Digby's Hullabaloo Posts

Jeffies

by tristero

What are “jeffies?” – Jeffies comprise a sub-category of the strawman argument which either explicitly use the construction, “There are some who…” or an obvious variation thereof. They describe a ridiculous position that no one seriously holds and include a firm, if obviously banal and vacuous, assertion of disagreement from the “jeffer” (the person who uses the jeffy; the audience upon which jeffies are used are said to have been “jeffed”).

Jeffies are, by definition, limited to members of the Bush administration and their propagandists. Other people can, and have, used the same language on occasion, but only statements by the Bushies using this construction will be considered authentic jeffies. Just as the Bush administration’s lawyers have concocted an exclusive set laws that apply to them and them only, I have determined (for reasosn I cannot divulge) that jeffies are unique to the Bush goverment and their cronies.

What if a strawman argument does not quite pass the litmus test of being a pure jeffie? – Such arguments are called “geoffies,” and their designation as such will be determined on a case by case basis. As Darwin demonstrated, categorization by species is inherently ambiguous and I believe that insight also applies here.

Why are they called jeffies? – No particular reason, they had to be called something. It has no bearing on recent kerfuffles in the blogosphere and those who think so will soon need to reckon with the wrath of the Giant Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Future posts which report the latest jeffies will refer back to this one so that I needn’t redefine it over and over. The definition may be updated from time to time.

Today’s jeffies come courtesy of The Carpetbagger Report and were discovered in in yesterday morning’s White House press conference emanating from the maw of George W. Bush:

“Our foreign policy up to now was to kind of tolerate what appeared to be calm. And underneath the surface was this swelling sense of anxiety and resentment, out of which came this totalitarian movement that is willing to spread its propaganda through death and destruction, to spread its philosophy. Now, some in this country don’t — I can understand — don’t view the enemy that way. I guess they kind of view it as an isolated group of people that occasionally kill. I just don’t see it that way.”

…”The enemy has said that it’s just a matter of time before the United States loses its nerve and withdraws from Iraq. That’s what they have said. And their objective for driving us out of Iraq is to have a place from which to launch their campaign to overthrow modern governments — moderate governments — in the Middle East, as well as to continue attacking places like the United States. Now, maybe some discount those words as kind of meaningless propaganda. I don’t, Jim. I take them really seriously.”

The following I would also characterize as a jeffy as “some” is clearly implied before “people”:

“[T]he United States of America must take this threat seriously and must not — must never forget the natural rights that formed our country. And for people to say, well, the natural rights only exist for one group of people, I would call them — I would say that they’re denying the basic rights to others.”

[Update: Jeffies were recently described, but not named as a specific sub-category by Jennifer Loven of the AP. While I have enormous respect for Ms. Loven’s work, the fact remains that I have priority on the discovery of the jeffy by over three years and therefore claim the right to name them.]

Born Again Nihilist

by digby

In an interesting exchange on the Lehrer News Hour Wednesday night (in which David Frum proved again that he is an inveterate GOP shill who cares more for the party than the country) David Gergen mentioned several times that thre Bush administration saw Bush as Truman, in the sense that he would be vindicated by history. He said:

The surprise to me has been that, when you talk to people around the president, the model they cite is often that of Harry Truman. Truman was someone whose polls fell down into the 20s in the final year in office. And, indeed, he could not run in 1952 because he was so low because of the Korean War.

And as time went on, historians would look back and said he’s a wonderful president. And if that’s your model, then, you know, you just keep on keeping on, which is what this president is doing.

He’s not changing course; he’s not changing people; he’s not making any serious adjusts. He’s simply coming out, and keep talking, keep talking. “And, ultimately, history will vindicate me.” That’s the theory.

I think he’s probably right about how the administration is rationalizing its actions. Bush is temperamentaly incapable of changing course. He can’t allow any doubts because to admit that his “gut” is fallible leaves him with no way to make decisions. He certainly is incapable of analyzing a situation and making a decision based upon information and advice. But in his mind that’s ok, because he’s been convinced that his “gut” knows what his mind doesn’t.

But as I listened to Gergen I couldn’t help but be reminded of another famous line of Bush’s, recorded by Bob Woodward:

In his interview with Woodward, conducted over two days in December of last year, Bush displayed no second thoughts about Iraq’s postwar miseries or the failure to turn up any WMD. “I haven’t suffered doubt,” he told Woodward. When the author – quoting Bush’s political adviser Karl Rove – suggested that “all history gets measured by outcomes,” Bush “smiled,” reports Woodward. ” ‘History,’ he said, shrugging, taking his hands out of his pockets, extending his arms out and suggesting with his body language that it was so far off. ‘We won’t know. We’ll all be dead’.”

Bush doesn’t care if history will vindicate him. He’s not comforting himself that someday he’ll be judged as a Truman who successfully guided the world through the immediate post war period. Maybe Karl Rove thinks that but Bush could not care less how history will judge him because “we’ll all be dead.”

He’s refusing to change course because he refuses to admit he’s wrong. There’s nothing complicated about it. He’s an arrogant, stupid man. And he’s the most powerful man in the world.

Gergen concluded:

And it’s just remarkable to me, to go back to the Truman analogy, that he’s just walking a straight line. And we’ve always appreciated the fact that he was resolute. Now he appears stubborn.

You know, “I’m going to walk a straight. I’m not listening. I believe I’m on the right course. I believe history will vindicate me.”

Well, Mr. President, you may believe that. But, you know, you could put all the rest of us in one hell of a mess if your gamble doesn’t pay off.

He doesn’t care. After all, we’ll all be dead someday anyway. President Bush, the alleged born again Christian, is a nihilist.

.

Archbishop Of Canterbury Defends Christianity From Cheapening By Creationists.

by tristero

You read that right:

Williams described creationism as ”a kind of category mistake, as if the Bible were a theory like other theories.”

”And for most of the history of Christianity … there’s been an awareness that a belief that everything depends on the creative act of God is quite compatible with a degree of uncertainty or latitude about how precisely that unfolds in creative time,” Williams said.

Asked if creationism should be taught in schools, Williams said: ”I don’t think it should, actually. No, no.”

Williams’ office confirmed that he had been quoted accurately in The Guardian, and said he was not scheduling further interviews immediately.

I can find plenty to snark about in this, if I want to. Like somehow, the good Archbishop seems to have forgotten that it took, what, 350 plus years for the Vatican to cut Galileo some slack? And does “creative act of God” leave a hole wide open for “intelligent design” creationism? I really don’t know what the Archbishop was thinking about regarding the first, but I’m pretty sure he’s too smart to fall for IDiocy. In any event, as important as they may be to clarify sometime in the future, I really don’t think those are the main issues. What’s important is that the Archbishop has irrevocably recast the debate within the Christian community. The question has become this:

Now that a widely respected religious leader has bluntly declared creationism bad theology, why do the Dobsons and the LaHayes of the world continue to demand that all good Christians foolishly believe that the Bible is a scientifically accurate textbook?

The Worm Turns

by digby

Greg Sargent at TAPPED sees what’s important about the emerging new and improved conventional wisdom about the Feingold resolution:

Lockhart speaks out in an interview with Chris Lehmann in his entertaining piece on Feingold in this week’s New York Observer. Lehmann writes:

[Lockhart] sees no political downside to Senator Feingold’s proposal – and likewise sees much desperation in the Republican spin that it would be another self-inflicted Democratic wound that would haunt the minority party in the fall elections. All the G.O.P. bluster about an early vote on the Feingold proposal to smoke out weak-sister Democrats for elimination in November, Mr. Lockhart said, “is complete nonsense.”

He said: “One simple rule of politics is that the more ferociously you’re pushing your talking points, the less you believe in them. The Republicans jumping so hard on this tells you that they believe they’re in a really vulnerable position – that this issue is not the winner they thought it was.”

Whatever you think of censure, Lockhart’s hitting on a really critical point that can’t be emphasized enough. Reporters and commentators have grown conditioned to believe Republicans when they say an issue’s a political winner for them — mainly because Democrats too often act as if they’re convinced they’re going to lose. When Karl Rove threw down the gauntlet in that speech about NSA wiretapping, few if any commentators even thought to imagine that Rove might be bluffing, even though it was perfectly likely that he was trying to psych out moderate Dems and get them to break ranks. And of course, some moderate Dem thinkers immediately followed Rove’s script.

This is exactly right. They’ve been conditioned over the course of many years. During the Clinton era the Republicans ruled the discourse with non-stop scandalmongering which the press eagerly aided and abetted. During the 2000 campaign the press trivialized and derided Al Gore despite George W. Bush’s clear lack of qualifications and helped the GOP character assassination squad at every turn. Since 9/11 the Republicans have held the line with brute intimidation tactics accusing anyone who disagreed with lack of patriotism or cowardice. I know it’s been tough and I salute the Democrats for taking the amount of invective that’s been hurled at them all through these dark years. Nobody who faces Republican thuggishness day after day can be called cowards.

But times have changed. The Republicans are being hoist on their own hubris and it’s time to recognise that people are sick of their tired cant and want to hear from us again. Listening to George W. Bush’s speeches for the last five years, particularly after 9/11, is like having someone sing “It’s a small world after all” over and over and over again. It was bad the first time. Now it makes you want to stab your ears with a letter opener. The press, forced to listen more often than anyone else, seems to have reached its limit as well.

Make the argument, Dems. People are ready to listen.

Read all of Chris Lehman’s article if you haven’t had the chance. It’s great.

.

Oh, You Mean that Freedom

by digby

Oh my goodness, the Fox All-Stars have discovered that religious freedom is hard to guarantee in a theocracy. Seems this Christian who has been sentenced to death by an Afghan court for converting from Islam has opened their tired little eyes to the fact that “democracy” isn’t easy to impose on a nation that’s following strict Islamic law. Yah think?

They agree that this kind of thing has implications for Iraq too, can you believe it? Mort Kondrake says that he’s been hearing that women in Basra are all having to cover themselves up in burkas now!(No kidding) Fred Barnes is concerned about Iraqi Christians too.

Evidently, the wingnuts are up in arms about this story. Someone in the handpicked military family audience even brought it up during Bush’s Q&A today. (And here I thought everything was going great over there but the press isn’t reporting it.) The whole place can go to hell in a handbasket but if Christians are persecuted then there’s a problem.

Oh wait, that’s only certain Christians. Some deserve what they get for “putting their heads into the mouth of the alligator.”

.

Animal Magnetism

by digby

Since this is shaping up to be bloggy fun day, I can’t help but weigh in on this delicious little dust-up over at Jeff Goldstein’s dog house pertaining to none other than my pal and blogging companion, tristero.

Tristero already wrote about it, as you all probably know. But he failed to properly highlight Goldstein’s bizarrre and freakish dog-fantasy comment, which I feel is important for posterity. I suspect it was because he felt that its exceedingly disturbing images of bestiality might have been too vile and odious for discerning readers. He is right. But I believe that there should be a record of right wing insanity and I think people should be forced to look at it so they know that when these same people claim the left is unhinged, they are merely projecting their own incredibly fucked up psyches on to others.

These are the people, remember, who claim to have better values than you:

Today’s subject: tristero, who (let’s face it) has the intellect of a gibbon, though he clearly fancies himself a brilliant debunker of lockstep winguttery. In fact, his post
(as seen on Digbysblog) – Loven stole HIS idea about the strawmans, we’re told / and Atrios was exactly right that I’m an idiot who doesn’t realize my own idiocy (a pronouncement, incidentally, that can only be made by one who assumes he is far more intelligent than the object of his scorn, which position essentially deconstructs the study in the Atrios post tristero fellates, or else proves it to his detriment, I’m not sure which) – is par for the course with these bandwidth sucking cocklords. You allow them to stay and say their piece, and they interpret that as a “right” that you now owe them, and they then take that as an invitation to start helping themselves to things in the fridge, or slipping a finger up your dog’s asshole, etc.

Well, sorry, but that ain’t my thang. These fucktards want to take shots at me on their own sites, they can have at it. But from now on, they can keep it there, or they can bitch about me on sites I don’t give a shit about anyway.

What they can’t do is take pot shots at me on other sites, then slather some peanut butter on their joints and show up here hoping to help themselves to a quick hummer from my dog.

So goodbye to tristero. And there will be others, as well. I won’t let this place turn into the cesspole Cole nurtures.

And seriously, what did tristero offer here? He’s a mouthpiece for lib-Dem talking points, from the few posts of his I read, and I have more interesting conversations with beets and sea monkeys than I ever could with someone who is so bent on getting noticed by Atrios that he’s already committed to sing a Katrina and the Waves cover at the next Eschacon – while wearing nothing but one of those bitchin’ Che berets.

Keep in mind that tristero’s post on Goldstein’s blog was inoffensive. It was the post on this blog that got him banned. The offensive line?: “Hat tip to Jeff at Protein Wisdom who really is exactly as Atrios describes him.”

That’s it. That’s what brought on this gut-wrenching, noxious screed. Somebody appears to have a very, very thin skin.

But let’s talk about the rather, shall we say, hallucinatory imagery we see in that post. I’m beginning to think that someone needs to do a serious psychological study of the effects of bestiality on conservative politics (or is it the effects of conservative politics on bestiality?) There are just too many instances of this for it to be a coincidence. Lil’ Benji and his box turtles, Santorum and his man-on-dog action, Rush and his fantasies of women and german shepards, Laura Bush and the horse cocks — the list goes on. (Oh boy, here comes another round of freaky google hits. Hello Abu, howya doin?)

Here’s Rush:

“…the trend toward more new mothers leaving the workforce. Yes, it’s a trend. It started years ago when the feminist movement decided that their best friends were going to be German shepherds. You know. So that’s — well, it’s true. You go to the right airports and you can see it.”

What is it about these people that makes them constantly think of animal sex? (In Rush’s case it’s also an obsession with being tortured by women, but that’s another story.) When you think about how to insult a political rival, does your mind automatically turn to bestiality? Mine doesn’t. The idea of someone slathering their joint and asking the dog for a hummer has literally never entered my mind. (And I have a dirty mind.) But this goes way beyond any pornographic visual I have ever entertained. Ever. In fact, it makes me sick. Sticking your finger up a dog’s ass is something that I would think only occurs to veterinarians and perverts.

This imagery is not exactly well … mainstream. And yet, right wingers seem to come up with it all the time. I know that pets are part of the family and all, but I don’t this is what most Americans have in mind when they hear the wingnuts lecturing everyone about family values. And, just because it’s a dog doesn’t mean it isn’t sodomy, you know. Even if your dog’s a girl.

ugh

Now, I’ve got a picture of Jeff Goldstein wearing nothing but an “Uncle Sam Wants You” t-shirt, his joint slathered from top to bottom with a 1/4 teaspoon of peanut butter, singing “How much is that doggie in the window?” If you’ll excuse me, I have to go puke and then get my brain dry-cleaned.

Oh, not just because of the synapse frying revulsion of that image. Sorry. As bad as that is, I can take it. It’s this, featuring even more disturbing bestial images — and even worse writing.

Thanks to Hilzoy at Obsidion Wings for that coup de grace. She shall burn in hell for making me read that.

Update: Oh. My. Dear. God. This peanut butter thing is part of the whole Abu Ghraib horror. Read Jeanne D’Arc.

.

Stop By And Say Hi

by digby

This is a great idea. Senators are all home (for what, their 6th or 7th break of the year?) and are going to be hearing from their constituents. It would be very effective if any of you in cities or towns where your Democratic senator has an office, to walk in and have a little chat with the staff (or the Senator if he or she is around) about how you would like them to support Feingold’s censure motion. Give them the personal touch.

You could also call and find out if your senator has any public appearances — town hall meetings or such — where you could go and have a nice chat about how you think it’s important to support Feingold because the country needs to know that Democrats don’t endorse breaking the law — and don’t think that any president has a right or a necessity to do it, even in a time of war. You know, just remind our elected representatives what Democrats actually stand for.

Read Glenn’s post for pointers on how to make the argument.

.

Lil Benji, Day 3

by digby

I think it’s awfully of interesting that the Washington Post hired a 24 year old ex-Bush staffer, whose daddy (also a Bush staffer) was in charge of the making sure Abramoff got what he wanted. (Wasn’t the entire Deborah Howell flap about the shoddy Abramoff coverage in the first place?)

Josh Marshall has the scoop:

You see, it turns out the Domenech family came in for a number of Bush administration appointments. Not only Ben, but Ben’s dad, Doug, who was White House liaison to the Department of Interior.

Or to put it more colloquially, White House guy to make sure Jack Abramoff got what he wanted with the Indians and the Pacific Island stuff.

Wayne Smith was the point man for Indian casino policy at the Department of Interior. He ended up having kind of a rough ride over at Interior. And, according to Smith, as reported last year in the Denver Post, Domenech told him “we had to pay attention to [Jack] Abramoff, because otherwise the religious right and (Ralph) Reed are going to come up and bite us, and our whole base will go crazy. They will light up our phones, shut down our phone lines.”

According to Smith, Domenech was the conduit for Abramoff operative Italia Federici. Said Smith: “Doug would come down and say, ‘Italia called and Jack wants this’ That’s how it all happened internally.”

Oh my. He’s not just “involved.” He’s in it up to his eyeballs.

Here’s our new writer for the Washington Post, back when he was “Augustine” on Red State, writing about how the Republicans are actually the party of ethics (not that Abramoff is really that bad of a guy.)The “do what’s right Republicans” need to flush the system of the “do as you’re told Republicans.” Looks like Dad is one of those “do as you’re told” guys. Oooops.

(Are we dealing with another one of those weird Republican father-son deals again? Haven’t we had enough of that these last five years? I even hear the kid has a Henry V obsession. Of course, that’s better than a “Red Dawn” obsession, but still.)

I think this may have been a poignant, if weak, defense of dear old Dad:

Oh please By: Augustine

That’s bullcrap. Abramoff boasted of being an insider at EVERY agency, not just Interior. Because he lied to his clients, we’re supposed to believe that he actually had any effect on policy? Please.

Norton is hated by environuts, for good reason: she got more done on environmental issues than anyone else has since James Watt.

That’s sweet. Just because his father was up to his eyeballs in Abramoff’s deals at interior doesn’t mean that Abramoff actually had any effect on policy.

Besides, Dad knew it was just about keeping the “wackos” in the base happy, see. The forced childbirth fanatics, for instance. Like his own son.

And I’m sure others have already found the most intriguing “Augustine” post — the one that probably brought him to the attention of the people who evidently hate Froomkin at his place of employment:

If one spends any amount of time reading the columns of washingtonpost.com’s Dan Froomkin – whose status as leader of the hack is without compare – it’s easy to realize that, on any given day, the cut and paste function has to be a tiring chore. Every day, it’s use the same template, find a new reason to hate. “Bush is a liar because X.” “The President is a fool because X.” “The White House wants to kill your child’s pet because X.” Etc. He has his crowd, and he plays to it.

Coming from a little boy who calls Coretta Scott King a communist on the day of her funeral, that seems a little bit much, don’t you think?

Jim Brady and John Harris: Happy at last.

Update: Jane says “fly little wingnut fly” and sends Jim Brady a personal thank you note. I agree that Lil’ Benji is going to be the gift that just keeps on giving.

UpdateII: For those of you who don’t read wingnut talk fluently, Publius at LawandPolitics was kind enough to translate Lil’ Benji’s first post.

.

The Anti-Pleasure Brigade

by tristero

Ampersand makes a good case that the anti-choice gang’s statements are less consistent with a moral opposition to abortion than they are with a desire to punish women for having sex. This reminded me of a response Digby got recently:

Digby makes the wisecrack about her not having sex. I can only take from his comment, that he is like so many other’s of the same ilk who believe we’re all like jungle animals and have to hump when the mood strikes. Of course, that isn’t the case. People don’t walk down the street and just bump into each other and start screwing (unless it’s a Cinemax movie). We have the mental capacity to be able to take care of such business in private. We also have the ability to abstain. Nothing is going to happen to us if we don’t have sex.

And if you’re in a position like this woman, a low paying job and two kids already. Guess what? Don’t fuck.

This is not the attitude of a person opposed to abortion, but of someone who doesn’t want women to have access to pleasure. If he was merely opposed to abortion and only abortion, he would have written, “If you’re in a position like this woman, a low paying job and two kids already, guess what? You and your partner damn well better use good contraception or get your tubes tied or be prepared to accept the consequences of raising a third kid.”

But no, it’s either/or to this guy. Either you have sex or you don’t. He lives in a world where there is no morally acceptable way to use condoms, birth control pills, diaphragms, or any other effective means to enjoy sexual activity without the potential for procreation.

It is insane to call these people “pro-life.” If they are pro anything, it is pro-misery. They wish to make everyone’s lives, especially women’s, as dreary, as guilt-ridden, and as fearful as possible. Unless you do exactly as we say and especially, don’t fuck, you will be hounded by furies, and we are only too willing to be those furies. And if you’re not happy following our “God-given” orders for a moral life (an outrageous, blasphemous lie), if you don’t love raising that third or fourth kid you really don’t want, or enduring a grim, neutered existence stripped of all potential for pleasure and joy, hey don’t blame us. That’s your problem.

Fortunately, there is an alternative to this sickening, cramped, and phony worldview. It is called liberalism, which holds, as one of its self-evident truths, that human beings have a right to the pursuit of happiness.

Al’s Vision

by digby

I will always have a great fondness for Al Gore. In 2000 I watched him get trashed by a ruthless Right Wing Noise Machine and a sophomoric press corps who were determined to punish him for Clinton’s sins (which only they and the very right wing of the Republican party felt required punishment in the first place.) It was one of the most god-awful displays of character assassination we’ve ever seen — and the way it ended, with the Republicans pulling every lever of brute institutional power they had to seize the office, had to have been a terrible, dispiriting event. I know how bad I felt. I can only imagine the searing disappointment he must have endured.

But what seems to have happened to him in the aftermath is quite inspiring. Rising from the ashes of his defeat, he has come back to be an authentic, inspiring voice for progressive thought. I suspect that when you have been publicly cheated out of something so huge, you figure nothing in your public life could ever hurt you again.

It turns out that Gore took exactly the right lessons from his defeat and has focused his attentions not only on the vapid bloodlessness that has become the Democratic approach to politics — but he has also focused on the primary instrument of his demise: the establishment media.

In a fascinating cover article in The American Prospect, called The New, New Gore, Ezra Klein uncovers what’s up with Al Gore’s new media obsession and what he’s really doing with that TV network he started. Unsurprisingly, the guy who invented the internets, has a lot of ideas about the future. Check it out.

.