Thursday, January 11, 2007

Carlson v. Chuckles

I haven't been doing much posting over at Demokat, so I certainly haven't filled in much for Paul here either. This, however, really got my goat, so I thought I'd cross post over here. I believe it to be true. If it's not, Chuckles is going to have some pretty impressive bloggers calling his ass out, and I don't think even he is that ballsy. Here you go:

Tucker Carlson has had Chuckles, one of us lowly bloggers, fired from his job for mentioning that the Tuckbag visited his place of (former) employment, a video store.

In my opinion, the post was completely innocuous and much, much less inflammatory than anything I would have posted had I run across the slimebag.

Then, last Friday night:

Compare what I wrote to this absolutely true exchange from Friday night when you marched into the store:

Tucker: If you keep this shit up, I will fucking destroy you.
The Genius (Me): Whoah, perhaps you would like to take this outside where you can continue threatening me without disturbing the other customers.
Tucker: *Looks out the window, then back at me* I am not threatening you.
The Genius: You just said you would fucking destroy me.
Tucker: No, I didn't.

I can see where I might have erred in my previous post. I wasn't a belligerent chundernozzle. At one point, Tucker was heard to exclaim

"Don't whoah me"

in response to my attempts to bring the conversation back into the realm of sanity. Since I am a basically nice guy, I even took down the post. Upon learning that Tucker followed through on his threat of destruction, I republished the post that so aggravated him and was allegedly threatening.

Chuckles also relates how just a day or two ago, his former co-worker was hassled by a man claiming to be Carlson's attorney, demanding Chuckles personal info.

This story is being re-posted all over the internets and appears to be truthful. Pass it on. Let's hope Carlson gets his due, if not by legal retaliatory means, then at least via the blogosphere. Hopefully, if it's spread far and wide enough, the MSM will pick up on it.

Tuesday, December 12, 2006


Much is being said these days about the Democrats not calling for impeachment as the first order of business. I want this president impeached. I want this president in a freakin' dungeon for the rest of his miserable days. However, in my opinion, they are doing exactly the right thing.

Why? Because if you go in with impeachment guns blazing you do yourself more harm than good. Not only do you rally the wingnuts to the Republican party when they are now split, not only do you give doubts to the American public about your seriousness about governing responsibly, not only do you chance a lack of credibility in a thousand different ways, you loose your most valuable tool for reigning in this most imperious President arguably in American history. And if you do that, then you deserve all of the above and then some.

Pelosi is correct in calling for hearings. Have the hearings. Make the bastards testify. But, hold onto that impeachment option. Make it a sword hanging above Bush's head. A sword of Damocles, if you will. Threaten him with it falling if he does not begin withdrawing the troops. Let it fall if and only if he removes that veto pen from his pocket when our bills cross his desk.

Use it in this way, and show the people how power, real power, is wielded with finesse. Let it fall and you only show the people how power is squandered, yet again, in the hands of Democrats.

Pretty much like I can make a mess out of similies and metaphors.

(I promised Paul that I'd post or cross-post anything I thought might not absolutely ruin his blog in his absence. Hopefully, this qualifies.)

Thursday, December 07, 2006


Okay, I have decided that my short break is instead going to become a long break, as in a few months or so. I realize that I am basically burned out after averaging about four posts a day for almost four months. This is obviously not my full time job (oh, what a joy it would be if that were the case) so I have the freedom to step away and take a break every now and then. This is one of those times.

As I've scanned the various blogs and online news sources, I'm starting to feel like things in general are in a rut - some right winger says something totally outrageous and that leads to outrage by left. Then we rinse and repeat as necessary. And, of course, there's the standard day-in and day-out lying by Bush on whatever subject he feels like fibbing about on a given day. As this pitiful little man becomes more and more detached from reality, it almost becomes too easy to metaphorically slap him everyday, so I've decided to invoke a personal mercy rule on his sad little ass for a while. Like I said, I think that I just need to take a little break and recharge my batteries for a few months, then I'll be ready to chronicle the waning days of this dark chapter in our history.

After the '04 elections, I was completely burned out (but for obviously different reasons) and did nothing with politics for about six-eight months. I get the feeling that this break will be shorter but still substantial. I figure by the time I return in a few months, the early presidential campaigning will have begun and I can start sinking my teeth into it.

And there's also the fact that my first semester of graduate school is coming up (though a totally final decision on my attending hasn't been made at this point) so my time would be extra-short as I readjusted to schooling after a 10-year absense.

So anyway, I'd like to thank all those who have read and enjoyed my writing. For the most part I enjoyed it as well (and honestly, if all I had to do was write, I'd probably still be doing it; it's all the self-promotion in order to get eyeballs here that gets tedious) and look forward to getting back to it after a while. I would like to give a special thanks to all those who saw fit to bookmark me (the twenty or so of you); regular readers are a real catnip to me. Don't delete my bookmark just yet, folks. I shall return.

Wednesday, November 29, 2006


Regular readers know that I’m not one of those link pimpers – bloggers who simply write one-line posts that direct to read someone else’s work. Granted, I read many blogs to develop ideas and then present what I hope is an interesting take from the originator on a given issue, and I will always credit that original blog. But I tend to shy away from being a table of contents for other blogs.
All that being said, since I’m on a mini-hiatus, I wanted to direct my readers to a couple of things I’ve read recently that I would have normally taken a shot at molding a snarky opinion about, but instead will just throw at you link-pimp style:

Up first is a guy by the name of Peter Schwiezer, a conservative who systematically got his ass handed to him because he can’t take the time to actually research what he’s talking about and railing against. His response when called to the carpet for sloppy work: “It's not my responsibility to go and find out how every single particular circumstance…” Um, if you’re going to go around throwing around your unfounded accusations, then maybe making it your responsibility to go around and find out stuff is something you oughta look into.

Next up, the slings and arrows directed at potential Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama have already begun to fly. And because the GOP are a bunch of children, they’ve taken to noting that Mr. Obama’s middle name is Hussein. Because that’s important. See, Mr. Obama is a junior, so that means that he’s named after his dad, who was given the name before he was born. Not wishing to dig to deep on this, I’d assume that his dad was born in the 1930s or so. The evil Saddam Hussein was born about a quarter century later, and he wasn’t even all that evil until the 90s. I say this because the U.S. was awful chummy with him in the 80s. As a commenter noted, “Hopefully, this will only reinforce what should have been obvious at least by 1999 or so: Republicans are really good at childish, schoolyard taunting.”

I loved this piece from the Boston Globe. It gives a real historical perspective of Dick Cheney and his quest to restore the power of the presidency back to its pre-Watergate levels. It’s both fascinating and frightening the way the man will shit on any law that he finds personally offensive to his quest. (The piece does require a quick registration, which always bugs me, but it’s free so just do it and go read it. Highest recommendation.)

And finally, I suppose I'll close with this little tidbit from Bob Cesca over at Huffpo as it's something that's often stuck in my craw - (some in) the GOP's insistence on calling the Democratic Party the Democrat Party. Take it away, Bob:

10) The devilish wordsmiths who think it's strategic and clever to refer to the Democratic Party as the "Democrat Party" need to stop it. Shut the f*** up. The official name of the party is the Democratic Party, with the "ic" at the end. Yeah, I know. Newt Gingrich and Frank Luntz invented the idea of saying "Democrat Party" or "the Democrat leadership" or "the Democrat voters" in order to emphasize the "rat" syllable, leaving a rat-like subliminal hint in the minds of listeners. President Bush, in his so-called "conciliatory" press conference Wednesday, used this incorrect pronunciation several times.

"And while the ballots are still being counted in the Senate, it is clear the Democrat Party had a good night last night, and I congratulate them on their victories."

"This morning I spoke with Republican and Democrat leadership in the House and Senate."

"...we'll begin consultations with the Democrat leadership starting Thursday and Friday."

"...and now work with Democrat leaders in the Congress because they control the committees and they control the flow of bills."

"We got some tax cuts passed with Democrat votes."

I know, it's a small thing, but it's just so silly and stupid and annoying; I'm glad I'm not the only one perturbed by it. Or, as slacktivist so eloquently put it:

Considering how popular this childish verbal tic has become among Republican politicians and pundits, I'm guessing that Luntz must've had some polling data to suggest it was somehow an effective "subliminable" way of influencing opinion, and that it must sound to some people as something other than what it sounds like to me: People who aren't smart enough to pronounce a four-syllable word properly. This kind of seriously unserious tactic is part of why I'm unwilling to trust these people with serious matters. (That and, you know, Iraq, Katrina, the deficit, etc.)

That'll about do it for me, folks. See you in a week or so. Thanks for coming by; I'll be back soon.


I'm going to be doing some traveling over the next few days and will be away from a computer for much of that time (which is always a traumatic experience) so I will not be posting until Sunday/Monday. The closest I'll get to the internet is my phone, which is great for checking the weather or a sports score, but pointless for surfing and posting.
First, I'll be driving from home (from Daphne, Alabama) to New Orleans so that I can catch a flight to a town south of Cleveland for my company's annual end of the year party (yes, we cannot call it a Christmas party; O'Reilly would flip). I'm sort of disappointed about this year's trip as this is usually my only chance at seeing snow for a year and it's been unseasonably warm with weather forecast in the 40s-50s with no snow; drat! My flight leaves at 6am the following morning (which should be a real treat what with the expected hangover and all) to make it back to New Orleans, at which point I'll travel west about 120 miles to Lafayette to do a little tailgating with some old college friends for the final game of the season for my Louisiana Ragin' Cajuns. My wife has never tailgated or been to a college football game so she seems excited (and would be even more so if not for the driving). We'll also have my daughter there and she should have a great time playing with all of my buddies' kids. I've seen these guys at their worst (as they have seen me), can't wait to see them as dads.
We'll stay in Lafayette that night, then head home to Alabama, making every effort to make it home by noon for the Saints/49ers game. It's about a 4-5 hour trip so we'll need to get started early which probably won't be a problem given that we'll be sharing a bed with a restless two year old who likes to wake at 5:30 every morning.

I may be able to squeeze in a post or two, but I'm not expecting so. Hopefully Kat will still hit you with her usual wit and wisdom while I'm away. And on a related note, I'm still looking for an aspiring writer who might be interesting in taking a stab at political blogging. I've had a couple of nibbles of interest but they haven't panned out so I'm still in the market. As I've stated in the past, I'm just looking for someone with an opinion and an ability to competently express it. Kos wasn't born in a day and Atrios didn't start out huge; we all start somewhere. Interested?

Tuesday, November 28, 2006


Bush is just batting 1.000 when it comes to making friends with the new Democratic majority in Congress (from The Hill via TPM):

At a private reception held at the White House with newly elected lawmakers shortly after the election, Bush asked [new senator from Virginia, Jim] Webb how his son, a Marine lance corporal serving in Iraq, was doing.

Webb responded that he really wanted to see his son brought back home, said a person who heard about the exchange from Webb.

“I didn’t ask you that, I asked how he’s doing,” Bush retorted, according to the source.

Webb confessed that he was so angered by this that he was tempted to slug the commander-in-chief, reported the source, but of course didn’t. It’s safe to say, however, that Bush and Webb won’t be taking any overseas trips together anytime soon.

Anybody got a knife? I think there be tension that requires some cutting.


So, I hear that there's a new book coming to bookstores soon entitled "Culture of Corruption" and it'll be all about chronicling the corruption of today's Republican Party. Hmm? What's that...? Oh, my bad, it chronicles the corruption of today's Democratic Party. Whaaaa? Yes, that's correct, two wacky wingers (Matt Margolis and Mark Noonan) have taken the time to publish a pamphlet on the evil corruption that threatens the very existence of the Democratic Party. So what exactly will they be covering? Okay, I'll give the the William "Cold Cash" Jefferson one; that's an easy one. But based on the caricatured cover art for the book, it looks like they'll also be taking shots at Cynthia McKinney (she of the whacking a congressional security guard nonsense, and who isn't even in the Congress anymore), as well as Charles Schumer (what'd he do besides help the Dems regain control of the Senate; which I suppose in their eyes is a criminal offense) and Harry Reid (who the rightwing noise machine futilely attempted to paint with the corruption brush throughout the campaign to little avail). The art on the cover is highly caricatured, so I cannot really tell who is is there, though there is one who sort of looks like Ted Kennedy (because it's never too late to make more Chappaquidick attacks) and another that sort of looks like Nancy Pelosi (who is corrupt simply for being one of them evil San Francisco Liberals).

Still, it seems sort of funny to waste time on a book about a party that's been out of power for twelve years and thus had no substantial power and therefore had no influence to peddle or corrupt. But there I go again attempting to make sense of rightwing nonsensery (yeah, it's a word I just made up).

Probably the funniest part of this whole thing in a monumentally ironic sort of way is the featured cover blurb by none other than one of the most corrupt politicians in the long and storied history of the United States Congress; disgraced and indicted former Rep. Tom DeLay.

I'm excited to report that Caucus of Corruption has received its first endorsement! Our first endorsement comes from Rep. Tom DeLay, a great man and politician who found himself the number one target of Democrats in their phony ethics war.

The true story has always been there, and we're pleased that we're able to tell it. Matt and I wish to thank Tom DeLay not only for his endorsement, but also for his service to our nation.

Here's a snippit from DeLay's endorsement:

"...Margolis and Noonan have cut through the smoke and mirrors to reveal what the liberals are really hiding - their complete lack of leadership and refusal to stand up for the values-based agenda most Americans are demanding. This book is a must read for all Americans looking for the unreported motivations behind the Left's political scene."

Oh, that's just awesome! Of course I won't even get into the fact that the post of this endorsement is dated September 24, 2006 which seems odd considering that the manuscript wasn't delivered to the publisher until November 12. It's just the fact that these two yahoos would proudly trumpet the endorsement of the offensively corrupt Tom DeLay (with a cover blurb, no less) is preposterous. It's like getting Dahmer's endorsement on the brutality of John Wayne Gacy. But then again, DeLay has demonstrated a marked proficiency towards corruption so who better to ask?

[h/t Sadly, No!]


As some of you may know already, I recently set upon a quest to determine the origin of the term above. I posted my findings on Wikipedia. Having never edited Wikipedia before, I elicited and received some assistance and now my full edits are under the headings of Etymology and History and Usage in the post. If you'd like to check it out, go here.

Patton's Plan (A Parody)

Check out this great vid!


Conservative Grover Norquist once said, "My goal is to cut government in half in twenty-five years, to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub." No fan of government is he. In his and other conservatives' minds, no good comes from the government. In short, their position is that government does not work. And apparently the final days of the Republican-held Congress seem intent on proving this point as they have chosen not to work. Instead, they have chosen to forgo their actual legislative responsibilities and dump about a half-trillion (yes, that's Trillion) dollars in spending bills for the incoming Democratic majority to deal with.

[Incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry] Reid's office has been alerted by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist that Republicans have decided to pass another stopgap spending measure when they return to Washington next month and leave the rest of the budget work needed to fund the government next year to the Democrats, said Jim Manley, a spokesman for Reid.


Such a move would leave the new Democratic majority with the responsibility to pass the nine remaining spending bills, totaling almost $500 billion for government programs ranging from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to the national parks.

It also would complicate Democrats' plans to focus on their issues such as raising the minimum wage, lifting restrictions on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research and cutting interest rates on student loans when they take control of both the House and Senate in January.


Manley called the Republican action an abdication of responsibility.

``This is only the latest example of why the American people rejected this do-nothing Congress at the ballot box earlier this month,'' he said.

Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), in keeping with the wave of bipartisan fellowship that is sweeping through Washington these days stated, “I know a lot of folks just as soon not to see them done this year and let the Democrats struggle here next year.”

Yes, that was Saxby Chambliss, again demonstrating why the GOP was swept from office this past November as they once again choose partisan politics over actually doing the work that the American people put them there to do.

[h/t Think Progress]

Monday, November 27, 2006


Kudos to NBC News and MSNBC (the same organ) for embracing reality by calling a duck a duck today. They are to date the only news organization to stand up and tell their viewers that the nightmare in Iraq is exactly what the general public has thought it is for some time now; namely a civil war.

The news from Iraq is becoming grimmer every day. Over the long holiday weekend bombings killed more than 200 people in a Shiite neighborhood in Baghdad. And six Sunni men were doused with kerosene and burned alive. Shiite muslims are the majority, but Sunnis like Saddam Hussein ruled that country until the war. Now, the battle between Shiites and Sunnis has created a civil war in Iraq. Beginning this morning, MSNBC will refer to the fighting in Iraq as a civil war — a phrase the White House continues to resist. But after careful thought, MSNBC and NBC News decided over the weekend, the terminology is appropriate, as armed militarized factions fight for their own political agendas.

The other news organizations however insist on doing verbal calisthenics when speaking of the Iraq civil war. It's almost funny the iterations the news organizations come up with, including the regular "sectarian violence," "snowballing sectarian violence," "sectarian slaughter," "widening sectarian war," and "sectarian strife". Then there are some other outlets who continue to claim that while there's not a civil war going on in Iraq, one could certainly be on the way like the Washington Post's "... closer to full-blown civil war...," and the Chicago Tribune's "... the prospect of civil war in Iraq festers...".

So instead of nutting up and calling a spade a spade, the majority of television and print media continue to toe the White House line and come up with new and clever ways to describe the CIVIL WAR that rages in Iraq. We as a nation cannot address the problem if the problem itself cannot be properly identified. Just because Bush cannot come to grips with the hell on earth he has unleashed (in the name of WMDs or spreading democracy or freeing the Iraqis from Saddam or whatever reason of the week Bush is using to justify this folly) doesn't mean the American people are incapable of embracing this awful reality.

UPDATE: A writer with the Washington Post explains why they do not label the ongoing and worsening sectarian violence in Iraq a civil war - because the leaders in Iraq do not call it a civil war. As Think Progress notes, "Government officials in Iraq have a direct interest in avoiding the characterization of violence there as a civil war. The Washington Post’s job is not to act as stenographers for officials in positions of power, but rather to report facts as they exist on the ground."

And the fall of a once great newspaper continues...


Sometimes you read things online and they just sound so preposterous on their face as to seem impossible. Then you remember that the subject in question has to do with George W. Bush and you realize that in matters where he's involved, the impossible is quite likely. Take for instance the plans for his presidential library/public relations firm.

He may be a certified lame duck now, but President Bush and his truest believers are about to launch their final campaign - an eye-popping, half-billion-dollar drive for the Bush presidential library.

Eager to begin refurbishing his tattered legacy, the President hopes to raise $500 million to build his library and a think tank at Southern Methodist University in Dallas. Bush lived in Dallas until he was elected governor of Texas in 1995.

Bush sources with direct knowledge of library plans told the Daily News that SMU and Bush fund-raisers hope to get half of the half billion from what they call "megadonations" of $10 million to $20 million a pop.

Bush loyalists have already identified wealthy heiresses, Arab nations and captains of industry as potential "mega" donors and are pressing for a formal site announcement - now expected early in the new year.


"It's a stretch," said another source briefed on the plans. "It's so much bigger than anything that's been tried before. But the more you have, the more influence [on history] you can exert."

The half-billion target is double what Bush raised for his 2004 reelection and dwarfs the funding of other presidential libraries. But Bush partisans are determined to have a massive pile of endowment cash to spread the gospel of a presidency that for now gets poor marks from many scholars and a majority of Americans.

The legacy-polishing centerpiece is an institute, which several Bush insiders called the Institute for Democracy. Patterned after Stanford University's Hoover Institution, Bush's institute will hire conservative scholars and "give them money to write papers and books favorable to the President's policies," one Bush insider said.

When all is said and done, I suppose that it is only fitting that this presidential library be a monument to influencing public opinion, given that this administration has always prided itself on looking busy rather than actually doing the hard work of governance. That fact that it will be financed by wealthy interests (including Arab money) also seems oddly appropriate considering all he's done for the huddled rich masses these past eight years.

I recall during the waning months of the Clinton presidency, when President Clinton worked tirelessly to reach some sort of accord with the Palestinians and the Israelis to facilitate a lasting peace in the area, confident that such an accomplishment would reflect well on his overall legacy. Bush on the other hand holds no such lofty ideals; instead he wants to have complimentary things written about him because he's paying people to do so as opposed to actually doing the hard work to earn such accolades.

I suppose my only question is, if you spend half a billion dollars to polish up a turd, don't you still just end up with a shiny turd?