Oooh, nuance!

So, yesterday I figured my blood pressure had slipped a little low. I wandered over to The New York Times to see what David "Are You Smarter Than a Fifth-Grader" Brooks had to say. I mean, I find myself agreeing with both Ed Koch AND Paul Krugman these days, so why not give Bobo a try?

Let's just say, the man did not disappoint.

The first part of the editorial was actually quite well-written. I wondered if my Bizarro-World experiences lately had caused me to hallucinate.

We’re entering an era of epic legislation. There are at least five large problems that will compel the federal government to act in gigantic ways over the next few years.

First, there is the erosion of the social contract. Private sector firms are less likely to provide health benefits, producing a desperate need for health care reform. Second, there is the energy shortage. Rising Asian demand strains worldwide supply, threatening industry and consumers, and producing calls for a bold energy initiative. Third, there is the stagnation in human capital. During the 20th century, Americans were better educated than the citizens of any other power. Since 1970, that lead has been forfeited, producing inequality and wage stagnation. To compete, the U.S. will require a series of human capital initiatives.

Fourth, there’s financial market reform. In an intricately connected world, even Republican administrations cannot allow big institutions to fail. If government is going to guarantee against failure, then it is inevitably going to get more involved in regulating how businesses are run. Fifth, there’s infrastructure reform. The U.S. transportation system is in shambles and will require major new projects.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this is the first time I've seen anyone in the MCM lay out the massive problems that face the next administration so succinctly. My eyes were wide with astonishment and happiness. Was this a new era of substantive political discussion by the New York Times?

Of course not. Read on, if you dare.

All of this means that the next few years will be an age of government activism. You may think, therefore, that this situation is ripe for Democratic dominance. The Democrats are the natural party of federal vigor. Voters prefer Democratic approaches to issues like health care and education by as much as 25 percentage points.

Yet, historically, periods of great governmental change have often been periods of conservative rule. It’s as if voters understand that they need big changes, but they want those changes planned and enacted by leaders who will restrain the pace of change and prevent radical excess.

No, it's as if David Brooks stopped reading history after 1929. But hey, he has to justify his McCain love somehow. Who cares if he completely ignores FDR's four terms in office, during which the New Deal was created and successfully implemented? Or perhaps he is forgetting LBJ and the Civil Rights Amendment?

The only "conservative" American President he could find to justify his preposterous thesis was Theodore Roosevelt, who resembles John McCain about as much as Beverly Sills resembles Britney Spears. His other example was Benjamin Disraeli, because conservatism in England is exactly the same as conservatism in America. [snort] In any case, here is how McCain equals The Rough Rider in the fuzzy brain of Mr. Brooks.

"The true function of the state as it interferes in social life,” Roosevelt wrote, “should be to make the chances of competition more even, not to abolish them.”

John McCain’s challenge is to recreate this model. He will never get as many cheers in Germany as Barack Obama, but for a century his family has embodied American heroism.

Ah, there it is - that delightful soupçon of élitism without which a Brooks column just isn't complete. You know you simply cannot implement change unless your family has been in America for at least 100 years being all heroic and stuff. Otherwise it's just change for change's sake! The White House will be painted in rainbow stripes, the Oval Office will smell like patchouli, and President Democrat will enact legislation forcing all Americans to wear their underwear on the outside. The Horror!

The column is a laughable effort by Brooks, to be sure, but to be fair, conservative propagandists are having a harder and harder time pushing their line these days. After all, Bush has proven that today's conservatism (a toxic stew of X-treme Reagonomics wedded to a Christofascist domestic policy and a neo-conservative foreign policy) is a recipe for disaster - the results of which Brooks readily acknowledges in the first portion of his column. The problem is, how to keep Democrats from another four decades of legislative - and possibly executive - dominance?

Poor Bobo. It's hard work being a Minister of Truthiness these days.

At least I know that in this world where every day seems to be Opposite Day, David Brooks can still be counted on to raise the blood pressure of almost everyone who reads his mind-blowingly crapulent bloviating.

Mission Accomplished, baby.

Okay, I admit it - I'm a fool for Tolkien, and the billion-hour extended DVD versions of the LOTR movies are beyond delicious. This weekend, my husband and I took some time off from our taxes and endless apartment work to watch some of the series.

All I could think of as I watched the misshapen Orcs toiling in a Mordor that resembled a nuclear wasteland, as I watched Saruman willingly turn his beautiful home of Isengard into a smoking hole, was Bush, Cheney, Rove, and the modern conservative movement.

In my mind, we humans are in the same desperate case as Tolkien's fictional Elves, Dwarves and Hobbits. The craze for industry, without a thought to its effects on the world's natural beauty and resources, has polluted and destroyed much of our planet. The ice shelves in the Antarctic are starting to crack and melt, raising the possibility of the sea level rising several feet and drowning major American cities. Of course, the endless strife we have caused and exacerbated in the Middle East, has done its share of destruction as well. Besides the bombing of "shock and awe," we have also been poisoning the lands and people (including our own soldiers) with depleted uranium.

As a person who is not caught up in the elaborate Orwellian fictions of today's conservatism, you have to sit back and marvel. How can anyone see the results of this philosophy all around them - tens of millions in poverty, war that never ends, an environment turning blacker and uglier by the day - and still feel comfortable with the Mordor-ization of their world? Do they want to be nothing but Orcs, never achieving their full humanity, slaving away at dead-end jobs, living in filth and squalor, and being thrown into the grinder of the military machine whenever their Dark Lord deems it necessary?

The answer is simple. As John Dean points out in his invaluable book "Conservatives Without Conscience," today's conservative already sees the world as an ugly and essentially evil place. Human beings are not noble, they're sinners and fatally flawed. Thus, there is no hope for a better world. The religious conservatives, indeed, are actively trying to bring about Armageddon, in the hope that Jesus will return and Rapture the true believers into Heaven. In their case, the more destruction, the better. Praise the Lord!

No wonder we non-conservatives have been so despondent for the past 28 years (with a small eight-year respite during the Clinton Presidency). We are seeing the darkness of the conservative mind take shape all around us. Yet, like the characters in the Tolkien books, we are late and slow in taking action, and the Shadow appears to be too strong to be defeated. Many are taking the Elvish route of non-involvement, whereas others have joined the Enemy out of a lust for power and wealth.

Yet we must not despair, for the Shadow can never win. The forces of creation and renewal will always triumph over the forces of destruction. So it has always been, and so it shall ever be - as long as we are committed to defeating the darkness.

We do have hopes and dreams and plans for a better future, for we are liberals and progressives and moderates and independents, and we don't want to live in the Land of Mordor. And though we may suffer greatly at the hands of Bush, Cheney and their enablers all over the world, in the end, if we fight for our country and our globe, we will triumph.

Peace and love be with you today, and always.

Being an exile in the land of the lefty Blogosphere, I've been cruising around trying to find sites that do not worship at the church of Hillary Hatred. I've added two to my blogroll:

The Confluence (for Kossacks in exile); and
No Quarter (the blog of National Security expert Larry Johnson).

Both these sites are unabashedly pro-Hillary, which is a nice antidote to all the vitriol I've had to listen to for the past several months. But one thing really threw me: They (and other Clintonite blogs) often quote right-wing pundits like Pat Buchanan and Frank Luntz. They point to stories on Fox News and other right-wing media outlets. (Visit them and see what I'm talking about - I just can't bring myself to link to the enemy...) Today, the indefatigable Taylor Marsh, another Hillary partisan, praised Republic talking head Joe Scarborough (although he is on MSNBC, not Fox News, and has been less conservative lately).

And of course, there's Hillary herself, who recently sat down with the editorial board of Richard Mellon Scaife's Philadelphia newspaper to give an extensive interview. You know Scaife - the architect of the Arkansas Project (that's the "vast right-wing conspiracy" to those who are unfamiliar with the Clinton era)?! And look - there's my candidate on Greta Van Susteren's show on Fox News!

What the hell is going on with my world, when the only place I can see or hear somewhat non-partisan opinions on the Democratic race for the nomination is... Bushbotonia? Am I stuck in the Bizarro episode of Seinfeld here?

Well, my little brain was all tangled up with this question for quite some time, and then I finally got it. No, it's not that traditional media is virulently anti-All Things Clinton and (for the moment) All About Obama. That's a reason for Hillary to go to the Dark Side, but not for the inhabitants of Mordor to be complimentary - or at least, even-handed - towards her.

Based on the commentary of these righties, I've come to believe that the reason has to do with the fundamental nature of conservatives and conservatism, brilliantly detailed in John Dean's "Conservatives Without Conscience." In sum: Conservatives are bullies. They only respect you when you stand up to them. And guess who's stood up to them - and won - for the past 16 years? Why, that would be Bill and Hillary Clinton.

Conservatives have warmed to the Clintons because they wouldn't back down in the face of an unrelenting attack. That's really all there is to it. Even KKKarl Rove admitted that he would rather run against Obama than Hillary. (No, I won't link, but it's out there.) And frankly, this somewhat revoltin' development is yet another reason to want Hillary to be our Democratic nominee. She's shown she knows how to win over the other side - and as I've been saying for a long time, it's not by holding hands and singing "kumbaya." And if she has won the respect of Republics, who by and large are disenchanted with Bush and also don't like McCaca, then who is REALLY the more electable candidate in November?

Food for thought, no?

Hopeful Wooooooohooooooo!

Tucker Carlson, the formerly bowtied, banal Face of Evil at MSNBC, will apparently be fired today.

I don't know the person who is quoted on the possible reasons for the buh-bye, but Mr. Alex Blaze certainly has a way with words.

"Maybe MSNBC has realized that swinging to the Right to try and shake out Fox News for viewers isn't a winning strategy," opines The Bilerico Project's Alex Blaze. "Or maybe they realized that at least half their commentators should accept the reality that white men aren't oppressed. Or maybe they think that people don't want to watch a bully wannabe talk about his fun days of beating up [gays]. Or maybe they got tired of his history of abusing the rules of logic, evidence, and reality."

May I add to that excellent summation?

Perhaps MSNBC looked at Rachel Maddow, then looked at Tucker, then looked at Rachel again and said, "Hmmmmm....who are people really liking and respecting on this show?"

We don't know who will replace him, or what format the show will take, but I'm optimistic as always, and I'm hoping it's La Maddow. Despite her recent Obamania, she's still one of the most intelligent and insightful liberal/progressive political commentators around; and it sure would be nice to see more of them on my teevee.

On this day when we honor Martin Luther King, Jr. and mourn his untimely assassination by persons still unknown, I find myself thinking about the principles he held so dear. Why was he such a hero to so many? Why was he so effective in convincing our leaders to change the laws of this land?

Did he have a huge stockpile of weapons? No. Did he scream about how his oppressors, the white men, were devils? No. Did he incite his people to murder and revenge? No. He based his movement on love, as befitted a minister who lived the words of Jesus Christ. In other words, he was a proud, true liberal.

Contrast the movement conservatives like George W. Bush and his minions, and how they want to bring about change in this country. Do they have a huge stockpile of weapons? Yes, and they do not hesitate to use them and build more. Do they scream about how their enemies, the brown people, are devils? Yes - they decry made-up threats like "Islamofascism," and claim that Muslims are evildoers who want to destroy America. Do they incite their followers to murder and revenge? Yes - and they are proud of their torturing, murdering ways. As Mitt Romney said, "Double Gitmo!" And as John McCain sang, "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran." And as Dick Cheney said, "Waterboarding is a no-brainer." Etcetera, etcetera.

I hope that the horror of the Bush era will finally convince Americans that hate and fear can never bring about true, lasting and positive change. Only love can be that strong and pure and uplifting.

Ah, yes. Good ol' Hackabee, with his five o'clock shadow and folksy manner. What an appealing candidate! He was a Governor. He's not a legacy candidate like George W. Bush. He's got real evangelical creds, being a Baptist minister. Heck, he even seems to have compassion for poor people - something a lot of elected Republics lack. What could be wrong with this guy?

At a Michigan campaign event last night, Mike Huckabee gave an interesting reason for why he wants to amend the Constitution to ban both abortion and gay marriage: Otherwise, the Constitution would be in conflict with God.

Huckabee first observed that some of his opponents don't want to amend the Constitution on both of these topics. "But I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God," Huckabee said. "And that's what we need to do, is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards."

Now, since Hackabee just lost the vote of tens of millions of people who think this is the dumbest idea evah, how can I say he's a great campaigner? Easily. This type of rhetoric is absolute red meat to the right-wing evangelical voters who are the biggest voting bloc in the Republican primaries. To a large degree, these voters mistakenly believe that America was founded on "Christian principles," whatever those are (hey, it's not like people ever disagree on what the Bible says or anything!), and thus, America should really be a theocracy. If these poor ignorants only knew that the whole reason most Americans came to our country was to AVOID religious persecution CAUSED by theocracies in their home countries! Alas, megachurches don't give classes in history.

Ever since Raygun brought the right-wing evangelicals into the Republic Party's tent, they have been getting very little in return for their money and loyalty. Gay marriage still exists - in fact, more and more states are legalizing it - and Roe v. Wade is still established law. I think we can all agree that a formal Constitutional Amendment banning abortion and gay marriage is a non-starter, since it would require a two-thirds Congressional majority to even begin the process. So what is Hackabee talking about?

Well, how about an informal amendment of the Constitution? All that needs to be done to make this happen is for a federal judge to make a ruling that changes the way the Constitution is interpreted. Indeed, religious conservatives scream about "activist judges" because in decision after decision, federal judges have upheld the Constitution's declaration about the separation of church and state.

In the case of an evangelical president being elected in 2008, these rulings could change. President Hackabee, thanks to the approaching retirement of two of the liberal Justices, could potentially appoint two right-wing evangelicals to the Supreme Court. All they have to do is rule that Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional, and that "marriage" should be defined as only taking place between a man and a women. Of course, that will only be the beginning of the "reforms" the Hackabee Court would make to our democracy. In a few years, it could be illegal to be anything but Christian in America.

Now who woulda thought that aw-shucks ol' Hackabee could be plotting such a horrible perversion of America's laws and traditions? Certainly not the traditional media, who are treating him as a legitimate candidate, and not the theocratic maniac he truly is.

Yup. He's a great campaigner all right. Thankfully, campaign skills can only get him so far, because convincing more than 30% of Americans to vote for him would truly take divine intervention.

Skeletor pretends that he's shocked, SHOCKED I tell you, that his employees staged a press conference. But as usual, the expression of passionate outrage will not be followed by action.

Asked specifically if he planned to fire anyone at FEMA, which is part of his department, Chertoff declined to say, citing personnel rules.

"There will be appropriate discipline," he told reporters at a news conference with New York's governor where they announced an agreement on a driver's license plan.

Chertoff said he knew nothing about the matter until after it happened and that he "can't explain why it happened."

Ah yes, the buck stops at the Lackey level.

It's amazing how consistent these Bushies are, isn't it? Do they all go to Rove Indoctrination Camp to learn these strategies? Fake outrage? Blame the Lackey? Propaganda? Secrecy? Viciously attack anyone who disagrees with you? Bait and switch? Never do anything to help the American people if you can avoid it?

It seems like this story is actually getting through to the American people. The White House wagged a finger at FEMA. Chertoff made a strong statement. The question is, will there be any follow-up if no one is fired? Or will it fall off the media radar, as the victims of the California wildfires and of Hurricane Katrina have?

You know, it's a funny thing, but strength seems to mean something very different to conservatives than it does to normal Americans.

Apparently, 28% of Americans look at the Fascists and think, "Ooooh! A Strong Daddy who will tell me what do to and whom to hate. Yay, Daddy!"

When I look at George "Bring 'Em On" Bush, for example, or Rudy "No Brown People Allowed" Giuliani, or Mitt "Double Gitmo" Romney, I see bullies who use their power to oppress the weak and enable the privileged to increase their bounty. A bully, however, is not strong.

Indeed, a bully is a coward who sees threats everywhere. To hide their own inadequacies, bullies swagger and smirk, using the biggest weapons at their disposal to swat the smallest 'enemies.' Their first reaction to any situation is to use force. If that doesn't work, they'll use more force, and more, and more, until, leaving destruction behind them, the balloon of their self-esteem is punctured at last, and they slink away, disgraced and dismissed, into the slimehole from which they oozed.

We have bullies in charge of our government. We need our representatives to stand up to them, and soon, before their insecurities destroy the world.