Archive - Oct 2007

October 18th


« October 2007 »

Memo to various and sundry: STILL DUMB.

Every once in a while, a number of topics I've opined upon in recent weeks get small, noteworthy updates that in and of themselves aren't worthy of a full column. Sometimes, those instances correlate nicely with my inability to string more than three coherent paragraphs in a row. This is what we in the free Internet content business call a "win-win".


In case you had harbored some doubts about my repeated assertion that yes, Virginia, we will be bombing Iran, check out the latest rhetorical flourish from the guy with his finger on the button and his thumb up his ass.

"We've got a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to destroy Israel. So I've told people that, if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon."

That says it all right there, doesn't it? First, Bush is adopting that lovely, completely fucking insane Norman Podhoretz "World War III" terminology to describe what would happen if Iran got even a handful of nukes. You know, the formulation that completely ignores the overwhelming odds against Iran -using- them. And second, the KNOWLEDGE necessary to make a nuke? Hell, I have the knowledge necessary to make a nuke. Or at least I have the tool to provide me with that knowledge. It's called Wikipedia.

I mean, that's the kind of low bar that makes Saddam's evidence of having contemplated the development of WMD programs seem like a valid concern. So when the bombs start dropping, just remember - it's because we've received solid evidence that factions within the Iranian government have HEARD OF URANIUM.


I can't believe the Democrats actually trolled Malkin. I don't know if they did it on purpose or not, but if it was intentional, whoever thought of it should be running the party.

After Malkin's attempt to demonize the Frost family backfired so bad that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell felt the need to lie about having been part of it, the Democrats upped the ante by putting forth another child whose life was saved by S-CHIP. A two-year-old girl with a heart defect.

At this point, Malkin and company had two options. They could quietly back off, or they could continue to fight based on their almost universally-mocked principle that any child put forward was "fair game". What would win out? The desperate pathological need never to admit, EVEN BY OMISSION, a mistake? Or the common sense that going after a two-year-old girl with heart defects won't win you any friends?

If you guessed "Common Sense", please turn in your gold vest and goatee, as you won't be needing them in this universe.


A recent perusal of my Election 2008 posts got me to realize that of all the Republicans running for President, Mike Huckabee was the one who'd pissed me off the least. This led me to conclude that while I certainly didn't agree with his positions, Huckabee was like the one-lobed man in the country of the anencephalic. This, of course, was a mistake. ACTUAL QUOTE TIME!

"The best thing to do is to encourage people to make good choices. For example, if we were really serious about stopping a problem, whether it's drunk driving, we don't say, 'Okay, don't drive as drunk,' do we? We don't say that a little domestic violence is okay, just cut it down a little, just don't hit quite as hard. We say it's wrong."

Now, this would be fine if Huckabee was talking about, say, a little torture. Or a little spying on Americans. But he wasn't. He was talking about safe sex. Which means in two sentences, Huckabee managed to use a completely WRONG analogy and a completely inappropriate one.

The drunk driving one is actually a good analogy for safe sex education. We don't go after the recreational activity, we go after the aspect of the recreational activity that causes harm. Drinking, and driving. Fucking, without a condom. It's a simple, straightforward analogy that Huckabee completely blows.

Perhaps realizing, on a subconscious level, that he's made a mistake, he then moves on to analogy #2, in which he attempts to equate something he thinks is bad (sex) with something everyone agrees is bad (domestic violence). Which is the kind of conflation that, no matter which way you slice it, implies that maybe getting into a extra-binding "covenant marriage" wasn't the best idea for one or both of the Huckabees.

At this rate, the lack of an even remotely sane Republican presidential nominee might save me from dying of an aneurysm if I have to vote for Hillary in 2008. Which is, um, good? I guess?