Friday, January 30, 2009

But we're a Big State, so we have our share of sane people too!

And jobsanger is one of 'em!

Texas is crawling with 'em

Like Susan, I'm hoping that some other states will step up to the plate and start displaying their wingnuts with pride, but I have my doubts that any of them will be able to give off as pungent an odor as our own TexasFred who, at every turn, adamantly declares that he is NOT a racist (emphasis, by all means, mine):
Eric Holder is THE biggest danger the gun owners of this nation face…

He is going to be the one that DOES come after guns and/or ammo. He is the one that will be the *bad guy* and Obama will sit back and smile smugly thru those purple lips and say, “Well, I didn’t go after you gullible gun guys, Holder did!!"

Thursday, January 29, 2009

Uh oh

Yet another Texas Republican uses a national podium to make an ass of himself and Susan wonders when other states will do their part. Spread the wealth, I say!

Wednesday, January 28, 2009

Dickensian names

Earlier today, I had a giggle over tristero's post in which he referenced some funny names of right wingers, and then, lo and behold! came this. But then, I remember I had a doctor when I was a child named "Dr. Illman", and the head of the Psychiatry Department at my college was named "Dr. Narcisso" and the head administrator of a hospital where I worked was named "Dick Hardin." Seriously.

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

John Updike


Dead at 76.

Wanker of the Day

Atrios names this guy for obvious reasons, but I think Juan Williams is definitely a contender.

Breathtakingly Nuts

This post by tristero at Hullabaloo is not to be missed:
But Lemann neglects to include a crucial qualifier, indeed the most important point of his anecdote: No one competent at reality testing or possessing a nanogram of integrity has ever compared Bush favorably to Lincoln, not even in the days following 9/11. Problem was, hardly anyone competent at reality testing or with a nanogram of integrity could get remotely near the mainstream media in those days. Problem was, the media were overrun by the kind of clowns who actually would shamelessly compare Bush to Lincoln. Problem was, that kind of preposterous comparison was acceptable mainstream opinion.

The problems remain. To this day, those who got it wrong - perhaps even worse, those who gave the incompetent bullshit-slingers a free ride - retain their access to important media. Case in point: Nick Lemann. Yes, it's a small, tiny, trivial detail but Lemann could have easily inserted at the end of the last sentence "by people who really should have known better." He didn't and it probably never occurred to him to do so. In fact, serious reporters like Lemann regularly coddled those who ridiculously asserted Bush=Lincoln and failed to report the opinions of those who insisted upon remaining intellectually honest. Lemann's not Tom Friedman or Bill O'Reilly, he's not incredibly stupid and he's certainly not a malicious rightwinger. He's just, well... his mindset's typical.

I can never forget this astounding article he wrote on the odious Project for a New American Century on the eve of the catastrophe known as the Bush/Iraq war. In many ways, it was a terrific piece. Lemann introduced his readers to PNAC's longstanding plans to invade Iraq in order to remake the Middle East. But, after going into considerable detail about PNAC's notorious paper "A Clean Break" and David Wurmser's book, which speculated that a positive domino effect would sweep the Middle East if Saddam was toppled, Lemann wraps up with this:

'A few things should be said about this vision of the near-term future in the Middle East. It is breathtakingly ambitious and optimistic.'

Again, Lemann was absolutely right. A few things absolutely should have been said about PNAC's plan and Wurmser's book. Problem was, and is, that Lemann said the wrong few things.

PNAC"s plans weren't "breathtakingly ambitious." They were absolutely nuts. As in screaming yellow bonkers nuts. The notion that invading Iraq would lead to Iran abandoning its nuclear ambitions wasn't "optimistic." It was unhinged from any remotely conceivable future reality.

Friday, January 23, 2009

Shame?

If this guy had the ability to experience shame, well, he wouldn't be a Texas Republican now, would he?

Cornyn appears to be vying for the position of That Buffoon From Texas since GWB vacated that post. Nice to know we'll never be without.

Fanatics don't compromise

Two for the price of one: Mahablog discusses Roe v. Wade Day and references Digby while she's at it.

Thursday, January 22, 2009

Elections have consequences

So far, so very, very good.

There was also this (H/T Mahablog):
"Let me say it as simply as I can. Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."

*sigh*

And was any Bush appointee ever greeted like this? UPDATE: That was the State; it's the same over at Interior:
Secretary Salazar was extremely well received, with a fairly open Q&A session following his speech. My first impression of him is that he seems to be a highly qualified, and a genuinely nice guy to boot. He also seems to have brought with a group of extremely qualified people. I'll wait and see, as always. It was a really heartening meeting though; everyone seems very excited. It feels like a return to rational governance.
The past 8 years have been such a nightmare and the relief of seeing good, smart people in charge seems palpable and widespread.

Wednesday, January 21, 2009

This was another one



And both Mike and Sandy Underpants posted great images regarding the end of Dubya's reign.

Mike also has the transcript of Obama's great speech. Thanks Mike!

One of my favorite moments during The Day

There were many moments to cherish yesterday, but this one ranks in the Top Five:



God, I love that woman!

A New Day

What a weekend! I know it was frigid in D.C. but the weather down here in South Texas was picture perfect and between the MLK march on Monday and the Inauguration on Tuesday there has been nonstop celebrating all around! Woo hoo! My son, Sandy, was annoyed that he had to go to school while his mom was out kicking up her heels, but hey, son, that's the way it goes, y'know!

It's always illuminating to observe how local news outlets in Texas respond to news as opposed to not only the national coverage but, say NPR or the BBC. This is on the front page of my local paper, the San Antonio Express-News, this morning:



The impression that this image (an AP photo, credited to one Marvin Cleaver) is intended to convey, I suppose, is that the Brits (and perhaps the world at large) are really, really excited about Obama's inauguration. Now, our paper endorsed McCain and is generally quite conservative in its editorial policies, but I will say that, overall, today's front page coverage is fairly positive. But as I was getting ready for work this morning, I had the television tuned to local news coverage and it was fascinating to listen to the various anchors discuss the inauguration - you know how they engage in chit chat between stories. First of all, they feature - every morning, mind you - commentary from a local DJ who is San Antonio's Rush Limbaugh wannabe at what must be their affiliate radio station . So, in between the traffic and the weather and the reports of various shootings that go down in our fair city, we are treated to whatever 2-second Drivel of the Day that this moron, and I suppose the show's producers, considers "humor." Based on the very few times I have actually watched this show, this is how it usually goes: News anchor pauses mid-show and says, "Let's hear what whazziz-name (let me just call him "The Moron" since, mysteriously, I've blocked his name) has to say!" and on comes The Moron to expound upon whatever topic he deems appropriate, and the news anchors then giggle and titter at his salty wit. Today, following the script, News Anchor says, "Let's check in with The Moron!" whereupon The Moron comes on and admits that he didn't watch any of the inauguration ceremonies on TV but he listened to it on the radio and he found Obama's speech "disappointing" and "no big deal" after which he added "for some reason" and I'm thinking, "because you're an asshole!" and then he felt compelled to add, "And about that POEM - I really hope the woman who read that poem was really good-looking so that watching her might have made that part of the ceremony bearable because that poem was AWFUL!" Titter, titter, go the anchors, agreeing wholeheartedly that The Poem was awful and one nitwit anchor went so far as to say, "EVERYONE hated it" after which she repeated herself to be sure that we all heard her. Good stuff!

Gee, I dunno, maybe it's time to drop a line to the producers of the Channel 4 Morning News and let them know that no, not EVERYONE "hated" the poem, and that maybe it's time for them to consider the fact the the majority of voting citizens in their primary viewing area (Bexar County) along with EVERY OTHER MAJOR METROPOLITAN COUNTY IN TEXAS, voted for Barack Obama and that most of us were really, really happy about his inauguration and way more than happy to see the tail end of the George W. Bush administration, and the last thing in the world that any of us need to hear is the moronic grousing of sore-loser rightwingers on the morning news.

Consider it done!

Friday, January 16, 2009

I am sooooo ready for a long weekend

The place where I work has graciously consented been forced by the State of Texas to give us a day off on Monday and I have tacked on a vacation day after that for Tuesday so I am VERY glad that this week is finally over.

So, ta ta suckas, and let me leave you with this which is one of the funniest blog posts I have ever read.

"F" for Effort

So, did anyone watch Bush's "speech" last night? Yeah, me neither. Steve Benen did, though, and he suggests that Bush seemed to be asking the nation to give him an "A" for effort.

I don't think so.

Have we ever had a more intellectually lazy President? Or one who expended less effort toward understanding his job and doing it well? Sorry, but I think the results speak for themselves.

Thank you Dr. Krugman

The Times steps up to the plate and hits a home run:
Why, then, shouldn’t we have an official inquiry into abuses during the Bush years?

One answer you hear is that pursuing the truth would be divisive, that it would exacerbate partisanship. But if partisanship is so terrible, shouldn’t there be some penalty for the Bush administration’s politicization of every aspect of government?

Alternatively, we’re told that we don’t have to dwell on past abuses, because we won’t repeat them. But no important figure in the Bush administration, or among that administration’s political allies, has expressed remorse for breaking the law. What makes anyone think that they or their political heirs won’t do it all over again, given the chance?

In fact, we’ve already seen this movie. During the Reagan years, the Iran-contra conspirators violated the Constitution in the name of national security. But the first President Bush pardoned the major malefactors, and when the White House finally changed hands the political and media establishment gave Bill Clinton the same advice it’s giving Mr. Obama: let sleeping scandals lie. Sure enough, the second Bush administration picked up right where the Iran-contra conspirators left off — which isn’t too surprising when you bear in mind that Mr. Bush actually hired some of those conspirators.

Now, it’s true that a serious investigation of Bush-era abuses would make Washington an uncomfortable place, both for those who abused power and those who acted as their enablers or apologists. And these people have a lot of friends. But the price of protecting their comfort would be high: If we whitewash the abuses of the past eight years, we’ll guarantee that they will happen again.

Meanwhile, about Mr. Obama: while it’s probably in his short-term political interests to forgive and forget, next week he’s going to swear to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” That’s not a conditional oath to be honored only when it’s convenient.

And to protect and defend the Constitution, a president must do more than obey the Constitution himself; he must hold those who violate the Constitution accountable. So Mr. Obama should reconsider his apparent decision to let the previous administration get away with crime. Consequences aside, that’s not a decision he has the right to make.

Thursday, January 15, 2009

Looking Forward

Glenzilla, with typical elegant acuity and with help from a link to an excellent post by Billmon, explains why Bush and his cabal of crooks like this one aren't heading to jail any time soon.

The mantra of "looking forward" and "let's not dwell on the past" has particular personal resonance for me. It seems to be a common refrain issued by people who have acted badly and don't want to be held accountable.

UPDATE: Hilzoy has some succinct clarification for anyone who needs it. Also, everyone should read this and then remember that "Joe The Plumber" thinks all war reporting should be left to the Pentagon.

Time to Flush

The always-wonderful Scott at World O' Crap give us the definitive description of Bush's final address to the nation.

Tuesday, January 13, 2009

From the Department of What the Nation Really Doesn't Need

I suppose there are approximately 30% of us who are really looking forward to watching this:
"It's not something where he's trying to refight old battles. It's a very thoughtful, forward-looking speech in which the president will share the lessons he learned in office and his views on the future," Perino said.
Woo hoo! "Looking forward"! Not "refighting old battles"! You betcha!

Friday, January 9, 2009

New Definition

Eric Martin over at Obsidian Wings points us to this column by one Stephen M. Walt at Foreign Policy magazine in which he convincingly argues that:
it is high time to redefine what "pro-Israel" means.

Thursday, January 8, 2009

Why the Democratic Leadership in Congress has a lower approval rating than George W. Bush

Because they are spineless idiots.

The Burning Bush

One must appreciate the challenge facing Bush's psyche as it attempts to cope with the conflict between his outsized ego and the ever-increasing and overwhelming evidence of his crappiness. To see his minions and enablers scuttering around attempting to fashion some passable fiction that they can pawn off as his "legacy" is to watch the human capacity for duplicity in all its rank glory. No illusionist could surpass Karl Rove (insert name of any Bushbot here): "See how I make history disappear!" Did you see the interview with W the other day wherein he claimed that his greatest domestic achievement was bringing Social Security "reform" up for discussion? Seriously. (The first commenter to that post, "shoeless", astutely points out that: "Well, the best thing Bush did in 8 years was to fail in his attempt to kill Social Security.")

Needless to say, they don't deserve our help in this effort. In fact, I firmly believe that we should make it as difficult as possible. I believe that we should remember that our failure as a democratic country to confront, honestly and openly, the full extent of the crimes of the Nixon administration and to hold those responsible accountable led directly to the catastrophe of the George W. Bush administration and that future (and likely worse) catastrophes are certain unless we do it differently this time.

On NPR the other day, the following claim was made:
The early reviews of Bush's presidency have not been kind. But will that verdict change, as the president's allies suggest? It has happened for other ex-presidents. Historians are pointing to one factor that could help it happen for Bush: the effectiveness of his successor, Barack Obama.
Nice. With this neat little trick, the achievements of Barack Obama are used to make George W. Bush look good! Get it? And if you think they won't be able to get away with it, where have you been for the last eight years? There really is only one way to avoid this travesty and that is with the appointment of a special prosecutor and independent investigations. We must, as a country, insist on the protection of our government by upholding the rule of law and by holding those in the highest reaches of power who commit egregious crimes - war crimes - accountable to us.

Here's what you can do to help.

UPDATE: Greenwald today.

Tuesday, January 6, 2009

On Israel/Gaza

A good post by Daniel Levy at TPM. Not the usual rightwing neocon blather.

Monday, January 5, 2009

I say "tomato", you say "to-mah-to"

You say "independent panel", I say YGTBFKM.

UPDATE: Then again, you say "achievement", and I say "Epic Fail". (The picture accompanying this post is perfect!)

I think this could go on and on.

Back to the grind...

Okay, it took me at least an hour to get through my email this morning and my phone hasn't stopped ringing for, I swear, more than 2 minutes. For some reason, people seem anxious to get back to work!

I don't feel much ready to be back at work but, considering today's reality, I suppose I should be thankful! So, for the record, I am. Still, the holiday was quite welcome and everything went amazingly well. Gifts were bought, wrapped and mailed. Food was cooked. New ping pong table was delivered, assembled and put to good use. Went to see "Doubt" - it was better than I expected it to be. There were parties and there were moments of wonderful quiet solitude. It was all good! Hope yours was too. I PROMISE I'll get back to regular posting quite soon!