alternative hippopotamus

I know everyone and his brother have dissected the Pollack/O’Hanlon love-letter to Iraq Cage Deathmatches of now, yesterday, and the forseeable future.

I don’t have much left to work with. The meat’s all gone from the carcass, and the wishbone’s already broken.

I can only say I gape in awe at the vast scale of the stupidity that Pollack has penned (hurled? excreted?) in the past.

Like this:

Pollack was also cautiously optimistic that the attacks against Americans would have limited effectiveness.

“The insurgents are not really committed,” he said. “They’re doing this because they’re being paid to do this. The Iraqis making these attacks are not willing to stay and fight when more American soldiers show up.”

Pollack said that a highly-ranked American soldier in Iraq, a veteran of Viet Nam, had told him that if the Iraqis were as dedicated as the Viet Cong he had fought against in that war, ‘there would be 100 dead a day.’

That’s the kind of thing a random guy in a bar would randomly spout off about an upcoming football game. Kind of like that recurring SNL sketch about Mike Ditka. (What if it was the entire Middle East against Coach Ditka, who would win?)

It’s not the kind of thing a person would say who actually knows something.

Today’s the day that Bill O’Rightwing is going to destroy the Orange Satan. That should be entertaining.

I could even see a superhero comic series depicting the epic struggle between Bill O and the forces of progressive perversity. He’d be like the caped crusader except his costume would have a big “O” on it instead of an “S”. Which would look like a big “0″. That could be confusing.

Maybe that could be part of his super-legend. The first time he does battle against the forces of cut-and-run, someone could say something like: “Up there. It’s a bird, it’s a plane. No, it’s a big zero in the sky.”

They could call him Zeroman. No, that sounds too much like Zoro. I’d go with Null Guy.

One thing I’ve learned is that pretty much everyone in DC reads Glenn Greenwald’s column in Salon. That includes both “regular people”- the average person I get into a conversation with, as well as the literary media establishment- people like Dan Froomkin or Murray Waas.

Glenn’s been pointing out over the last year how harmful some of the right-wing websites are to civilized discourse. That’s presumably why you see people like Bill O attacking Kos for being so over the top. It’s a lot easier to attack than to acknowledge that people you have on your show (I’m looking at you, Ms. M) run hate sites.

Presumably, Little Lulu woke up the other day and realized that ignoring popular bloggers like Greenwald, widely read in our mutual home town, was at her peril. She leaps into action, and has one of her trained flying monkeys make orangutan noises at Greenwald:

Glenn Greenwald has a history of redefining terms to suit whatever argument he is making at the moment. This is not unusual – for a liberal. Language and definitions acquire a certain elasticity when in the expert hands of liberal wordsmiths like Greenwald. Hence, his idea of just what constitutes “hate speech” could very well mean one thing in one context and an entirely different thing in another.

Allow me to translate. In the mid-1990’s Bill Clinton uttered the phrase “Depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is.” That became somewhat like original sin. All liberals are guilty of moral relativity as a result of that single act. Clinton’s congenital dishonesty caused an inherent lack of moral rectitude in all liberals. Not until liberalism (and the French) is(are) renounced will they be free of this original sin. They have eaten of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of relativism. They will be saved only by their faith in American exceptionalism.

Whatever.

So, in what context is defending the internment of Japanese- with the obvious implication that the same should be done with Muslims in the US- not hate speech? That’s what got Malkin her current visibility, as well as guest spots on Tucker Carlson and Bill O’Rightwing.

Falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater is about as concise a definition for hate speech that I can come up with. While Malkin isn’t the only one in this category, she’s one of the more visible offenders.

If you’re a loyal Bushie, it’s currently tsunami season.

According to Truthout, this week’s NOW will cover voter caging and possible connections with the Attorney Purge scandal.

Here’s the scoop:

Previously undisclosed documents detail how Republican operatives, with the knowledge of several White House officials, engaged in an illegal, racially-motivated effort to suppress tens of thousands of votes during the 2004 presidential campaign in a state where George W. Bush was trailing his Democratic challenger, Senator John Kerry.

The documents also contain details describing how Bush-Cheney 2004 campaign officials, and at least one individual who worked for White House political adviser Karl Rove, planned to stop minorities residing in Cuyahoga County from voting on election day.

This does seem to move the story forward a bit. In the article linked to below we learn that Congress now believes that a cover-up has gone on in the attorney firings case, and pending access to specific memos, memos that the White House has no intention of letting Congress have, they’ll bring obstruction of justice charges.

After taking away all the niceties the story boils down to this: Karl Rove came up with some dirty tricks to influence the 2006 elections using the US Attorney’s Office. The White House is covering up. And, they’re using the fig leaf of executive privilege to do the covering up.

Nothing against Josh Bolten and Harriet Miers. It’s just that they’re part of the cover-up.

The Rominator:

“Hillary Clinton just gave a speech the other day about her view on the economy. She said we have been an on-your-own society. She said it’s time to get rid of that and replace that with shared responsibility and we’re-in-it-together society,” Romney told the crowd. “That’s out with Adam Smith and in with Karl Marx.”

Hillary was paraphrasing Jared Bernstein. Mitt was just name calling.

Still, it makes me laugh to hear Clinton compared to Karl Marx.

(Note: the following is a draft for a post at the Open Left blog. The final version may be found here.)

I’d like to discuss what it means to live in a just and equitable society. Principally this is to highlight Jared Bernstein’s book “All Together Now: Common Sense for a Fair Economy,” and what it means for minimum wage and the Living Wage. It’s also a plug for Mr. Bernstein’s book discussion at the DC chapter of Drinking Liberally Thursday, July 26.

We’re living in historical times, perhaps unprecedented in my lifetime. We’re engaged in a terrible and unnecessary war in Iraq, the Executive Branch has evidently become severely politicized, and the compact that holds our society together economically has eroded.

I’d like to focus on that last point. There appears to be little dispute that a new social compact is needed. President Clinton used just those terms when he said, in a 1995 speech (Washington Post):
(more…)

This is going to be a tough one to explain to someone who hasn’t lived here in DC for the last few years. I mean, a big chain coffee shop replaces an independent store that’s been closed for a year. That’s a good thing, right?

I thought about this as I looked at the “Starbucks Coming Soon” sign on the front of one of my former hangs.

Well, I guess it’s better than an empty store. Given that the environs consists of a Burger King, Subway, Quizmos, KFC, and Potbelly, something with a little more individuality would be my preference.

Sirius was more than a local coffee shop with Saturday morning brunch. It was the launching point for one man’s vision for independent film in DC. More here if anyone’s interested.

Why you might want to, too.

I am not young anymore. I have back problems, and a bad sacro-illiac joint. I’m not uncoordinated, but hardly what anyone would call adroit.

These are all excellent reasons not to take up skateboarding. Then, why did I?

I’m going to give you three explanations:

Logical Explanation.
Skateboarding is like a public transportation extender. Roughly speaking, I find it cuts the time going from a Metro station to destination in half. The only timed test I did was walking from my place to Chevy Chase Circle, which took me 30 minutes. Going back (downhill, but I would dismount and walk if within half a block of a pedestrian) took me 15 minutes. And, that’s not on particularly good pavement.

Philosphical Explanation.
I really don’t know what a Zen experience is. But there’s a point where you do actually feel one with the skateboard, so maybe that’s a Zen experience. Today, for instance I had that feeling going down the long paved slope between Montgomery College Takoma and the Metro. I was going way faster than I had ever before. Much faster than I could run (see: Fallacy, Beginners). And then I realized how fast I was going and the board suddenly became very wobbly. I jumped off, but the impact with the pavement sent me to a long, scraping head-forward dive. My first thought after making sure nothing was broken was: “Fantastic!” I keep replaying that rush down the slope in my mind. I can’t wait to do it again.

I seem to recall a parable from Buddhist literature about a tiger falling off a mountain grasping a strawberry on the way down. The taste of the strawberry, according to the story, was incomparable. In my own way, I can understand how that tiger felt.

Eye Candy Explanation.
Have you checked out a board recently? They’re seriously bad ass.

A question pops up at the WaPo politics hour that’s been on my mind as well:

Cleveland: According to Marc Ambinder of the Atlantic Monthly, “a healthy chunk of the national political press corps doesn’t like John Edwards” and “the press was trying to bury Edwards.” Are you part of this chunk? Is John Solomon part of this chunk? Why doesn’t this healthy chunk like Edwards?

Chris Cillizza: Interesting question.

To be honest, I haven’t picked up on any sort of group animosity toward Sen. Edwards from the national media.

Dan Balz and I were actually in Cleveland on Tuesday to interview Edwards and I can tell you that both on and off camera Edwards was cordial and good humored.

Really? You haven’t picked up on any hostility towards Edwards? I have, and I’m not a hotsie-totsie political reporter for the Washington Post-Modern.

In fact, as I was reading the article I got this in my inbasket:

Dear Friend:

Jamison Foser wrote to you on Wednesday about Jim Miklaszewski, NBC’s chief Pentagon correspondent, and how he reportedly took $30,000 from the Greater Providence Chamber of Commerce to give a speech at its Business EXPO 2007. As you read, during his speech Miklaszewski attacked presidential candidate and former Sen. John Edwards (D-NC), calling him a “loser” for attempting to defend a pricey haircut.

Of course, Cillizza could just be being very dry. Like, he might say: “Honestly, I haven’t noticed that the McCain campaign has money problems,” or “I haven’t noticed Bush likes to talk about 9.11 and Iraq in the same breath.”