Well, as usual, they'd've both done well to look
at the recent history of hearings on nominees to the Supreme Court.
Here's Orrin Hatch questioning Ruth Bader Ginsburg back in July 1993
about the death penalty: "But do you agree with all the current sitting
members of the Court that it is constitutional? Is it within the
Constitution?" Indeed, Hatch had berated Ginsberg endlessly trying to
get her to pop her Constitutional cherry on offing criminals.
Ask a stupid question and, well, fuck, guess you
get a stupid answer: Ginsburg responded that one must never ask a judge
how she may vote on a case that might come before her. Hatch barked
back, "But that's not what I asked you. I asked you is it in the
Constitution?" which is precisely what she'd have to judge if she
became a Supreme Court justice. Indeed, when Ginsburg continued to
refuse to be drawn into a discussion of whether or not capital
punishment is "cruel and unusual," Hatch was exasperated and demanded,
"I think you ought to tell us where you really come down." In other
words, a Republican Senator, in the minority, demanded to know how
Ginsburg would judge capital punishment cases.
When Republican Senator William Cohen asked
Ginsburg about discrimination based on sexual orientation, she again
declined to answer because it was a possible case that she may have to
decide. Ginsburg was more than willing to talk about decisions she had
written, as in her frank discussion of abortion rights and women's
rights in general. Cohen also pressed Stephen Breyer in 1994, when
Breyer was a nominee, asking him directly for the future justice's
personal opinion on the death penalty. (Oh, for the days when the
Republicans only had a hard-on for killing the guilty.)
So, like, as ever, Republicans are hiding behind
reportage and discussion devoid of any semblance of historical context.
Or, to put it simply, they're just gonna lie and say whatever the fuck
they want to get their way.
Out here in Left Blogsylvania, since Sandra Day
O'Connor announced her retirement last Friday, there's been sooo much
talk about whether the "Gang of 14" deal will hold, what the strategy
will be wherein Bush will fuck us over one more time, will the nominee
be batfuck-Ann-Coulter insane or just plain ol' nutzoid, and
filibuster, filibuster, filibuster. The Rude Pundit declines to get
involved until the inevitable motherfucker is nominated (because, you
know, Bush always nominates motherfuckers).
Except to say this: it's time for so-called
moderate Republicans to put the fuck up or shut the fuck up. When some
odious, torture-supportin', rights abandonin', abortion-overturnin'
piece of shit is the nominee, don't fuckin' hope and pray that
Democrats will take the bullet for your pusillanimity in standing up to
the White House. In other words, if you rely on the Democrat filibuster
to shield you from expressing your disgust with the Bush
administration, then you deserve your upcoming wacko-conservative
primary challenger that the lunatic right will put up against you.
By the way, the Rude Pundit won't be joining in
the encomiums to Sandra Day O'Connor's Supreme Court tenure. Sure,
sure, sure, she happened to be an available conservative woman who
happened to be a judge when Ronald Reagan was trying to shore up some
street cred with half of America. But that's circumstance. Sure, sure,
she was a swing vote in favor of abortion rights and affirmative
And she was also the swing vote on
Bush v. Gore
, which led us to this moment in history, with war in Iraq, the steady
dismantling of rights that O'Connor supported, and the final rightward
shift of the court itself. Fuck her. That one decision undoes all the
- Rude One
[The Rude Pundit]
Chelsea Peretti: SHARK SAFETY TIPS: CONTINUED! (With John Mulaney)
Due to the recent shark attacks in Florida (Fla.) and beyond, we are offering a refresher on Shark Safety.
NO WAY, DON'T DO THAT
"But surely this fella seems like he could be okay?" NO. DON'T.
"Not this guy either?" NOPE.
HM. NOT SURE WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THIS ONE. BETTER DON'T.
"Hey what's that over there, let's go get Deb and Mike and check it out."
SMACK!! DON'T. D.o. n.o.t. ( S-h-a-r-k-! )
CURTAINS, FELLAS! NICE TA KNOW YA. (DON'T.)
AH, THE DO TWINS!
YOU'RE PUSHING IT! BUT I LIKE IT! DO.
OH MY GOD!
YOU CAUGHT THAT?
OH. MY. GOD!
GREAT SUIT. DON'T GO IN THE WATER.
OOOOHHH MMYYYYY GGOOOOOOOODDDDDD!!!!
OTHER SEA CREATURES TO AVOID: - Chelsea Peretti (firstname.lastname@example.org)
[The Huffington Post | Full Blog Feed]
|| © Copyright
7/12/2005; 11:35:44 AM.