would'ja believe ... ?

voltaire, 18th-century philosopher:

qui est en droit de vous rendre absurde est en droit de vous rendre injuste.

[those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.]

william craig lane, 21st-century christian moralist:

if we believe, as i do, that god's grace is extended to those who die in infancy or as small children, the death of [the canaanite] children was actually their salvation. we are so wedded to an earthly, naturalistic perspective that we forget that those who die are happy to quit this earth for heaven's incomparable joy. therefore, god does these children no wrong in taking their lives.

whom does god wrong in commanding the destruction of the canaanites? not the canaanite adults, for they were corrupt and deserving of judgement. not the children, for they inherit eternal life. so who is wronged? ironically, i think the most difficult part of this whole debate is the apparent wrong done to the israeli soldiers themselves. can you imagine what it would be like to have to break into some house and kill a terrified woman and her children? the brutalizing effect on these israeli soldiers is disturbing.

p.z. myers, 21st-century biologist and atheist:

it's always interesting when some god-walloper honestly follows through on the logical implications of his beliefs — he basically is compelled to admit that if you worship a tyrannical monster, you have to end up rationalizing monstrous tyrannies.

i don't think william lane craig is an intrinsically evil human being. but this is a case where it is clear that religion is a tool that allows good people to bypass decent moral positions and find justification to do evil.

'scuse me while i whip this out

james fallows:

"and you know it."

the "affably" acid comments in the first 20 seconds of this clip (from the white house) almost justify the whole birther extravaganza. well, actually, they don't — and don't even come close. but the hyper-controlled obama's decision to let out that bit of bile about how the press works, including dropping the affable mask for a few seconds with the punchline "and you know it," reveals the real feelings of every politician about the instincts and workings of the press. ... it's fascinating to see how obama instantly, perhaps instinctively, lightens the mood again with a heartier-than-needed laugh, and his super-radiant smile, at a mild witticism someone calls from the crowd. but that doesn't take away the edge of the way he began.

free republic:

obama was supposed to produce HIS birth certificate, the one mama gave him. one that he is supposed to have in his possession since birth, like everyone else does. original, authentic, used, wrinkled.

instead the President of mighty USA has to send the clerk to hawaii, to buy a copy, certification, (another forgery?), all of two copies for $10 and $4? let us see one his mama gave him, not another photoshoped "certification"!

---

the whole thing reeks. i realized six months ago that the well had been poisoned: that any document he released confirming what he has been claiming could not be trusted and would not be. the window of opportunity to come clean (even if this document is authentic) expired over a year ago. this will never be resolved.

we are reaching that point with the college transcripts. life is not a john grisham novel.

---

today was a victory for those of us who have been fighting to see the constitution matter.

obama has taken a baby step in addressing the real issue of his concealment of ALL past records.

... we are starting to see the lies that have been told on this issue unravel. now we know that we could see ALL of the past records of obama's life if he and the left-wing will permit it.

so will obama's records continue to be concealed or will he release them ALL???

---

at long last, barack obama jr. released his long form birth certificate today, clearly proving he is NOT a natural born citizen. so, why has there been virtually no call in the senate to begin impeachment proceedings? and why are so many news reporters acting as if all obama needed to substantiate he was a Natural Born Citizen was to prove he was born in the U.S.A?

terry lakin action fund:

after more than two years of concealment and obfuscation, this document must be submitted for forensics testing to determine its authenticity. similarly, the kenyan birth certificate that has been widely circulating on the internet and on capitol hill — should be tested.

had the obama administration agreed to allow the document unveiled today and other related documents as requested for discovery in terry lakin's first pre-trial hearing, the matter would have been resolved and soldiers assured their military orders were lawful, given by a lawful commander-in-chief.

... the terry lakin action fund is calling for a full and complete presidential pardon for ltc terry lakin including restoration of pay, benefits, and service. terry holds no malice towards barack obama nor did he when he chose to bring the issue to a court martial. terry simply wanted confirmation of obama's eligibility, a process that has finally begun in earnest.

daily kos:

that the birthers aren't satisfied with the release of the long form birth certificate isn't surprising. birthers aren't satisfied because no matter how many documents barack obama releases it will never be enough, because there isn't a document in the world that will turn him white.

---

dear jonah goldberg: obama did not sucker you guys into becoming birthers.

matthew yglesias:

if it's true that barack obama couldn't get into college without a boost from affirmative action, then the fact that he later went on to become President of the United States of America would surely go to show that affirmative action is a good idea! the concern that super-talented people were getting locked out of opportunities is exactly the sort of thing affirmative action is supposed to resolve.

here

on a large enough timescale, the ephemera of each corner our lives becomes simultaneous. "here" is richard mcguire, appearing in raw magazine, the '80s comics anthology published by art spiegelman, of "maus" fame:

(story and art by richard mcguire, 1989)

the great debater

during a debate trump will toss all kinds of stuff at obama and he will not be able to rehearse enough to prepare for answers. he will be thrown off his great debate trait ... and in a debate with someone who is as rehearsed as obama you are going to need to take risk and just throw things at him. trump takes risks, that is why he is so successful and will beat obama.

a palin/obama debate would likely be termed a toss-up, while a trump/obama debate would leave obama a weeping pile of goo on the stage. again, i'd REALLY like to see that.

donald trump wouild chew up obama in a debate and spit out the pieces as far as chicago — WITHOUT a teleprompeter.

trump will destroy the boy king in a debate.

a debate between obama and trump would be a debate to watch!

obammy crying!

trump could tell him he's fired.

in open debate i suspect trump could crush obama. putting the birth certificate aside, trump would kill him on china, the handling of iraq and now libya, obamacare, and on and on. trump is very smart and i am sure can argue all sides of an argument effectively. his tendency to be very direct is clearly a byproduct of his new york life.

meanwhile, back on planet earth ...

trump:	when you see what china is doing to us, where we're gonna lose this year, three hundred billion dollars to china — and they're taking all of our jobs — they're doing it through manipulation of their currency —
guthrie:	well, it is a sovereign nation — you can't tell china not to manipulate its currency.
trump:	if you have the right messenger, they won't be doing it for long. let me just tell you something —
guthrie:	seriously, you think you could just tell them —
trump:	we have the cards. yeah, they don't have the cards, we have the cards. my policy is very very simple. i would tell china, very nicely, fellas, you're my friend, i like you very much — i've made a lot of money with china, by the way, a lot of money with china. i would say we're going to put a 25% tax on all your products coming in and that's gonna do a number of things ... number one, as soon as they believe it's gonna happen, they would behave so nicely, because it would destroy their economy.

guthrie:	the, um, debt ceiling vote, the republicans are saying they don't think the debt ceiling should be raised. businesses have warned there could be dire consequences.
trump:	i don't care. i wouldn't raise it.
guthrie:	and you know most economists say that would send the us economy back into a recession?
trump:	what do economists know? most of them are not very smart.
guthrie:	you don't think if —
trump:	excuse me, excuse me ...
guthrie:	— the US defaults on its obligations it would be grave for the economy?
trump:	i don't think we'll have to default. you'll have to make a deal someplace. you might as well do it now. because if you keep raising it and raising it, let's keep raising it, you'll go ten years, let's keep raising the debt ceiling. i'd stop it right now. i'd go out, negotiate, i'd make deals ...
guthrie:	who's the deal to be made with?
trump:	well, the president should be leading the deal, but i don't think he's capable enough to lead the deal. instead you have the republican here, the democrat —
guthrie:	are you talking about a political deal?
trump:	well, ultimately, it's all political when you get right down to it, isn't it savannah?

guthrie:	is there a right to privacy in the constitution?
trump:	i guess there is. i guess there is ...
guthrie:	so ...
trump:	why do you — why, just out of curiosity, why do you ask that question?
guthrie:	well, i'm just wondering how that squares with your pro-life views?
trump:	well, umm, it's a pretty strange way of getting to pro-life. i mean, it's a very unique way of asking about pro-life. why are you — what does that have to do with privacy? how you are ... how are you equating pro-life with privacy?
guthrie:	well, you know about the roe v. wade decision ... ?
trump:	yes, sure, look, i'm for pro-life ... i'm pro-life. i've said it. i'm very strong there and i'm strong on pro-life ...

giddy-ap (updated* yet again)

the donald is trumping his GOP competitors.

the billionaire real estate mogul has taken a rather shocking nine-point lead in a national poll of the hypothetical republican presidential field, according to a new survey by public policy polling ...

(us news and world report)

congrats to the billionaire toupee life-support system and born-again birther (and apologies to isaac asimov):

"there is an old fable," said hardin, "as old perhaps as humanity, for the oldest records containing it are merely copies of other records still older, that might interest you. it runs as follows: "a republican horse having a democratic wolf as a powerful and dangerous enemy lived in constant fear of permanent minority status. being driven to desperation, it occurred to him to seek a strong ally. whereupon he approached a birther, and offered an alliance, pointing out that the wolf was likewise an enemy of the birther. the birther accepted the partnership at once and offered to kill the wolf immediately, if his new partner would only co-operate by placing his greater speed at his disposal. the horse was willing, and allowed the birther to place bridle and saddle upon him. the birther mounted, hunted down the wolf, and killed him. "the horse, joyful and relieved, thanked the birther, and said: 'now that our enemy is dead, remove your bridle and saddle and restore my freedom.' "whereupon the birther laughed loudly and replied, 'the hell you say. giddy-ap, dobbin,' and applied the spurs with a will."

(* see "giddy-ap" from january 2008 and "giddy-ap upated" from september 2010)

predictions

but who's keeping count ...?

CNN: with a short video on barackobama.com, the sitting president of the united states has launched his bid for re-election.

using what apparently will be one of his campaign slogans, "it begins with us," the campaign has told supporters that the kickoff of the campaign has started and that means the race for contributions is on.

the familiar-looking blue "o" over red and white stripes is back again for 2012. and at the bottom of the website, the candidates' names are clearly identified: obama-biden — for vice president joe biden. [apr 2011]

as i posted many times, 0b0z0 won't be running for reelection, precisely because of the fear of being "REQUIRED" to prove his eligibility.

to make certain of ousting 0kaka, an accented, naturalized american should run for POTUS in '12. if he/she is thrown out as he/she should be, then he/she WILL HAVE STANDING to sue for proof of ALL other candidates' eligibility!

this is why i believe that 0b0z0 will never dare to run for reelection

by melancholy [mar 2010]

i'm here to tell you right now.

hillary will be VP early next year. the zero will be forced from office 3+ months later.

same story with agnew, nixon and gerald ford.

by imJustAnotherOkie (zerogottago) [mar 2010]

here's the scenario i see being played out where BHO is concerned. he will be allowed to serve one term as POTUS ... he will announce the fact he won't run for president for a second term sometime early in his fourth year. it is indisputable BHO is ineligible to be POTUS ... he will be allowed to serve one term simply because removing him from office would roil political & economic conditions in this country that would have enormous consequences, both here and abroad. he will be allowed to walk away with the distinction of being the first black president. if he refuses, and runs for office again, he will be defeated ... because his ineligibility will be front and center. better to leave with a modicum of dignity then have your reputation besmirched by the ineligible issue.

by bluH2o [dec 2009]

2010 leads to a massive GOP victory in both houses, even with dem voter fraud. the dems will then try to shove every socialist bill they can through between the election and swearing in of the new congress. they will use every underhanded technique they can because this is their last chance. once obama loses the ability to pass his agenda he because useless to the socialist cause. that is when a perfect storm of the blago [disgraced former IL gov. rod blagojevich] trial wake, his eligibility and a closer look at the impact of his nationalization efforts will intersect. he will then be removed either through impeachment or illness claim. biden will be left in charge and to really muck things up for the 2012 election where the GOP is surely to win. however, the dems will have tried to damage the country so much through cloward-piven that it will take a reagan time 10 to fix it all.

one good thing that has come of the obama presidency is that we now know who and where many of the power communists are and have been hiding. it will be easier to clean house.

by dutch boy [jul 2010]

here's the bet: he resigns before 2012 or doesn't run for second term.

by 1234

my bet is no elections in 2012.

by ml/nj

i’m in on that bet. i’ll go so far as saying there will be no elections this fall.

by vanilla swirl [jul 2010]

i think the LBJ scenario is the most likely. and obama will need to claim it has nothing to do with the eligibility issue which means he will have to make the announcement sometime this year before there is any ballot qualification unpleasantness.

by menehune56 [feb 2011]

by now, all those politically motivated to question obama should be confident that he is never going to release it under any circumstances. i believe he will not even seek re-election as president if forced to prove his eligibility by showing his long-form birth certificate.

by joe farah, publisher, world net daily [sep 2010]

i am so confident about the eventual outcome now that i am increasingly persuaded that barack obama will not even seek re-election.

that will be the tipoff that our suspicions about obama's eligibility and/or life story were correct all along.

by joe farah [feb 2011]

send off the clown

somebody haz a sad ...

the negotiations that led glenn beck to announce his departure from the fox news channel on wednesday ended with an expression of "let's part as friends," according to several people with knowledge of the talks. but behind that moment was a torrent of acrimony that underscored just how fractious the relationship between mr. beck and the network had become during his three-year run on fox.

... from fox's perspective, the facts about mr. beck's run on the network have been public and indisputable. among those were the refusal of hundreds of fox advertisers to allow their commercials to be placed on mr. beck's program, and a history of incendiary comments that attracted harsh backlash, including one where the host called president obama a racist and another where he compared reform judaism to radical islam. (he later apologized for both comments.)

computer comix v3.0

while 1988 saw prometheus steal color, 1990 gave him painting.

less than five years after 1985's "shatter", the first entirely computer-generated (cg) comic series and less than two years after 1988's "crash", the first full-length cg graphic novel — featuring marvel comics' invincible iron man — artist pepe moreno, still a relative newcomer who'd assisted in illustrating "crash", brought the ever-accelerating desktop computing revolution to one of the biggest properties in mass-market comics:

between 1937, when the first all-original comic book come out, and the release of the first computer-generated comic in 1984, the tools used in the creation of comic art remained fairly stagnant. that all changed with the introduction of the first affordable graphics-oriented computer. all of a sudden, we had a machine that could do anything. most miraculously, that bottomless box of microchips and cathode rays has allowed our medium to grow — from the standpoint of technology — more in the ensuing five years than it did in the preceding forty-seven. — mike gold, editor, dc comics

faster chips, more memory, bigger drives and falling prices brought with them higher resolution and a vastly expanded color palette: pixelization, "jaggies" and color-banding were beginning to give way to a richer and smoother result approaching traditional oil or airbrush and less harshly cg.

like its predecessors, "digital justice" explores the consequences of all this brave new technology as gotham city, having once again succumbed to corruption "sometime in the next century", erupts in a cyber-showdown between two rival a.i. systems covertly left behind by their now-dead creators: a malignant "joker" virus and a no-longer silent "batcom" surveillance program.

a couple of old friends, peter gillis and mike saenz, showed me some rough printouts of a story that was produced entirely on a 128k apple macintosh computer, using but one disk drive. the artwork was chunky and brittle: it looked like some amphetamine addict had been given a box of zip-a-tone that suffered from a glandular disease. but the look was totally unique to comics. within several months, we refined the look and the resulting effort — shatter — was one of the best-selling comics of the year. it completely astonished the folks over at apple computer, inc., who never perceived such a use for their hardware.

we've come a long way in the past five years: the book you are now holding was produced on a macintosh computer that has 64 times the internal memory, 400 times the storage capacity, about 8 times the speed, and hundreds of software packages. more important, digital justice takes advantage of different devices that, five years ago, were barely dreamed of for the home or studio: computer-aided design, 3-d imaging programs, high-resolution and direct-to-film printers, graphics scanners, and color. a whole lot of color. in fact, there's the potential for more than 16 million colors. back then, naysayers and technophobes looked at the end result and, seeing only its shortcomings, declared the computer useless in the creation of comic art. since that time, that bottomless box has become so useful it is now almost invisible: artists have been using their machines to generate special effects, designers have been doing their design work online, letterers have been creating their own fonts, and craftspeople have been coloring comics with a palette (and the resultant special effects) heretofore unknown in the medium. dc comics even has its own in-house computer coloring department.

pepe wanted to turn cold computer technology into a warm "product" and to make the computer invisible. this is a formidable goal; there is a certain point an artist can reach wherein the end result no longer appears to be computer generated; at that point, the project will appear to be self-defeating. his early experiences with the commodore amiga computer and primitive art programs gave pepe a head start on the color macintosh ii. in creating the movie-like look of digital justice, pepe conceived and executed his work directly on the monitor with the electronic medium in mind. he used a wide variety of tools to bring the book to life: cad programs, vector illustration, 3-d modeling, text effects, and such paint programs as image studio, studio/8 and photoshop. pepe then arranges these images into panels, and then, using quark xpress, the panels are assembled into pages, and finally, balloons, text and sound effects are added: the completed work ultimately is sent out so that printing negatives can be made directly from over 200 megabytes of computer files. no "physical artwork" is produced. indeed, the full color digital separations in digital justice represent a genuine technological breakthrough.

(story and art by pepe moreno)

see also:
computer comix v1.0
computer comix v2.0

what nature may have neglected

a "fashion first" from the village voice, circa july 16, 1991:

little boy blue

japan's ongoing nightmare, the kiddie version:

quote of the week

rare candor from 91-year-old nazi-sympathizer and freshman martin harty (r-of course):

i'm a new hampshire republican representative. got slid in during the republican landslide last fall. so far i really don't know what i'm doing. the whole process is so alien to anything else. a new rep really needs a coach along with him at first but there is no room for anyone to sit with him, and no way they could holler at him in a committee meeting.

am learning the hard way. little by little. i think that a few of the other first time reps must be in the same boat with me. we're all sort of bluffing it out. the few votes i've made so far i really didn't know what i was voting for or against. just looked at the people around me and went along with them.

there is so much pomp and circumstance connected with the legislature. you have to separate the real doings from all the fluff. people who obviously are making very generous salaries come and go as witnesses before the various committees with tidbits of usually self-serving information. you wonder where the money is coming from to pay these people.

yes, slowly if i keep my health, i'll master this trade and hopefully be of some use to the state. i like to write about things and applied for this job mostly to have the opportunity to write about politics from the inside. they say the pen is mightier than the sword but you've still got to get your scribbling read by the people.

quote of the day

courtesy of pz meyers, one-man walking existential threat to church ladies everywhere:

i have zero sympathy for intelligent people who stand before a grandiose monument to lies, an institution that is anti-scientific, anti-rational, and ultimately anti-human, in a place where children are being actively miseducated, an edifice dedicated to an abiding intellectual evil, and choose to complain about how those ghastly atheists are ruining everything. those people can just fuck off.

domino theory

birther pangs

longtime usurper family crony and newly-installed hawaii governor neil abercrombie may just have been crazy like a fox when in december he very publicly took it upon himself to "put this particular canard to rest" — referring of course to lingering birtherism — by finding "ways to change state policy to allow him to release additional proof that the president was born in honolulu in 1961."

hoocoodanode that the governor's shocking abandonment of his quest barely a month later would bring the ever-vigilant birthers roaring out of the deep funk they'd been stewing in since the bruising guilty plea and jailing of their hero and now former army ltc terry lakin, the usurper's latest political prisoner?

AND OBAMA SURE ISN’T GOING TO REQUEST THE BC BE MADE PUBLIC.

ZERO KNOWS ONLY HE CAN GET THE BC MADE PUBLIC.

HE REFUSES TO REQUEST THE BC, BECUASE IT DOESN’T EXIST.

THANKS GOV ABERCROMBIE.

by marty62

the surprise metastasizing of the still-ain't-quite-dead movement did not escape the notice of the lamestream media — its natural enemy — which was finally forced to admit, via ppp and cnn polls, what every real american™ always knew: that birthers rule! (well, at least in the gop ...)

... i wear the "birther" title proudly, just as i wear the "vexatious requester" title proudly.

someday i'm gonna sing, "i was ‘birther' when ‘birther' wasn't cool." lol

they've thrown all the rotten tomatoes that they have at us and we've come out of it unscathed. what are they gonna do now - bleed on us? wave their privates at our aunties? taunt us a second time? lol.

we are the little bunnies they ridicule but in the end they will be the ones soiling their armor. lol. the only question is whether they, in their figurative death throes, will bother to write out, "aaaaaaaaaaagggggggggghhhhhhh" (with a gutteral sound, in the back of the throat). lol

by butterdezillion

so now — with last november's return of congress' lower chamber into its rightful hands; with the oversight committee in the hands of darrell issa, from whose belt already proudly dangles the scalp of a onetime governor; with the ship of state's sails filling with a now-impossible-to-ignore whirlwind sweeping straight off the plains of central birfistan — elected and unelected officials no longer need tiptoe around the most important constitutional crisis in world history. birthers can therefore expect congress to stand with them arm-in-arm and heads held high as they launch those long overdue impeachment hearings ...

john boehner: "it's not my job to tell the american people what to think ... the state of hawaii has said he was born there. that's good enough for me ... the president says he's a christian. i accept him at his word."

eric cantor: "i don't think it's an issue that we need to address at all ... it is not an issue that even needs to be on the policy-making table right now whatsoever."

tim pawlenty: "i’m not one who questions the existence of the president’s birth certificate."

mike huckabee: "the idea that he's not a citizen, to me, y'know why that's nonsense? because if there was any shred of truth to it, hillary clinton and her wonderful investigative opposition research machine would have found it and would have used it and for republicans to even be bringing it up, i think it's a waste of energy and time. let's focus on the issues with which we have disagreement, not on, really, the extraneous personal things that are immaterial."

michelle bachmann: "it isn't for me to state; that's for the president to state ... when the president makes his statements, i think they should stand for their own."

sarah palin: "it’s distracting. it gets annoying. let’s stick with what really matters."

darrell issa: "mine is not the committee that asks where the president was born ... it doesn't ask what ministers that he went to think. all that stuff is a distraction. i'm not the overseer of the president."

... or maybe not.

annoying?

she's starting to annoy me.

by little jeremiah

i got a fundraising call today from someone claiming to be calling on behalf of john boehner. i let the poor girl have it. i told her that i had no respect for boehner and all the republicans who are so timid that they are afraid to demand that they see obama's birth certificate, and then suggested that she call me back for a contribution after boehner grew a pair, and did the right thing.

by ml/nj

this may explain obama’s refusal to resolve this issue. the progressives are using birtherism as a divide-and-conquer tool.

this explains why the sudden interest in whacking pubbies with ambush questions about obama’s birthplace.

the media can then sort people by this characteristic, and can safely ignore anyone tainted by the birther brush.

by dbrow

well of course that’s the media's strategy. the question is are we stupid enough to fall for it. the answer is probably. just look at the vitriol aimed at bush and romney on this board. hey, romney is not my choice and bush could have done a lot of things differently but i would crawl across broken glass to support romney, chuckleberry, gingrich or really anyone on the GOP side (well not sure about paul) if it means getting rid of the disaster we have now.

by marlon

you sir are a GOP kool-aid drinker. romney’s wothless, and elmer gantry’s [huckabee] a fraud. if any of them are the nominee, i’m staying home election day 2012. if the usurper is re-elected, we’ll deserve it for not running a true constitutional conservative.

by emperor palpatine

well...there goes the perception of [bachmann's] strength and integrity. and, i rather liked her, too.

overlooking what may well be one of the greatest frauds ever perpetrated on the american people is no way to win hearts and minds among the populace.

by publiusmm

michelle bachmann did not dismiss or diss birthers....she handled the situation as best as she could.

palin said for the "GOP to distance itself from birthers" (words to that effect). palin dismissed the issue and the birthers....bachmann did not.

its time for the palinStinians to get real. sarah palin is a liberal RINO...and this is not the first time she has gone RINO. the palinStinians would still support and propagandize for palin if she joined al-qaeda.

by ucfroadwarrior

a good lawyer knows that you never ask a question unless you already know the answer.

any republican who sides with the bither "theory" would be lambasted until they could prove their assertion.

since there is currently no definitive proof one way or the other regarding obama's birth status, prominent republicans should stay neutral on the subject until there is.

as for me, i will be convinced about obama's status when i see the proof. until then, he is just another kenyan usurper gangsta with a karl marx fetish.

by kickass conservative

i know every conservative candidate will be asked if obozo is a citizen. my vote will go to the one who has the metal to say: whether he is a citizen or not, i do not know; but i know he is not a natural born citizen and therefore is a fraud and usurper; who is not eligible to be president; and so he should be impeached; prosecuted and imprisoned.

by polosec

america is doomed.

conservatives are heading in so many directions that there will never be a unified voice amongst us....

and no where has that been more obvious that right here at freepers.

not once has a freeper backed candidate made it to the white house.

why is that?

by halgr

the most powerful man in the world, operating out of the most powerful office in the world, situated in the most powerful nation in the world, and he can’t produce the most believeable fake in the world?

don’t bet the next election on it. obama’s been playing with this issue, he’s been loving it.

if he needs a BC, one will be fothcoming.

by balding_eagle

while i'm in no position to know if our marxist muslim overlord is "loving it" or not, i can admit that i most certainly am.

like the birther said: THANKS GOV ABERCROMBIE.

the evolution of a revolution

(story and art by vadillo, 1972)

good question

ed quillen @ the denver post:

have you ever heard of any campaigning politician, in any other industrial democracy, promising to provide "an american-style health-care system"?

so long, jack

the original tv fitness guru, jack lalanne, dead at 96:

would you get your dog up every day, give him a cup of coffee, a doughnut and a cigarette? hell, no — you'd kill the damn dog!

488 days ago

... but who's counting?

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.

at the movies

speaking strictly for myself, i know, upon seeing a madman charging headlong at me with teeth grit, nostrils flared and extreme prejudice in his eye, that my first impulse wouldn't be ... to charge headlong at him.

which is probably why i'm not an action hero:

on the other hand, who hasn't savored all the little emotions flitting across your opponent's face, as he slowly comes to the cold realization that you've just defaced him — literally: