"i make deals. it's what i do."

bubble boy

"aw c'mon, it was just a routine inspection!"

[wonkette] bill barr says trump just regular bunker baby, not inspector bunker baby :(

bill barr is basically calling donald trump a liar right now.

remember when trump claimed hilariously to fox news's brian kilmeade that he didn't go in the bunker and hide because he was scared of the american people outside, but rather because it was time for a BUNKER INSPECTION, because of how he's the official white house INSPECTOR BUNKER BABY?

yeah, bill barr says that is not it, in a monday interview with fox news's bret baier.

... "things were so bad that the secret service recommended the president go down to the bunker," mr. barr said in an interview with fox news. "we can't have that in our country."

... bill barr's lies are conflicting with donald trump's lies right now, oh how sad.

... he needs the lie narrative out there that there was some major violence happening in the streets, when all impartial accounts say otherwise.

... meanwhile, donald trump is scared of looking like a weenus, so he needs it to be true that he was simply performing his normal daytime INSPECTOR BUNKER BABY duties, instead of being rushed down to the bunker by the secret service for his own protection.

... two men. two different stories they are telling themselves. both stories bullshit.

you too can be a winner

even in the fiercest bear markets, rest assured that our littlest clients always come out a winner:

reliving doonesbury's watergate

only the names have changed ...

original 1973 artwork © g.b. trudeau:

the smoking gun?

dominoes revisited

we've been here before, haven't we?

one year in

the trump retirement plan

yes, we have no collusion, part two

washington post:

a few days after the attack, the now-former secretary of state, rex tillerson, called the poisoning "a really egregious act" and linked it "clearly" to russia. by contrast, the president himself has said nothing so definitive. on his twitter account, where he comments regularly on islamist terrorism, he has not mentioned the use of a chemical poison in an english city. nor did he mention it during a telephone conversation with the russian president.

the headline practically writes itself ...

yes, we have no collusion

ripped from the headlines of tomorrow's soon-to-be-not-so-fake news: the name of the one country that the trump crime family™ most definitely has not been guilty of conspiring with:

carnival cruz

ain't i just the devilish thang?

CRUZ: Would [Senator Feinstein] deem it consistent with the Bill of Rights for Congress to engage in the same endeavor that we are contemplating doing to the Second Amendment, in the context of the First or Fourth Amendment? Namely, would she consider it constitutional for Congress to specify that the First Amendment shall apply only to the following books and shall not apply to the books that Congress has deemed outside the protection of the Bill of Rights? Likewise, would she think that the Fourth Amendment’s protection against searches and seizures, could properly apply only to the following specified individuals, and not to the individuals that Congress has deemed outside the protection of the law?

FEINSTEIN: Let me just make a couple of points in response. One, I'm not a sixth grader. Senator, I've been on this committee for twenty years. I was a mayor for nine years, I walked in, I saw people shot. I've looked at bodies that have been shot by these weapons. I've seen the bullets that implode. In Sandy Hook, youngsters were dismembered.

Look, there are other weapons. I've been up close — I'm not a lawyer, but after twenty years, I've been up close and personal to the Constitution. I have great respect for it. This doesn't mean that weapons of war, and the Heller decision clearly points out three exceptions, two of which are pertinent here. And so I, you know, it's fine you want to lecture me on the Constitution. I appreciate it. Just know I've been here a long time, I've passed on a number of bills. I've studied the Constitution myself, I'm reasonably well educated and I thank you for the lecture.

Incidentally, this does not prohibit. You used the word prohibit. It exempts 2271 weapons. Isn’t that enough for the people of the United States? Do they need a bazooka? Do they need other high powered weapons military people use to kill in close combat? I don’t think so — so I come from a different place than you do. I respect your views. I ask you to respect my views.

how nra messaging works

overhead today at our favorite wingnut watering hole free republic:

i live in what is considered a safe neighborhood and stay in "safe" areas, never had a problem YET.

not familiar with guns although my husband used to have quite a collection and i had a baretta shotgun. i'm not so much afraid of home invasions or robberies at this point — but times are changing. what i'm more afraid of is our government setting off a stampede of marauding hoards[sic].

i have NO clue what might be useful for me — need advice.

— "aria"

when crime rates are falling and even hardcore wingnuts admit to feeling safe in their homes, how does one get already convinced gun owners to buy still even more guns?

easy — sell them an apocalyptic delusion.

'cause you can never have too many guns when that happens.

comment of the day

catdance @ talkingpointsmemo:

somehow i don't think i'd feel all that comfortable dropping my child off into an armed camp every day.

of course the interview was never used

roger ebert:

let me tell you a story. the day after columbine, i was interviewed for the tom brokaw news program. the reporter had been assigned a theory and was seeking sound bites to support it. "wouldn't you say," she asked, "that killings like this are influenced by violent movies?" no, i said, i wouldn't say that. "but what about 'basketball diaries'?" she asked. "doesn't that have a scene of a boy walking into a school with a machine gun?" the obscure 1995 leonardo di caprio movie did indeed have a brief fantasy scene of that nature, i said, but the movie failed at the box office (it grossed only $2.5 million), and it's unlikely the columbine killers saw it.

the reporter looked disappointed, so i offered her my theory. "events like this," i said, "if they are influenced by anything, are influenced by news programs like your own. when an unbalanced kid walks into a school and starts shooting, it becomes a major media event. cable news drops ordinary programming and goes around the clock with it. the story is assigned a logo and a theme song; these two kids were packaged as the trench coat mafia. the message is clear to other disturbed kids around the country: if i shoot up my school, i can be famous. the tv will talk about nothing else but me. experts will try to figure out what i was thinking. the kids and teachers at school will see they shouldn't have messed with me. i'll go out in a blaze of glory."

in short, i said, events like columbine are influenced far less by violent movies than by cnn, the nbc nightly news and all the other news media, who glorify the killers in the guise of "explaining" them. i commended the policy at the sun-times, where our editor said the paper would no longer feature school killings on page 1. the reporter thanked me and turned off the camera. of course the interview was never used. they found plenty of talking heads to condemn violent movies, and everybody was happy.

the akin defense

senate hopeful and gynecological expert todd akin (r-mo) certainly sounds like a another tea party twit today, but tomorrow, who knows?

because akin sounds like he's been reading the jane's defense weekly for female sexual self-defense — "aeon flux: the herodotus file" (1995):

(story by mark mars and eric singer, art by eric canete and peter chung)

the killer inside

when did fresh-faced boy james holmes become crazed killer james holmes?

murderers, maniacs and movie myths

thanks probably to a steady diet of "chiller theater", i've been fascinated by sociopaths for a long time. thankfully, most of them don't fall into the well-worn hollywood trope, i.e.; the hannibal-lecter-style genius super-predator.

however, unlike most real life homicidal maniacs, james holmes comes closer to the movie myth than most, since, unless he's suffered a recent drastic personality change into sociopathy, he has somehow managed to suppress his homicidal tendencies while advancing to a high degree of intellectual accomplishment.

but until his manifesto is found and/or holmes starts talking, this is all i'm ready to say about him. it is probably too early even to assume he's a sociopath.

see also:

"almost famous"

ritual sacrifices

while there's no sense to be found in a senseless massacre, these tragedies do happen for a reason. they happen because americans have collectively decided that our way of life is worth at least one or two senseless massacres a year.

if it's possible to prevent another massacre by further restricting which people can buy which guns, we've decided that it's not worth it.

if it's possible to prevent another massacre by further restricting which manufacturers can sell which guns, we've decided that it's not worth it.

if it's possible to prevent another massacre by further restricting which people can buy and sell body armor, we've decided that it's not worth it.

if it's possible to prevent another massacre by better tracking the violence-prone and the unstable, we've decided that it's not worth it.

if it's possible to prevent another massacre by building more mental health facilities, we've decided that it's not worth it.

if it's possible to prevent another massacre by reducing the violent content of our media, we've decided that it's not worth it.

if it's possible to prevent another massacre by tightening security in public spaces, well, we're in the eleventh year of an experiment in doing just that.

if it's possible to prevent another massacre by expanding the government's police powers, again, we're in the eleventh year of an experiment in doing that too.

the one thing that we've decided that's worth doing, in lieu of most of the above, is engaging in a well-practiced national ritual: the nonstop replay of the crime; the mourning of the victims; the dissection of the killer; lastly, the hollow demands and promises of action, before returning numbly to whatever it is we do between the massacres. the ritual is necessary because we refuse admit to ourselves that we won't do anything else. the victims are the necessary sacrifices that allow the rest of us to continue enjoying the american way of life. the ritual is the necessary trade-off that allows us to trade away the guilt.

it is of course possible that there is actually nothing we can do or agree upon that will prevent another massacre, but who really believes that? so if this latest tragedy goes by without our acting meaningfully to prevent the next, it's because we've decided that it's not worth it — or maybe we think that it's worth at least one more senseless massacre.

crazy but not insane

he's "slow", according to those who know him.

he's "hearing voices", according to his lawyers.

his crime is inarguably heinous, but does that mean levi aron's insane?

not according to the law.

in his own words:

aron says he brought [8-year-old leiby kletzky] into his house with the intentions of taking him back to his home the next day, but when he saw the missing [person] flyers he panicked.

"that is when approximately i went for a towel to smother him — in the side room. he fought back a little bit until eventually he stopped breathing. afterwards i panicked because i didn't know what to do with the body," aron said.

now if aron had said he killed leiby because either:

• "my toilet told me to ..."
• "i am abraham and was told not to spare issac ..."
• "i needed something to go with my fava beans ..."

... then he would have something on which to hang an insanity plea: a senseless motive.

but committing murder to evade getting caught for a crime is not senseless. the attempt to destroy evidence — nothing could be more pedestrian. it clearly demonstrates some understanding of right and wrong, a key benchmark when determining the appropriateness of an insanity defense.

at his arraignment psychiatrists determined that he is mentally competent to stand trial and that he understands the charges against him, but his defense team said it may still go with an insanity plea, reports cbs station wcbs.

the defense surely recognizes the weak tea they've been served. perhaps they think they can squeeze a plea of temporary insanity out of the word "panicked", but aron's panic led only to a horrible decision — not an insane one. so, unless they can get aron's confession tossed completely, aron's own words will convict him, easily.

a question for sharron angle

from seneca doane @ daily kos:

i'm tired of beating around the bush arguing about evidence of whether jared loughner was or wasn't motivated to assassinate rep. gabrielle giffords last saturday by far-right-wing craziness. of course the republicans can disavow him — his being "crazy" and a "lone wolf" and all — as quickly as they like.

my interest is: can they disavow his actions — categorically? is what he did fundamentally wrong, in their eyes? or did he just choose the wrong target? the wrong time? the wrong place — what with all those people around? they're sorry, they're sorry, they're incensed at being presented as in some way sympathetic to these actions — but why?

if you want to keep a rifle in your house in case the oppressive government comes after you, then i think i understand what you mean by a "second amendment remedy." but we're not talking about home defense here; we're talking about guns in public, about shows of force. what i want to hear from republicans (and others who favor the NRA line) is: why in their opinion was what jared loughner did not a legitimate appeal to a "second amendment remedy"?

that's a question i'd love to see answered.

is it because "it's polling poorly"?

due to work, i've missed full coverage for the past two days of the festering counter-reaction to this weekend's righteous rejection of the rhetoric of death, so maybe others have already started asking this pointed question: why is what jared loughlin did wrong?

it's not because it's murder. a "second amendment remedy" will inherently involve murder — or at least killing someone, under an attenuated theory of self-defense. it's not even because bystanders were killed as well — these things happen in a revolution. had he shot rep. giffords and then threw down his gun, does anyone want to say that their reaction would be otherwise? (let him or her speak up, if so. i'd like to be forewarned.)

in fact, the problem with "second amendment remedies" is that this is what they look like.

here, listen to sharron angle:

you know, our founding fathers, they put that second amendment in there for a good reason and that was for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. and in fact thomas jefferson said it's good for a country to have a revolution every 20 years.

i hope that's not where we're going, but, you know, if this congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those second amendment remedies and saying my goodness what can we do to turn this country around? i'll tell you the first thing we need to do is take harry reid out.

well, wasn't jared loughner fighting against a "tyrannical government," as represented by rep. gabrielle giffords — who at a similar 2007 event had had the temerity to reply to his question about the government's using language for mind control by replying to him in spanish?

don't we get to decide for ourselves what constitutes "tyranny," under this theory? surely we don't have to wait for the government to say "we're officially tyrannical now, so as a matter of constitutional law it's ok to start shooting at us."

well, jared loughner was more convinced that the government was tyrannical than most of us will ever be convinced of anything! so, why was his acting on that belief illegitimate, second amendment supporters from the republican and tea parties? because we disagreed with his judgment?

did he look around and say "my goodness, what can we do to turn this country around?" well, he probably didn't say "my goodness." but let me ask you, those of you who think that this wasn't "political" — do you think he would have shot gabrielle giffords and all these others if she had lost rather than won this past election by 1% of the vote? do you think he would have gone to find her at her old family tire store and shot her there? i highly doubt it (and not just because they sold it to goodyear.)

"i'll tell you the first thing we need to do is take harry reid out," is what sharron angle said — and the first thing loughner thought he needed to do was to take gabrielle giffords out.

isn't this what it's all about, fans of violent rhetoric? in what sense was his action not legitimate — by the standards of what those who blather about being "armed and dangerous" and who shoot up pictures rather than people and who pointedly remark about murder as a conceivable alternative to political victory?

please explain! please do explain — the children are listening. i'm sure they'd like to understand the distinction.

i don't have to explain why i think what he did was morally repulsive. i don't talk about "second amendment remedies" because i know that when we enter the arena in which logic and civility are no longer the means to victory, i've lost my advantage. i'll fight in the gutter if dragged into the gutter, but the gutter is not where i want to be.

is the real problem that republicans and tea partiers have with jared loughner is that he, unlike them, turned out not to be a poseur? that he actually went and did something that was only supposed to be threatened?

if so, then they need to do a better job of explaining "the rules" to those whom they influence with this sort of talk.

so in the meantime, if no one has already had the chance to do so, i'd really like to see someone ask sharron angle and sarah palin and michele bachmann and whoever else why jared loughner's "second amendment remedy" — his attempt, frankly, to overturn the results of an election with the bullet when the ballot didn't work — is illegitimate.

i don't even want to hear it — assuming they'll have a coherent answer — for my own benefit. but i sure would like the alienated 22-year-olds — who are watching jared loughner, head like a clenched fist, in the wake of this massacre and silently thinking "well, he sure went and did it. he had the courage of what he believed, what i say i believe" — to hear it.

explain to them, please why — believing in second amendment remedies in a political culture such as ours, as opposed to that of nazi germany or communist czechoslovakia or such — why what jared loughner did was wrong.

i know what i think it was wrong, but those sorts of kids won't listen to me.

they'll listen to you, maybe. so please, sharron angle and others, explain why this "second amendment remedy" was wrong.