Hangover Discurso

There’s so much delicious depravity I just can’t keep up these days. It’s time for morning-after opining on the public discourse once again. Bring me some hair o’ the dog and let’s get to it, my darlings.

First up, dday at Digby’s Hullaballoo has a delightful dissection of “McCain’s Terrible, Horrible, No-Good Very Bad Week”:

I hope somebody’s taking notes on this week’s travails for John McCain, because if this was October and anyone was paying attention, his entire staff would be fired and the RNC would be gamely talking about random downballot races and how “2012 looks to be an up year.”


It’s a whirlwind tour of some of the most outrageous bullshit ever to come out of a presidential campaign. Simply gorgeous. Go read it. I’ll just sit here sipping quietly until your return.

Welcome back. Let me pour you another. I’ve got another brilliant take-down of McCain, this time from the incomparable Glenn Greenwald, who points out just how far John “Torture is Wrong – Let’s Authorize More!” McCain has gone in creating the moral morass we find ourselves in today:

An article by The New York Times’s Mark Mazzetti this morning discloses a letter (.pdf) from the Justice Department to Congress which asserts “that American intelligence operatives attempting to thwart terrorist attacks can legally use interrogation methods that might otherwise be prohibited under international law.” In other words, even after all of the dramatic anti-torture laws and other decrees, the Bush administration insists that American interrogators have the right to use methods that are widely considered violations of the Geneva Conventions if we decide that doing so might help “thwart terrorist attacks.”

There are two reasons, and two reasons only, that the Bush Administration is able to claim this power: John McCain and the Military Commissions Act. In September, 2006, McCain made a melodramatic display — with great media fanfare — of insisting that the MCA require compliance with the Geneva Conventions for all detainees. But while the MCA purports to require that, it also vested sole and unchallenged discretion in the President to determine what does and does not constitute a violation of the Conventions. After parading around as the righteous opponent of torture, McCain nonetheless endorsed and voted for the MCA, almost single-handedly ensuring its passage. That law pretends to compel compliance with the Conventions, while simultaneously vesting the President with the power to violate them — precisely the power that the President is invoking here to proclaim that we have the right to use these methods.


Isn’t that precious? The President gets to decide. I guess McCain really took all that “I’m the decider” malarkey to heart. His political ambitions even overcome the fact that he understands the evils of torture from first-hand experience. I don’t know about you, but I truly do not want a deceptive shitsack like this as our next President.

And you might notice something about this little snippet that sounds an awful lot like Scalia’s recent “torture doesn’t violate the Constitution’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment because it’s not punishment” poison. This is what our culture has been reduced to: semantic arguments. They torture bodies, and then they torture the law to justify it.

I can’t put too fine a point on this: I fucking despise these goddamned motherfucking assholes.

And I loathe their media enablers:

Last week, Politico reported that John McCain has an “unorthodox strategy” to capture the presidency — he “will rely on free media to an unprecedented degree to get out his message.”

Interesting word, “rely” — the American Heritage Dictionary defines it not only as “to be dependent for support, help, or supply,” but also as “to place or have faith or confidence.”

Planning a presidential campaign around confidence that the news media will get your message out for you might ordinarily be considered a risky gambit. But the media wasted no time in establishing that McCain’s faith will be rewarded.


Jamison Foser of MediaMatters.org is relentless in deconstructing the media’s passionate desire to attach their lips firmly to McCain’s bare buttocks. It’s just sad that he has so much material to work with. “Fair and balanced” has apparently come to mean reporting fair and lovely things about McCain while balancing vicious attacks on the Democratic candidates equally between Obama and Hillary.

I feel a desire to protest coming on. Someone get me a picket. Preferrably a sharp one.

From that same article comes this statement that fair took my breath away:

On Tuesday, The New York Times ran what should have served as a reminder to other media outlets that stipulating to McCain’s purity is not journalism, it is cheerleading. The Times revealed that McCain helped Donald Diamond, one of his biggest fundraisers, purchase a stretch of California coastal land from the Pentagon — a purchase that netted Diamond a $20 million profit. Diamond explained: “I think that is what Congress people are supposed to do for constituents. … When you have a big, significant businessman like myself, why wouldn’t you want to help move things along? What else would they do? They waste so much time with legislation.” (emphasis incredulously added)


Oh my fucking gods did Diamond really just say something that outrageously stupid?

Does this assclown not realize that Congress is the fucking legislative branch? They write and enact legislation. That’s what they do, at least when they’re not in bed happily humping “big, significant businessmen” like Diamond.

Remember, McCain likes to present himself as a straight-talking, straight-shooting, lobbyist-and-earmark-fighting maverick. I think that myth has been as thoroughly debunked as the “scientific” theory of Intelligent Design, don’t you? If you’re undecided, go read the Times article. It even shocked me, and I thought I was long past being shocked by McCain’s scumbaggery.

This is our political landscape, my darlings. Look upon it and weep. And then get bloody angry and vote these fuckers out of power, flay the media that licks their toes, and boycott the businessmen who turn our lawmakers into toadying douchebags.

Hangover Discurso
{advertisement}

Dear Media: Stop Sucking

There’s not a day goes by where my blood pressure isn’t raised by media asshattery of some description. They ignore issues that directly threaten our Constitution in favor of the latest celebrity crotch shot. They pass over Bush approving torture and obsess over the morning beverage choices of a certain presidential candidate. They yammer endlessly about ridiculous shit, and when someone calls bullshit, they snivel, “Bu-bu-but that’s what the American public wants.”

No, we fucking well do not want. That’s what you decided we wanted, and no matter how often we tell you otherwise, you choose not to listen, you ignorant, pompous fools.

Paul Waldman has your number:

Reporters will choose to write about flag pins. They will choose to write about whether some catastrophic, heretofore hidden character flaw has been revealed by a comment a candidate made, or by a comment somebody who knows the candidate made. They are not merely onduits for the campaign’s discourse, they create the campaign’s discourse, as much as the candidates themselves.


I think there are a lot of reasons for the breakdown in American intelligence and ability to handle pieces of information larger than a soundbite (Religious Right, I’m looking at you. Yes, that is my middle finger shoved up your left nostril). We’re busier, we’re more distracted, and we’re distracted by the newest shiny objects, but you know who’s habituated us to bullshit masquerading as news? The fucking media, and their far-right handlers.

Kids who grow up in abusive homes think the abuse is normal. They think that’s how everybody acts. People who are fed nothing but pap by the nation’s media think pap is all it’s about. They don’t know there’s an alternative. If the media stopped spoon feeding the lowest fucking common denominator, then the other denominators might smarten up a bit. And the denominators have discovered this wonderful thing called the Internet that’s given them a window into another life. They’re discovering the abuse isn’t normal. They’re discovering there’s things like substantive issues and world opinion. They’re hungry for steak. The media keeps feeding them pap.

Just because starving people eat what you give them doesn’t mean it’s what they actually want, you stupid fucking morons.

Steve Benen over at the Carpetbagger Report gets to the crux of the matter nicely:

To me, there are two key problems with the media’s emphasis on trivia, mini-controversies, and the buzz of the day. The first is emphasis — I know there’s going to be some interest and coverage of some minor flap or another, but on a daily basis, it’s wildly disproportionate. That was one of the jarring things about last week’s debate — not that there were some questions about the various distractions, but that there were 15 questions about the distractions that constituted the entire first half of the event.

The second is that, too often, the media takes trivia and decides it really isn’t trivia at all. Instead of mindless coverage of some inconsequential flap or gaffe, an outlet or media personality will insist that the flap or gaffe deserves to be elevated into a national controversy, worthy of serious and genuine analysis. So, when Obama bowls a 37, it’s not just a punch-line or the subject of good-natured ribbing, it becomes an excuse to scrutinize Obama’s manliness and his ability to connect with small-town voters. If he orders orange juice at a diner, it’s the same thing. Clinton’s laugh drew similar scrutiny, as did the price of Edwards’ haircuts.

It’s not enough to highlight the sideshow; the media wants people to believe the sideshow is a serious issue. That’s the problem.


Sideshows were never meant to be the centerpiece of the circus. That’s why they’re sideshows, you see. It’s time our media realize that. To help them along, I have a not-so-friendly message:

You have a choice in the matter: you can choose to continue your decline from watchdogs of democracy to Fifi the Performing Poodle, or you can consult a good proctologist to have your heads extracted from the right wing’s colon. Seems to me the choice should be easy.

Dear Media: Stop Sucking

The Media and Bushies: A Punk Interpretation

The American media have treated the Bush Administration with a phenominal lack of interest. It’s gotten to the point where it seems they could reveal literally anything, no matter how outrageous, and the media would respond with a collective, “That’s nice. So, did you hear that Obama asked for toast without butter? Omigod!!”

And then some punk songs started flitting through my head. And I realized: this is exactly what the last several years of political discourse in this country have been like.

Cheney:

I’ve got something to say
I killed your baby today

Media:

And it doesn’t matter much to me
As long as it’s dead

Cheney:

I’ve got something to say
I raped your mother today

Media:

And it doesn’t matter much to me
As long as she spread

America:

Sweet lovely death
I am waiting for your breath
come sweet death
One last caress


Bush:

Well I’ve fucked a sheep
And I’ve fucked a goat
I’ve had my cock right down its throat

Media: So what, so what

Well who cares, who cares what you do

Explains everything, really.

*Goes without saying that these are my views. The bands don’t necessarily concur. Or give a fuck.

The Media and Bushies: A Punk Interpretation

With the Watchdogs Silent, Vigilantes Must Act

Day 7, and the media is still too obsessed with personality politics to notice that President Bush wholeheartedly approves of torture. At this point, our Assclown in Chief could admit to stir-frying babies, and the media would stick a three-line item on page B-18. They simply don’t care.

I don’t know how they got the idea that Americans only want stories about gaffes, bullshit, woo, and general fluff. It’s time to disabuse them of that notion.

Firedoglake has put together a nifty little tool for writing easy letters to the editor of a bajillion papers. I’ve done my part:

Bush Approves Torture, Media Obsesses Over Orange Juice

Dear Editor,

Where are our watchdogs of democracy?

President Bush knew of meetings held at the highest level of his administration to discuss and approve specific torture
techniques. He approved of those meetings.

The American President approved of torture. ABC broke the story on April 10th. And yet, Dan Fromkin of the Washington Post notes, “There was no mention of Bush’s admission in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal or the Los Angeles Times. There was nothing on the major wire services. And nothing on CNN, CBS or NBC.”

Barak Obama’s choice of morning beverage was far more important to our media than our president approving torture.

When President Nixon authorized a burglary, the media kept the story going until he was impeached. President Bush’s authorization of torture would seem a far worse offense, but the media has ignored it.

Democracy’s watchdogs barked at Watergate. Why are they silent now?


I know a fair number of you are writers. Go forth and write.

With the Watchdogs Silent, Vigilantes Must Act

Michael Medved: Assclown Extraordinaire

I was going to write a blazing post beating Michael Medved down for his fuckery regarding why an atheist could never be President, but others have done the job for me. To them, I am grateful. It means I can turn my attention to other assclowns.

Carpetbagger highlighted the dumbassitude in “This Week in God:”

First up from the God machine this week is an eyebrow-raising column about why Americans couldn’t possibly vote for a non-believer as president.

The very idea is remarkably remote. Gallup did a poll last year and found that Americans would sooner vote for anyone other than an atheist. But far-right commentator Michael Medved devoted his weekly column to explaining why Americans are right about this, and should only consider monotheists for the presidency. To elect a non-believer to a secular office to lead a secular executive branch, Medved said, would be “bad for the country.”

[snip]

This is probably the dumbest thing I’ve seen in print in quite some time.


Considering the stupidity CB runs in to on a daily basis, that’s saying something.

Daylight Atheism gives Medved the pounding he deserves, saving me the trouble:

This is the old canard that atheism is somehow intrinsically disrespectful of the religious in the way that other religions are not. It’s hard to see how this claim can be sustained, though, because Mormonism and Judaism both deny fundamental tenets of Christianity: one rejects Jesus’ claim to be the messiah, while the other asserts that he was just one in a potentially infinite line of deified humans. These faiths already deny so many of each other’s major tenets: why does the one additional tenet denied by atheism make all the difference?


If you want to know what I was going to say, go there. I might have a few potshots to take later, but honestly, I can’t muster up the energy. Not for a wingnut radio host who believes in Bigfoot and is a Discovery Institute fellow.

No, I’m off to find more challenging game. Spanking someone who’s already removed their pants is just not the same.

Michael Medved: Assclown Extraordinaire

Bloggers Rule, MSM Drool

Cobalt makes an interesting observation in comments on One Apology Down, 303,829,130 To Go:

Davis didn’t respond with as strong an apology as we deserve, but she was forced to backtrack because The Internet got pissed. That’s encouraging.

Damned skippy, and I hope we never forget that power.

I’ve been constantly reminded lately of a statement from Batman Begins: “What chance does Gotham have when good people do nothing?” Substitute Gotham for another city, the country, the world. What chance do we have when the good people do nothing?

And that’s what’s been so great about the internet. A lot of good people have gotten together, done something, and made a difference. Monique Davis is forced to apologize. Expelled is exposed. And there’s so much more.

These posts we write, the comments we leave, the emails and the petitions and the donations, they’re making a difference.

Democracy only flourishes when its people participate. There were far too many years when the good people did nothing, and the religious bigots, the warmongers, the batshit insane powergrabbers, took over. We have a chance to reverse that. We can pull the country back left. We can bring reason and discourse back. We will make a difference.

One blog. One comment. One email. One petition. One donation at a time. We are The Internet: hear us roar.

Who the fuck needs the Mainstream Media when they’ve got us?

Bloggers Rule, MSM Drool

Time Gets It Right, Then Fucks Up

Time magazine’s Jeffrey Kluger does his best to present a “fair and balanced” assessment of the propumentary Expelled. He gets a few things spectacularly right:

[Ben Stein] makes all the usual mistakes nonscientists make whenever they try to take down evolution, asking, for example, how something as complex as a living cell could have possibly arisen whole from the earth’s primordial soup. The answer is it couldn’t–and it didn’t. Organic chemicals needed eons of stirring and slow cooking before they could produce compounds that could begin to lead to a living thing. More dishonestly, Stein employs the common dodge of enumerating all the admittedly unanswered questions in evolutionary theory and using this to refute the whole idea. But all scientific knowledge is built this way. A fishnet is made up of a lot more holes than strings, but you can’t therefore argue that the net doesn’t exist. Just ask the fish.

It’s hard to imagine a more succinct and elegant way of presenting scientific reality. I think I’ll have this paragraph made into a little laminated card and carry it around so that nonsensical non-scientists and I can read it slowly together. Even your uncommon dumbass should be able to grasp it after several perusings and some help with the big words. It’s even got a brilliant metaphor at the end. And that’s why I feel a little bad about having to spank Jeffrey’s bottom now.

But spank I must. Just remember, Jeffie – this will hurt you more than it hurts me.

First off, your snooty I’m-so-above-the-fray tone starting out is just ridiculous. You say this:

There is nothing so tiresome as an argument that no one will ever concede–particularly if the participants don’t seem to know it. And there’s no place the fighting is growing more pointless than in the ongoing smackdown between evolutionists and advocates of intelligent
design…

As if it’s an argument that can be conceeded. As if evolutionary biologists and science teachers can just throw up their hands, mutter “Fine! Your science is stupid, but if it makes you feel better, we’ll mention it.” The fight isn’t pointless, any more than the fight against racism is pointless. Some people will never get it. That doesn’t mean that the people who are on the side of reason can stop fighting the irrational just so you don’t have to listen to such tiresome arguments.

Let me let you in on a little secret, Jeffrey. If you give the religious fanatics a millimeter, they take a thousand miles. Fighting them is only pointless if you think it’s fine to teach fiction as science, it’s okay for the public to be lied to, and you don’t care much for the advances evolution allows science to make in fields like, oh, say, the medicine that keeps your sorry self alive.

For someone who understands science, that was a stupid fucking thing to say, and I think you know it.

Then you really screw the pooch:

In fairness to Stein, his opponents have hardly covered themselves in glory. Evolutionary biologists and social commentators have lately taken to answering the claims of intelligent-design boosters not with clear-eyed scientific empiricism but with sneering, finger-in-the-eye atheism.

Where do I even begin? Firstly, in fairness to Stein? Are you fucking insane? In fairness to a bald-faced liar who likes to pretend that evolution leads to mass murder? Stein lost his right to fair and balanced treatment a long fucking time ago.

But I digress. Let’s take on the second half of your remarkable pooch-screwing: the whole “covered themselves in glory” schtick. Give me a fucking break, Jeffrey. It’s largely thanks to your kind that “covering yourself in glory” generally means “being nice so you can be roundly ignored.” And what’s this bullshit about not answering the claims of IDiots with “clear-eyed scientific empiricism”? What’s this, a code phrase for “I really want to lick Ben Stein’s balls, so I’ll reference his Clear-Eyes commercials and pretend everyone’s a nasty, name calling atheist crank”? Is that what you intended? Because it’s sure as fuck how you sounded.

I know this is very hard for really-real mainstream journalists to grasp, but do your fucking homework. There’s this little thing we like to call research. Only bloggers and a few lonely investigative reporters seem to remember what it is. Let me refresh you: before setting up a straw man and burning him, Google the key ideas in your argument, you fuckwit. Wikipedia alone provides all the information you need. It even debunks the film’s claim that scientists are losing their jobs due to belief in intelligent design, which you worried over in an earlier paragraph (hint: they lost their jobs because they were shitty scientists. Nuttin’ to do with ID).

“Evolutionary biologists and social commentators” are still answering ID claims with “clear-eyed scientific empiricism,” but you lot never notice them, Jeffie. You only notice people who kick up a fuss. That could be a subtle clue as to why some of us have taken to using “sneering, finger-in-the-eye atheism,” no? I notice you have plenty to say about PZ Myers, Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, but bugger all about Eugenie Scott, Ken Miller, Barbara Forrest, or any of the many other scientists and organizations who speak in calm, civil, “clear-eyed” scientific tones about the whole debacle. Could it be because they’re not being outrageous enough to get your attention?

Thank you for proving my point so succinctly.

Finally, you sneer at Hitchens for typing god with a lower-case g. What the fuck do you expect an atheist to do, Jeffrey? Atheists don’t believe in God, gods, goddesses, or deities of any description – why, then, capitalize a g? That’s not “tautology as typeography”, that’s truth.

There. I’m done spanking you. You can pull up your pants now. Here’s a hankie. Remember – you had nobody to blame but yourself.

And just so you know there’s no hard feelings, I’ll highlight the other bit you got right:

We’ve always been a lustily fratricidal species, one that needed no Charles Darwin to goad us into millenniums of self-slaughter.

I think I’ll make Ben Stein write that line a hundred times on his little blackboard next.

And class, let’s all tell Jeffrey how impressed we are that a writer for Time “We’re Conservative-Approved!” magazine managed to stay in touch with enough reality to realize that Expelled is a lying sack of screaming goat chunks. Not only that, but the middle of his piece, minus the whiny “scientists are being so mean, and everybody’s being so loud” bits, is amazingly good. If he could get over this “must be fair and balanced even if one side is flat-out fucking wrong on the facts” syndrome the media is currently suffering, he’d be genius.

Here’s your silver star, son. You may go now.

Time Gets It Right, Then Fucks Up

File This Under "For Fuck's Sake"

More snippets of fuckwittery, just in case your blood hasn’t boiled today:

Glenn Greenwald lays out the media’s priorities for us in grim detail.

Here are the number of times, according to NEXIS, that various topics have been mentioned in the media over the past thirty days:

“Yoo and torture” – 102
“Mukasey and 9/11″ — 73
“Yoo and Fourth Amendment” — 16
“Obama and bowling” — 1,043
“Obama and Wright” — More than 3,000 (too many to be counted)
“Obama and patriotism” – 1,607
“Clinton and Lewinsky” — 1,079

Listen to me, you vapid piece of shit windbags: torture memos, lying Attorney Generals, and our fucking government declaring the Fourth Amendment null is a fuck of a lot more important than fucking bowling, fucking preachers, fucking fake standards of patriotrism, and fucking fucking, all right?

Fuck.

These people piss me off like you would not believe. I wish I weren’t an atheist so I could hope there was a special hell reserved for them, wherein they were forced to watch Helen Thomas get all the awards, recognition, and money they grovel in the dirt for. Grr, argh.

And speaking of people who piss me off:

John McCain’s latest big foreign policy speech was, bizarrely, reported as him positioning himself as more moderate than George W. Bush. Talking to rightwing radio, though, McCain is singing a different tune, emphasizing that “no one has supported President Bush on Iraq more than I have.” He goes on to explain that “there are many national security issues that I have strongly supported the president and steadfastly so.”

In some respects, though, McCain has been a less-than-steadfast supporter of Bush. He, for example, spent most of 1999 and 2000 criticizing Bush for being unwilling to adopt a doctrine of rogue state rollback. Back in 2002 while Bush was unwilling to publicly argue for invading Iraq, McCain was doing it. And while Bush was full of talk about disarmament, McCain was clear from the start that he would settle only for regime change. McCain spent a lot of time criticizing Bush for not sending enough Americans over to Iraq to be killed, and
has also been known to criticize Bush for insufficient saber-rattling directed at such countries as Iran, Syria, and Russia. So, really, it’s not fair to say that McCain is just like Bush — he’s been a much more consistent proponent of the worst policies associated with the Bush administration. [emphasis added]

No offense, Mom and Dad, but if you vote for this assclown, it’s going to be really fucking hard to ever trust you again.

Awgods. Blood pressure. Rising. Must. Think. Happy thoughts. Happy….

Better.

File This Under "For Fuck's Sake"