jump to navigation

What can I say… ;) la Louche does not “apologise profusely” 5 March 2007

Posted by marisacat in DC Politics, Inconvenient Voice of the Voter.

Open thread…

Oooops! the last thread got to 100 faster than I had expected, so I am not ready.  but LOL not apologising… 😉


UPDATE, 12:30 pm

via IOZ and I think it is right on target…

What the System Says

Arthur Silber examines the story of the Walter Reed scandal and says that the story no one is getting is that the process through which the story came to light is, in a sense, more important than the story itself.

The story, he says, is that politicians are cowards and are motivated to action, such as it is, only though concerted effort and repetitious outrage. He says, and he’s right about this too, that it’s inconceivable the military leadership was unaware of what was going on.

He says, and he’s right about this, that it’s inconceivable the Congress, or at least the important members on the appropriate committees and subcommittees, didn’t know what was going on. He says the real story here is that they would all happily have let it continue and paid it no mind, but for the slow trickle of reports, the gradual appearance of certain news stories, and finally the reportage of a major newspaper.

He says that what we should understand is that none of the major players in this story—not the Congress, not the military brass, not the Secretary of Defense—is trying to right a wrong; they are trying to fix an embarrassment.  [snip]

BINGO on “what he says… ”  However!  IOZ goes on to say more.  And, let me be agreeable here, IOZ is right too…

Long time ago there was a movie with a young Kiefer Sutherland, about the aftermath of the Vietnam War, set in a ward in a VA hospital (will hunt up the title as well as the Ehrenreich NYT essay.. have not forgotten) for amputees… men in wheelchairs being shafted.  Men in wheelchairs forced to struggle for basics…

Nothing has changed. Little will change.

BTW, iirc Nora O”Donnell’s mother is some Big Wig Volunteer out at WRH. 

Might as well laugh, wrap the car, the front porch and all the trees on the front lawn in yellow ribbon.  Should be on sale soon.

Fire Sale!



1. Sabrina Ballerina - 5 March 2007

I posted this in the last thread incase anyone didn’t know, but the Walter Reed Hearings are on C Span today:

Walter Reed Hearings

Lol, Marisacat, good for you. It reminds me of the advice given by Nonpartisan (I think that’s who it was ) to a banned ‘Kossack’. He advised her to grovel and said that’s what he would do. I couldn’t believe anyone would actually do that just to post on blog. No wonder we have bullies. As long as there are those who will allow themselves to be bullied. And I’ve noticed that ‘grovelling’ on dk is rewarded. Make the bullies feel good. Sort of like feeding trolls.

2. marisacat - 5 March 2007

LOL I remember reading that comment. That (grovel to daddy) was a scam that the site ran after a big(gish) purge, where they even netted in (and this was clearly DHinMI, always his nag about recommending questionable diaries) people who just recommended a certain couple of diaries.

Plenty groveled and were reinstated. After being advised that was available.

What a scam!

hell I never wrote anyone when I was banned. I reissused without comment a piece I had written at LSF on free speech.

Of course since then I have had quite a bit of fun iwth the poor tired wanna be authoritarians.


3. D. Throat - 5 March 2007

Ha !!! Watch the Boyz trip over themselves trying to pretend that not ALL OF THE DEMOCRATIC ARE FOR NUCLEAR WAR WITH IRAN

Of course Luscious Vagina is up first not sure who he is really batting for…??? Just alot of his usual blovations…

This diary is an opinion piece (1+ / 0-)

Recommended by:
Blue South

wherein the author stretches reality and misrepresents Obama’s opinions and statements to fit his theory that all Democrats are evil unless they do exactly what the author wants when he wants it.

Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc
I support Barack Obama for President.

by Lucius Vorenus on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 09:58:39 AM PST

[ Parent ]

At some point they are going to realize how embarrassing this all is.

The Euphemism

As early as August 13, 2005, Bush, in Jerusalem, was asked what would happen if diplomacy failed to persuade Iran to halt its nuclear program. Bush replied, “All options are on the table.” On April 18, the day after the appearance of Seymour Hersh’s New Yorker report on the administration’s preparations for a nuclear war against Iran, President Bush held a news conference. He was asked,

“Sir, when you talk about Iran, and you talk about how you have diplomatic efforts, you also say all options are on the table. Does that include the possibility of a nuclear strike? Is that something that your administration will plan for?”

He replied,

“All options are on the table.”

The President never actually said the forbidden words “nuclear war,” but he appeared to tacitly acknowledge the preparations — without further discussion.

Vice-President Dick Cheney, speaking in Australia last week, backed up the President.

“We worked with the European community and the United Nations to put together a set of policies to persuade the Iranians to give up their aspirations and resolve the matter peacefully, and that is still our preference. But I’ve also made the point, and the president has made the point, that all options are on the table.

Republican Presidential Candidate John McCain, on FOX News August 14, 2005, said the same.

“For us to say that the Iranians can do whatever they want to do and we won’t under any circumstances exercise a military option would be for them to have a license to do whatever they want to do … So I think the president’s comment that we won’t take anything off the table was entirely appropriate.”

But it’s not just Republicans. Democratic Presidential candidate John Edwards, in a speech in Herzliyah, Israel, echoed Bush.

“To ensure that Iran never gets nuclear weapons, we need to keep ALL options on the table. Let me reiterate – ALL options must remain on the table.”

Although, Edwards has said, when asked about this statement, that he prefers peaceful solutions and direct negotiations with Iran, he has nonetheless repeated the “all options on the table” position — making clear that he would consider starting a preventive nuclear war, but without using the fateful words.

Hillary Clinton, at an AIPAC dinner in NY, said,

“We cannot, we should not, we must not, permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons, and in dealing with this threat, as I have said for a very long time, no option can be taken off the table.”

Translation: Nuclear weapons can be used to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons.

Barack Obama, asked on 60 Minutes about using military force to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, began a discussion of his preference for diplomacy by responding, “I think we should keep all options on the table.

Bush, Cheney, McCain, Edwards, Clinton, and Obama all say indirectly that they seriously consider starting a preventive nuclear war, but will not engage in a public discussion of what that would mean. That contributes to a general denial, and the press is going along with it by a corresponding refusal to use the words.

If the consequences of nuclear war are not discussed openly, the war may happen without an appreciation of the consequences and without the public having a chance to stop it. Our job is to open that discussion.

Of course, there is a rationale for the euphemism: To scare our adversaries by making them think that we are crazy enough to do what we hint at, while not raising a public outcry. That is what happened in the lead up to the Iraq War, and the disaster of that war tells us why we must have such a discussion about Iran. Presidential candidates go along, not wanting to be thought of as interfering in on-going indirect diplomacy. That may be the conventional wisdom for candidates, but an informed, concerned public must say what candidates are advised not to say.

To use words like “low yield” or “small” or “mini-” nuclear weapon is like speaking of being a little bit pregnant. Nuclear war is nuclear war! It crosses the moral line.

4. D. Throat - 5 March 2007

No option is off the table (18+ / 0-)

means and in the face of an imminent attack, the US will use military options.

this seems eminently reasonable to me.

I would not support anyone for President who did not think that.

What A Moron. Did Obama turn you down for a date? – “Civil” Obama Supporter

by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 09:59:12 AM PST

Progressives managed to blunt the “surge” idea by telling the truth about “escalation.” Nuclear war against Iran and nation destruction constitute the ultimate escalation.

The time has come to stop the attempt to make a nuclear war against Iran palatable to the American public
. We do not believe that most Americans want to start a nuclear war or to impose nation destruction on the people of Iran. They might, though, be willing to support a tit-for-tat “surgical” “attack” on Natanz in retaliation for small canister bombs and to end Iran’s early nuclear capacity.

It is time for America’s journalists and political leaders to put two and two together, and ask the fateful question: Is the Bush administration seriously preparing for nuclear war and nation destruction? If the conventional GBU-28’s will do the job, then why not take nuclear war off the table in the name of controlling the spread of nuclear weapons? If GBU-28’s won’t do the job, then it is all the more important to have that discussion.

This should not be a distraction from Iraq. The general issue is escalation as a policy, both in Iraq and in Iran. They are linked issues, not separate issues. We have learned from Iraq what lack of public scrutiny does.

5. marisacat - 5 March 2007

I had seen this pic, as it was posted at Black Agenda Report last week…

but someone just sent me this via Angry Arab.

Enjoy… or be dyspeptic.

BTW, Webb is on the floor fo the senate talking about bush and Iran. how he talks of “no options off the table”. Although AGAIN he is saying he “opposed IRaq War as Iran was the danger”.


Sweetie, it is ALL OF YOU.

6. missdevore - 5 March 2007

language lessons from Luscious Vagina:

To me (0 / 0)

Cunt is a synoym of Bitch, and the male equivalent of that is Bastard or Asshole.

I don’t see the big deal on swear words.

To equate its use to that of the F word re Edwards or the racist N-word slur is not apt or correct in any way.

Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc
I support Barack Obama for President.

by Lucius Vorenus on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 11:49:22 AM PST

7. marisacat - 5 March 2007

oh that is cuz “faggot” hits home with the Boyz.

Always worrying: am I manly. So bully boy of them all. Probably brought up iwth those simplistic exhortations to “be a man”.


8. NYCee - 5 March 2007

Oh, I think I was just weighing in on that DK diary. I saw LV and BTD in the house. I carted over the SMBIVA link. And I blockquoted the rather stinging indictment it ended on. Oh dear.

Anyway, dropping off this little tidbit I found while strolling the links… gives a bit of insight into how deep is his Israel ‘love,’ who helped him form his speech – DiFi and Bill Nelson folk amongst them.

Obama to Offer Pro Israel Views at Chicago Gathering

Here’s the unpleasant finale:

Obama’s camp is well-aware that the Israeli newspaper Haaretz — in a recurring feature ranking the 2008 U.S. presidential candidates or people who may run on how good they are for Israel — puts him last on its list. Former GOP New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani tops its ranking, followed by Newt Gingrich, John McCain, Clinton, Al Gore, Sam Brownback and the others, with Obama at the end. Part of the reason for the low score may be that the others have worked the Israeli street for years and Obama is just an unknown factor when it comes to Israel.

But let me share something. Last August, Obama was in Cape Town, South Africa, at a time when Israel was being criticized for overreacting for its military attacks in Lebanon in response to the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers. Obama was speaking to a group at a cultural institution called The Center for the Book, which provided a friendly venue for the Illinois Democratic. The crowd, clearly hostile to Israel, expected Obama to bash Israel on Lebanon. He did not. They were surprised.

They just did not know Obama well enough to realize who they were dealing with.

Brrr… Ugh… I knew that about Giuliani. He made a big stink about not letting Afafat into a big affair hosted for foreign leaders. No wonder he’s #1 on that list of candidate’s running on “how good they are for Israel.”

(Just heard Randi Rhodes say Giuliani’s daughter wont speak to him because he used to drag the mistress – now wife – into Gracie Mansion. It used to piss off the son too. Ah, he must not rule us, folks. Shall we remind everyone his first marriage was to his COUSIN? I say YES!)

9. D. Throat - 5 March 2007

So called Democratic leaders, yunno the movers and shakers… are soooo loyal to the Democratic Party:

Publicly, Bloomberg is focused on his second term and leaving the city in better shape than he got it. Privately, Bloomberg and political adviser Kevin Sheekey are meeting with pollsters and consultants to assess the mayor’s chances as a third-party, independent candidate. “There is no Bloomberg campaign,” Sheekey tells NEWSWEEK. “But we have certainly reached out.” At a dinner last year with Al From, founder of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council, Bloomberg was candid and self-deprecating, wondering what chance a 5-foot-7, divorced Jew has in the celebrity-sweepstakes presidential contest.

The answer is that it depends on who the nominees are for the two major parties, and how much cash Bloomberg is willing to spend. The money part is easy for a self-made media mogul. “He could spend $500 million in a campaign and not even think about it,” says From. But he’d probably do it only if buyer’s remorse sets in among the voters. Because the primary process is so front-loaded this cycle, the winners will be known in early February, leaving nine months until the election for voters to get antsy. “He won’t say anything until March of next year,” says a former aide privy to the early discussions who didn’t want to be named talking about them. “The guiding philosophy is who the Democratic and Republican nominees are, and the mood of the country once they know who those two people are.”

Sounds like Al From… is getting nervous that Hilliary ain’t gonna make it… she is sinking like a rock the more people take a closer look. The fact that the DLC is looking for alternatives… is telling. I think it is also telling that they are more than nervous that Hilliary will not be able to pull off the early February primaries… that basically end the race nine months before they are started… and it is even more telling that this article omitted to mention the big assed elephant in the room named “Al Gore”…

The DLC are spreading its bets… I think Bloomberg will be a Perot and do more damage to the GOP than Dems. But what is interesting is that the DLC has had to revert to a more librul progressive GOPer …cuz they made all the Dems so conservative.

10. arcturus1 - 5 March 2007

o get off it, D Throat! dontcha know that framing shit is so yesteryear?

(insert obligatory wink . . .

after decades of instilling fear of nuclear weapons/war in the public, how on earth can one expect us to use those words in any connection to our plans, outside, of course, some “in the face of an imminent attack” nunsense then again they never really accepted just how crazy MAD was/is – nor how many strangeloves the WH/congress/jointchiefs has sheltered?

11. outofwater - 5 March 2007


Cunt is a synoym of Bitch

It’s synonym.

I bet the girls are knocking his door down. He hit the the trifecta-stupid, ugly and mean.

12. arcturus1 - 5 March 2007

I still really don’t get how george canbe saying this:

Progressives managed to blunt the “surge” idea by telling the truth about “escalation.”

didn;t the dems just vote an extra $20 mil to keep the escalation going? err . . . ‘support our troops’

13. NYCee - 5 March 2007

Oh … only a second cousin.

Which was the same as FDR and Eleanor, according to what I read.

Back to the muck pits. 🙂

14. marisacat - 5 March 2007

LOL no matter how one feels about cunt it def is not the same as bitch.

That is just hilarious.

15. NYCee - 5 March 2007

the british use “cunt” for everyone, never mind the gender.


16. D. Throat - 5 March 2007

Progressives managed to blunt the “surge” idea by telling the truth about “escalation.”

Oh I think there was a feeble war cry that went out that finally changed the framing of “surge” to “escalation”…

But as you see from all of the Boyz no one is willing to to change the frame of “off the table” to the real meaning of “nuclear war”. which means as Lakoff suggests this vast left wing gabfest is actually aiding and abetting the conservative call for nuclear war…. just in the fact as you saw in that thread … all the tread bullies descended to stop the debate….

As Armando stated… he is impressed.

17. arcturus1 - 5 March 2007

Bill Blum:

[The Cold War] was a struggle between the United States and the Third World. What there was, was people all over the Third World fighting for economic and political changes against US-supported repressive regimes, or setting up their own progressive governments. These acts of self-determination didn’t coincide with the needs of the American power elite, and so the United States moved to crush those governments and movements even though the Soviet Union was playing virtually no role at all in these scenarios. (It is remarkable the number of people who make fun of conspiracy theories but who accepted without question the existence of an International Communist Conspiracy.)

Washington officials of course couldn’t say that they were intervening to block economic or political change, so they called it “fighting communism”, fighting a communist conspiracy, fighting for freedom and democracy.

I’m reminded of all this because of a recent article in the Washington Post about El Salvador. It concerned two men who had been on opposite sides in the civil war of 1980-1992. One was José Salgado, who had been a government soldier, and is now the mayor of San Miguel, El Salvador’s second-largest city.

Salgado enthusiastically embraced the scorched-earth tactics of his army bosses, the Post reports, even massacres of children, the elderly, the sick — entire villages. It was all in the name of beating back communism, Salgado says he remembers being told. But he’s now haunted by doubts about what he saw, what he did, and even why he fought. A US-backed war that was defined at the time as a battle against communism is now seen by former government soldiers and former guerrillas as less a conflict about ideology and more a battle over poverty and basic human rights.

“We soldiers were tricked,” says Salgado. “They told us the threat was communism. But I look back and realize those weren’t communists out there that we were fighting — we were just poor country people killing poor country people.”

Salgado says he once thought that the guerrillas dreamed of communism, but now that those same men are his colleagues in business and politics, he is learning that they wanted what he wanted: prosperity, a chance to move up in the world, freedom from repression.

All of which makes what they see around them today even more heartbreaking and frustrating. For all their sacrifices, El Salvador is still among the poorest countries in the Western Hemisphere — more than 40 percent of Salvadorans live on less than $2 a day, according to the United Nations. The country is still racked by violence, still scarred by corruption. For some the question remains: Was it all worth it?

“We gave our blood, we killed our friends and, in the end, things are still bad,” says Salgado. “Look at all this poverty, and look how the wealth is concentrated in just a few hands.”

The guerrillas Salgado once fought live with the same doubts. Former guerrilla Benito Argueta laments that the future didn’t turn out as he’d hoped. Even though some factions of the coalition of guerrilla armies that fought in the civil war were Marxist, he said, ideology had nothing to do with his decision to take up arms and leave the farm where his father earned only a few colones for backbreaking work. Nor did ideology play a role in motivating his friends in the People’s Revolutionary Army. He remembers fighting “for a piece of land, for the chance that my children might someday get to go to the university.”[

18. D. Throat - 5 March 2007

The journalistic point is clear. Journalists and political leaders should not talk about an “attack.” They should use the words that describe what is really at stake: nuclear war — in boldface.

Then, there is the scale of the proposed attack. Military reports leaking out suggest a huge (mostly or entirely non-nuclear) airstrike on as many as 10,000 targets — a “shock and awe” attack that would destroy Iran’s infrastructure the way the US bombing destroyed Iraq’s. The targets would not just be “military targets.” As Dan Plesch reports in the New Statesman, February 19, 2007, such an attack would wipe out Iran’s military, business, and political infrastructure. Not just nuclear installations, missile launching sites, tanks, and ammunition dumps, but also airports, rail lines, highways, bridges, ports, communications centers, power grids, industrial centers, hospitals, public buildings, and even the homes of political leaders. That is what was attacked in Iraq: the “critical infrastructure.” It is not just military in the traditional sense. It leaves a nation in rubble, and leads to death, maiming, disease, joblessness, impoverishment, starvation, mass refugees, lawlessness, rape, and incalculable pain and suffering. That is what the options appear to be “on the table.” Is nation destruction what the American people have in mind when they acquiesce without discussion to an “attack”? Is nuclear war what the American people have in mind? An informed public must ask and the media must ask. The words must be used.

Even if the attack were limited to nuclear installations, starting a nuclear war with Iran would have terrible consequences — and not just for Iranians. First, it would strengthen the hand of the Islamic fundamentalists — exactly the opposite of the effect US planners would want. It would be viewed as yet another major attack on Islam. Fundamentalist Islam is a revenge culture. If you want to recruit fundamentalist Islamists all over the world to become violent jihadists, this is the best way to do it. America would become a world pariah. Any idea of the US as a peaceful nation would be destroyed. Moreover, you don’t work against the spread of nuclear weapons by using those weapons. That will just make countries all over the world want nuclear weaponry all the more. Trying to stop nuclear proliferation through nuclear war is self-defeating.

As Einstein said, “You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war.”

19. outofwater - 5 March 2007

Cheney has a blood clot in his leg. If it stays there he’ll be fine, I think.

20. arcturus1 - 5 March 2007

oops, here’s the BB link:


(hope that wasn’t for my sake, dt – I was pointing to that GL piece as soon as it came out

21. marisacat - 5 March 2007


Democrats are for options about war.

But not for options for Katrina victims.

So clear.

22. arcturus1 - 5 March 2007

o man is IOZ on target w/ that!

guess Murtha who supposedly has visited every week since this war began didn’t notice anything amiss? ride that painted pony, o mighty warrior!

spinnin’ wheel
gotta go ’round . . .

23. supervixen - 5 March 2007

Hey D. Throat, I’ve been meaning to tell you that I greatly appreciate your hammering away at the nuclear war issue. Maybe the younger whippersnappers in the blogosphere – like, say, PsiFighter, who is all of 20 as I understand it – don’t have the same reaction, but to those of my born-in-the-’60s generation, the idea of nuclear war is very real, and viscerally terrifying. If the US drops a nuke – even just a little tiny one, if such a thing exists (“Monsieur, a wafer-thin mint!“) on anyone, we are ALL FUCKED. It’s exactly like the Geneva Convention issue. There are certain things that civilized countries simply don’t do, and don’t accept others doing. Not only will we be isolated by our former allies, but our enemies won’t think twice about giving us the same treatment. We would deserve it.

24. supervixen - 5 March 2007

Fundamentalist Islam is a revenge culture.

So are we. In fact I think that’s why some people are so open to the idea of using nuclear bombs – they’re still thinking about the burning WTC and the “jumpers” hitting the pavement.

25. marisacat - 5 March 2007

from the extended IOZ essay:

I think we underestimate the frequency with which systemic becomes an exculpatory euphemism for intentional.


And as Dana Priest reported on MSNBC, the names of aides of senators running for El Presidente! are penned by the side of the public phones, their names and direct numbers are passed around. The aides can “get stuff done” sometimes…

It is the way it is… meant to be.

But congress is SO SHOCKED!!

26. supervixen - 5 March 2007

Cunt is a synoym of Bitch, and the male equivalent of that is Bastard or Asshole.

I don’t see the big deal on swear words.

To equate its use to that of the F word re Edwards or the racist N-word slur is not apt or correct in any way.

I suspect Loserius Viagrus didn’t do very well on his Miller Analogies tests.

27. Sabrina Ballerina - 5 March 2007

Of course since then I have had quite a bit of fun iwth the poor tired wanna be authoritarians.


Lol, you definitely have – but they are easy targets, very amusing in that they are so sure they are right, well, until they change their minds!

Omg, Luscious V. is a virtual expert on all the nasty words to use against women. Trying to excuse his vile use of the word by ‘explaining’ his definition of it.

It looks like everything is ON THE TABLE except the Constitution of course. That was taken off the table by Pelosi when she soothed any fears Bush et al might have had about using impeachment to remove them from office for their crimes.

They ARE talking about nuclear weapons. They have made no secret of it – tactical nuclear weapons will be used to destroy Iran’s nuclear bunkers. I have read what that would do, not just to Iran but to surrounding areas. It is estimated that if the US uses these weapons, as many as a million people may die. And then there would be the after effects, cancer etc.

Funny to see the operatives desperately trying to explain it all away. We heard the same language ‘nothing is off the table’ regarding Iraq.

Heard it all before, and heard all the same explanations also, only last time I heard what btd said, was from rightwingers back in 2002.

The lesson from the Walter Reed scandal is that when the media is working, when it’s doing its job, Politicians must respond. Imagine if they had done their job before the war, or when George Bush was running for office.

28. marisacat - 5 March 2007

here is an interesting link, with Mark Benjamin who reported on bad care for years, thru UPI… And I remember his reports – and cable picked them up – in summer of 2003, cable sent crews to Fort Stewart…they talked to wives, young wives of “fodder” soldiers:

Link … and a snip:

MARK BENJAMIN: To give you an example, I wrote my first story about this issue in the fall of 2003. It was about Fort Stewart, Georgia, and the headline was something like, sick and injured soldiers held in squalor. And they couldn’t get doctors appointments and they weren’t being fairly compensated.

At that time, I received hundreds of really vicious e-mails, you know, where I was called a Communist and a traitor and I was a liar and so on and so forth. This is something that Congress held hearings about, and the Army publicly said, yes, we’ve got a problem and we’re going to fix it.

My guess is that’s not the reaction that The Washington Post is getting from its series on Walter Reed, and it’s not the reaction that I get from doing the same kinds of stories now.

BOB GARFIELD: Now, there is another reason that we may not have seen, you know, tons of coverage on this subject until now, and that is that the Pentagon has really done its best to manage, or even divert, what coverage there has been of the wounded. Can you describe what happens if, you know, I as a reporter decide to pursue this story, and, you know, call public affairs at the Pentagon and say, I’m interested in outpatient care at Walter Reed, or any other military facility? What happens next?

MARK BENJAMIN: What happens is that reporter is escorted onto the facility; they are brought up to Ward 57, which is the ward where they have amputees, which is an amazing place and does an excellent job. Those reporters are introduced to prescreened and pre–selected soldiers, and the reporters are given a very limited, very happy news story, which may be true for a small number of soldiers, or even maybe a significant number of amputees, but ends up giving the public a very skewed perception of what is happening to the lion’s share of people coming back from this war.

The military medical system cannot seem to get its arms around wounds that you can’t see. In other words, you know, if you’re missing a leg, they’re going to take care of you. If you have traumatic brain injury, particularly a closed head traumatic brain injury – you can’t see anything there – or you have post-traumatic stress disorder – you’re extremely disturbed, you’re suicidal, you’re homicidal, but there’s no physical thing that the medical staff can look at – for some reason, those people, as far as I can tell, get the worst of the lot and are really languishing. And that’s a big story that’s been overlooked.

29. outofwater - 5 March 2007

To equate its use to that of the F word re Edwards or the racist N-word slur is not apt or correct in any way.

As I said, stupid, ugly and mean. The truly sad part is he is a star at DK, the best they have to offer.

30. arcturus1 - 5 March 2007


1. arcturus1 – 28 February 2007

The journalistic point is clear. Journalists and political leaders should not talk about an “attack.” They should use the words that describe what is really at stake: nuclear war — in boldface.

much as he often annoys me anymore (& I’m a long-time reader of his work – Women Fire & Dangerous Things a near bible for years), this is the kind of plain-speak the American public does understand – & fear – a useful point for anyone still writing letters to t he Ed

31. marisacat - 5 March 2007

LOL Dem party organiser.

🙂 Propped up day after day.

32. Sabrina Ballerina - 5 March 2007

Marisacat, I remember that story about Fort Stewart. I remember people posting links to it on various forums. Anyone who was online at the time, new about it. It does show how little effect blogs really have. It still takes a major news outlet to cover a story before the public pays attention.

Outofwater, DD/Luscious Vagina is a despicable individual. Funny that he did not spell out the word ‘faggot’ but had no problem with the word ‘cunt’. No wonder there are so few women on that site. He just verbalizes the general attitude, set by kos himself, towards women, in a more graphic way.

33. arcturus1 - 5 March 2007

I only wish the US press would catch up to this story:

. . . a growing number of economists, scientists and environmentalists are calling for a “time out” and warning that the headlong rush into massive ethanol production is creating more problems than it is solving.

34. marisacat - 5 March 2007

But RULLY Big Boyz… that would be Obama and iirc Hillary as well, JUST came out for ethanol.

I mean, we have NEW fictions of wood chip fuel.. if I have read the sludge right. Other sorts of vegetative shards that will SAVE US!!

or save Archer Daniels Midland.

…tie a yellow ribbon round the old oak tree… etc.

35. marisacat - 5 March 2007

Well the stories in summer of 03 died away for lack of “Democratic certification” .. which is one way of saying, media was there alone.

And cables DID send crews to Ft Stewart. but the army clamped down hard. The wife of base officer, forget the name, quickly marshalled the little wives of privates and lance corporals… the ones who had spoken up… and we can imagine the threats.

Clark did some ineffectual chatter.. and some said he should to down to Ft Stewart. But you know, Dem party stalking horse. Not gonna do it.

THE Dems did not pick it up and run iwth it. Being afraid of 04. Or 08. Or 12.

And so on.

36. D. Throat - 5 March 2007


Ah… but if you listen to Al Gore… he identifies this very problem and makes the case for Cellulosic ethanol

Conventional ethanol and cellulosic ethanol are the same product, but are produced utilizing different feedstocks and processes. Conventional ethanol is derived from grains such as corn and wheat or soybeans. Corn, the predominant feedstock, is converted to ethanol in either a dry or wet milling process. In dry milling operations, liquefied corn starch is produced by heating corn meal with water and enzymes. A second enzyme converts the liquefied starch to sugars, which are fermented by yeast into ethanol and carbon dioxide. Wet milling operations separate the fiber, germ (oil), and protein from the starch before it is fermented into ethanol.

Cellulosic ethanol can be produced from a wide variety of cellulosic biomass feedstocks including agricultural plant wastes (corn stover, cereal straws, sugarcane bagasse), plant wastes from industrial processes (sawdust, paper pulp) and energy crops grown specifically for fuel production, such as switchgrass. Cellulosic biomass is composed of cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin, with smaller amounts of proteins, lipids (fats, waxes and oils) and ash. Roughly, two-thirds of the dry mass of cellulosic materials are present as cellulose and hemicellulose. Lignin makes up the bulk of the remaining dry mass.

37. arcturus1 - 5 March 2007

save Archer Daniels Midland


& ADM is the major sponsor of what, now?

38. marisacat - 5 March 2007

well they largely sponsor ABC. LOL… And the old man was a big friend and supporter of HHH.

Still amazes me that the son went to jail, tho I have not followed the story in years.

39. D. Throat - 5 March 2007

My take on the whole ethanol debate is that is should be developed by “Mom and Pop” producers… small farmers and cooperatives.

I think it is ridiculous to subsidize multi billion dollar corporations which will only keep the cost of the fuel at the higest limit the market will bear.

40. D. Throat - 5 March 2007

Meanwhile back at the ol’ DOW ranch:

2/27 Tues: -416
2/28 Wed: +52
3/1 Thurs: – 34
3/2 Fri: : -120.24
3/5 Mon: -63.69

Rebound: -581.93

41. Miss Devore - 5 March 2007

from the Telegraph:

“And hours after yesterday’s presentation a high-ranking US official admitted that, despite spending $22 billion on reconstruction across Iraq, the Americans didn’t expect Baghdad to have a 24-hour electricity supply until 2013.”

42. marisacat - 5 March 2007

love the “rebound” update.



“2013”… some candidate can run on bringing electricity to Baghdad. As most of NO will still be dark.

so fucking stuck.

43. colleen - 5 March 2007

I bet the girls are knocking his door down. He hit the the trifecta-stupid, ugly and mean.

I’ll bet he’s never had sex he hasn’t had to pay for

44. Revisionist - 5 March 2007

some candidate can run on bringing electricity to Baghdad. As most of NO will still be dark.

thats how dems won in the 30’s-50’s. They gave people water, roads and eclectricity. after civil rights what have the really had to offer america?

45. marisacat - 5 March 2007

Revisionist, exactly.

And Schumer even cops to this. Said that after all the dems delivered (long long ago! and did not really maintain), whammo nobody needed government for decades. LOL I would argue otherwise… but nevertheless, his premise is

NOW they need us again! Cuz it is all so fucked up! mama Mia! We might get the vote!

46. arcturus1 - 5 March 2007

ABC as well, huh? my thot was npr

dt: – that is, if ever . . .

more from Blum:

40th anniversary of the March on the Pentagon, coming up March 17; an excerpt from William Blum’s memoir.

October 21, 1967, the March on the Pentagon, surely one of the most extraordinary and imposing acts of protest and civil disobedience in history — the government hunkered down in its trenches in the face of an audacious assault upon its seat of power by its own citizens; a demonstration much bigger than the Bonus Marchers of 1932 (those depression-stricken World War One veterans demanding payment on their government bonus certificates NOW, not in some pie-in-the-sky future — the people peaceably assembled to petition the government for a redress of grievances, violently and humiliatingly squashed by federal troops under the command of a general named MacArthur, and his aide named Eisenhower, and their officer named Patton.)

After a stirring concert at the Reflecting Pool by Phil Ochs surrounded by 150,000 of his closest friends, most of the protestors marched over the Memorial Bridge to the war factory. Never to be forgotten: the roof of the Pentagon when the colossus first came into view and we marched closer and closer — soldiers standing guard, spaced across the roof from one side to the other, weapons at the ready, motionless, looking down upon us from on high with all the majesty of stone warriors or gods atop a classical Greek temple. For the first time that day I wondered — not without excitement — what I was letting myself in for.

This was wholly unlike my first protest at the Pentagon. This was not a group of Quaker pacifists sworn to non-violence, who could bring out the least macho side of even professional military men, and who would be received cordially in the Pentagon cafeteria. Today, we were as welcome and as safe as narcs at a biker rally. Our numbers included many the boys at the Pentagon must have been itching to get their hands on, like those in the Committee to Aid the National Liberation Front, with their Vietcong flags, and SDS, and other “anti-imperialist” groups, who became involved in some of the earliest confrontations that day.

In sharp contrast to the likes of these were the illuminati like Norman Mailer, Marcus Raskin, Noam Chomsky, Robert Lowell, Dwight McDonald — men in dark suits, white shirts and ties as if to ward off evil spirits with the cross of respectability.

In the vast parking lot to which we were confined, open hostility was kept in check at first, but it was clear that the peace was only an inch deep. Repeated draft-card burnings took place — a veritable performance, with flaming cards held high and flaunted square in the irises of the soldiers, whose faces were masked in studied indifference. Although this augured conflict of unpredictable dimensions, I found it exhilarating to see all those young people acting so principled and fearless. I was sorry that I was too old to have a card to burn.

Scattered pockets of mild confrontation broke out, soon unfolding into more widespread and serious clashes. At one spot a Vietnam teach-in for the troops was broken up by MPs with clubs. Later, 82nd Airborne Division paratroopers, veterans of Vietnam, entered the scene, bayonets fixed, face to face at last with these people they had been hearing about so much, the privileged little sons of bitches whose incessant crying about international law and morality and god-knows-what-else gave aid and comfort to the enemy, the cowardly little snotnosed draft-dodgers who wallowed in sex and dope while the GIs wallowed in mud and death (and dope as well).

The paratroopers proceeded to kick ass — after ‘Nam this was a church picnic — and many bruised and battered demonstrators were carried away to waiting prison busses, helping to swell the day’s total arrestees to near 700. The protestors, whose only defense was to lock arms, appealed to the soldiers to back off, to join them, to just act human, shouting through a bull horn: “The soldiers are not our enemy, the decision makers are.” Though this was a sincere declaration, its failure to sway their attackers gave way to angry, impotent curses of “bastards” and “motherfuckers”.

I had no big argument with the idea that the soldiers’ bosses were the real enemy, but I had real difficulty with the expressions of “love” for the GIs that some silly hippie types allowed to pass their lips. The soldiers, after all, had made decisions, just as others of their generation had opted for draft evasion or Canada. These soldiers, in particular, were fresh from the killing fields. The idea of “individual responsibility” is not just a conservative buzzword.

Several eyewitnesses told the Washington Free Press that in other areas of the “battlefield” they saw as many as three soldiers drop their weapons and helmets and join the crowd, and that at least one of them was seized and dragged into the Pentagon by MPs soon afterward. Later attempts to obtain information about these soldiers from the Pentagon were met with denials.

47. marisacat - 5 March 2007

oh. Truly. He outdid himself.

The next piece up at the site is pull back, apologia for VA, as opposed to Army/WRH, hospitals. GMAFB.

48. supervixen - 5 March 2007

arcturus1, I hate to say this, but that stuff from Blum reminds me strongly of Bowers.

some silly hippie types

O yes, where have we heard THAT tone before. I love these “muscular liberals” who are too tough and manly for that kind of behavior.

Really, this stuff is the same kind of chestpounding bushwah peddled by the big tough war correspondents of previous eras, but they had much more reason to consider themselves Big Swinging Dicks.

49. marisacat - 5 March 2007

Just up at MyDD in the diaries, from the Nurses:

Soldier reenlists in Iraq for healthcare, dies–

Today’s SinglePayer Update

by California Nurses Shum, Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 05:14:07 PM EST

We meet three people today who demonstrate the breath-taking impact of the healthcare crisis on our country today: the soldier in Iraq dying from it, the middle-class professional suffering from it, and the insurance industry CEO getting rich off it. While (most) Americans see their quality of life degraded by our broken healthcare system, politicians continue to fiddle. The Governors of Texas and Illinois put out new plans that that focus on increasing insurance profits not improving healthcare, while the new Governor of Massachusetts tries to deal with the mess left him by his predecessor.

Brought to you by the National Nurses Organizing Committee as we organize to make 2007 the Year of SinglePayer Healthcare {snip}

50. arcturus1 - 5 March 2007

I can hear the echo, sv, but the gulf betwixt the two is too great for me to find much significance in it – tho yea, you’re quite right that BB’s got a little of that testosterone thang going on there as well – guess his anger at the state comes through for me – & the tenderness of:

. . . found it exhilarating to see all those young people acting so principled and fearless

51. arcturus1 - 5 March 2007

in CA, the Nurses are the Opposition

52. D. Throat - 5 March 2007

The ‘purity’ of Booman

But first we have to realize something. There is now a war in Iraq that will go on for some time whether American troops are stationed in Iraq or not. So, any plan to end the war in Iraq by pulling out American troops is doomed to fail. In fact, American troops make it difficult for the war in Iraq to escalate beyond a certain level, and their redeployment would probably remove a major restraint that has so far limited the scale of the civil war there.

Even the Republicans in the Baker Report have said that it is the US troop present that is keeping the conflict going. So, this barfly is pulling facts straight from his ass and onto the frontpage of his crappy blog.

I guess this is renumeration for Dodd showing up for 20 minutes… and never returning…

Talk about “PURITY”… this is pure GOP conservative warmongering bullshit

Our relationships with Jordan and Egypt are extremely important. Both countries have signed peace treaties with Israel, thereby ending the imminent threat of a repeat of the 1973 war. Those relationships are critical for Israel’s security. But it will be very difficult for Hosni Mubarak and King Abdullah II to watch the Sunnis of Iraq getting slaughtered and driven from their homes and not get involved in some way. The worse things get for the Sunnis in Iraq, the more unpopular the United States will be in Egypt and Jordan. If either leader were to fall to a popular revolution, it is unlikely that their replacement governments would recognize Israel or maintain their close relationship with the United States.

What a fucking asshole… it has already been proven that the majority insurgent attacks in Iraq are committed by Sunni’s (on Shias and Americans)… who by the way are being funded by Saudi Arabia

I haven’t even discussed Iran, their nuclear intentions, and the possibility of a nuclear arms race in the region. I haven’t discussed the potential to damage to our efforts in Afghanistan, damage to our relations with Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the UAE, and Oman. And I haven’t discussed possible disruption of oil supplies and possible economic depression. Add all of those into the mix.

This is just raunchy and pathetic… Someone needs to get a job. Hell working at the post office is more admirable than sitting around writing this shit… at least you’d some exercise and fresh air.

53. outofwater - 5 March 2007


I’ll bet he’s never had sex he hasn’t had to pay for

and the prostitutes charge him double.

54. supervixen - 5 March 2007

Big Orange Bullies: now Annalize5 and JPete having the boot put into them. I hope these are JPete’s last words on DKos, because they’d be good ones:

One comment when I was one of two (0 / 0)
giving HRH a recommend and one when I was one of eleven giving her a recommend, over 16 running her down.

Nice try? Or pathetic?

By the way, when some one is under attack from a very vicious group then I will try to rescue them. I hate lynchings.

It’s right wing thinking to say that someone who tries to rescue someone from unjust punishment supports everything the person did. This site does not need that kind of twisted thinking.

This ends all my communication with you and your little friends. I have tried to be civil to one of you in a feminist diary, but the damage you do and have done makes me feel I’m dealing with snakes.

“False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the soul with evil.” Plato

by JPete on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 01:10:36 PM PST

[ Parent ]

O except let me add this: all you uprating (0 / 0)
each other in your gang up on me which is full of attacks on me. Just remember when you criticize someone else for ratings abuse what you all do in your gangs here.

You applaud each other’s attempts to destroy my reputation. And thereby you reveal what your moral character is. This is not a joke. Behavior like yours really does affect your soul. As the wisdom of many great thinkers has told us. See my sig:

“False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the soul with evil.” Plato

by JPete on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 01:33:13 PM PST

55. ms_xeno - 5 March 2007

WordPress ate a chunk of my mornings posts here and elsewhere. Did that happen to anyone else ? Feh.

Anyway, glad you all kept the electric fans going next to the BBB smoldering shitpile while I was toiling away in WA… 😀

56. supervixen - 5 March 2007

#49 – sorry arcturus, I’ve lost patience with all that fake macho bullshit. Tired of the Boyz.

57. ms_xeno - 5 March 2007

Anyway, the hippies had their own problems dealing with the destructive aspects of “manliness,” which is how we ended up with Second Wave feminism.

58. marisacat - 5 March 2007

WP was down off and on…up and down over an hour earlier.. I was blocked from posting a new post for awhile… I left a comment in the previous thread that WP was having problems.

When I would refresh a page, it would put me at a “Error” notice page.

59. arcturus1 - 5 March 2007

this barfly is pulling facts straight from his ass and onto the frontpage of his crappy blog.

not the 1st time – won’t be the last

I guess this is renumeration for Dodd showing up for 20 minutes… and never returning…

prolly not – he’s a true-believer (left-wing of the neo-lib washington consensus) – as devout as any fundie

BB is now one of the Boyz??? huh? i’m missing something . . .

60. marisacat - 5 March 2007

hmm dunno… I Think Angry Arab has the heart beat (or whatever) of Mubarack

Not his only quick slapwa at Hosni in the past couple of days. I love Angry Arab as he kicks EVERYONE.


oops meant to add, he slammed Abdullah of Jordan as well. Loves to kick at him as a dullard who plays at his playstation games all day long.

61. ms_xeno - 5 March 2007

Mcat, what confused me was that it would say something like “this post is being saved elsewhere.” Very strange. I wasn’t even sure that the trouble was based at WordPress;Thought maybe it had something to do with the swarm of bugs I’ve been trying to work out since I got the Mac back.

62. marisacat - 5 March 2007

the error page I would get would tell me that I was looking for something that “does not exist”… then tell me it is a “temporary error”…

It could be that WP is a bit too big for its systems. When I settled on WP they had 140K blogs…. now it is around 700K…

We’ll see…

63. D. Throat - 5 March 2007

Another left-wing of the neo-lib washington consensus

Re: Obama would Rather Play Even than Win (3.00 / 1)

You don’t support public financing? And the idea that not doing so represents a progressive ideal?

Please tell me that you are kidding. This is absurd.

by PsiFighter37 on Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 06:04:43 PM EST


Re: Obama would Rather Play Even than Win (none / 0)

the kind of progressive that likes to win, and the kind of progressive that believes in people-power instead of governmental solutions. The government is great at an equalizing force, but people are the ones that move the ball.

by Jerome Armstrong on Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 08:24:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Re: Obama would Rather Play Even than Win (none / 0)

the kind of progressive that believes in people-power instead of governmental solutions. The government is great at an equalizing force, but people are the ones that move the ball.

The whole point is that a government solution to financing of campaigns is the best thing to do. Sure, it may allow for more people power to do away with it, but it also allows for people who have far more money than any of us gain even greater influence. That’s why there’s a need to publicly finance campaigns; the libertarian solution you’re advocating would, IMO, release utter chaos on to the system and have costs on elections – already far too high – spiral further out of control.

by PsiFighter37 on Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 11:12:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Re: Obama would Rather Play Even than Win (none / 0)

No, it’s got limits.

by Jerome Armstrong on Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 11:32:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Re: Obama would Rather Play Even than Win (none / 0)

What has limits? I know that there is a personal donation limit, but the average person can’t plunk down a $2,300 check. Furthermore, wealthier people know more people who can put down more of the same kind of checks.

by PsiFighter37 on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 12:16:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]


64. ms_xeno - 5 March 2007

[ms_xeno looks at D.Throat’s sample of the Collected Wit ‘N Wisdom of Jerome, puts on a scratchy LP of you-know-who singing “God Bless the Child,” and trots off to the kitchen in search of a double bourbon.]

65. arcturus1 - 5 March 2007

Ms X: isn’t their theme song “Don’t Explain”?

right or wrong don’t matter
if you’re with me sweet . . .

66. marisacat - 5 March 2007

I found the TruthOut reprint of Ehrenreich on Nader from the time she was a summer pinch hitter on NYT.

I would have posted it in the preceding thread to consolidate the conversation, but it – the thread – is way too long for some people on dial-up…

67. ms_xeno - 5 March 2007

[a roll on the snare drum for arcturus. 😀 ]

Thanks for digging that up, Mcat. I don’t read Truthout much so I didn’t know they would have had it.

I did find Chris Randolph’s razz at Ehrenreich, though.

I wonder how Barb feels about Dennis nowadays ? Never mind. Not looking it up. Bad for my blood pressure.

68. Revisionist - 5 March 2007

Reposting the link i posted last nite


because it goes so well with this story


religous wackos dont just want to take us back to the Dark ages, they want to take us all the way back to iron age. now what happens if these people start winning elections over there. will the mandatory junket for our new congress people include slaughtering a calf?

maybe xeno can help me out here. have these fundementalists always been around or is this some new phenom?

69. marisacat - 5 March 2007

they want to take us all the way back to iron age.

Do I have to live in a cave? seems more intense than a burqua.

70. arcturus1 - 5 March 2007



Wednesday, March 7, 7:30 p.m.
King Middle School Auditorium
1781 Rose St., Berkeley [map]
For more information please call (510)848-6767

Author Chalmers Johnson, president of the Japan Policy Research Institute, discusses “Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic,” in conversation with Gray Brechin, author of author of “Imperial San Francisco: Urban Power, Earthly Ruin.” Sponsored by KPFA Radio and Global Exchange.

71. ms_xeno - 5 March 2007

Only in peripheral relation to your question, Revisionist, –but possibly worth a look anyway:

Thirty Years of Feminism In Israel

72. ms_xeno - 5 March 2007

Bah. LaLouche ate another of my posts. :p

73. Sabrina Ballerina - 5 March 2007

I wonder if Jerome looked in his crystal ball in his ‘reality based’ world to come up those words of wisdom? Or was he reading cards? Not that there’s anything wrong with that, but aren’t these guys supposed to be reality based? Otoh, in reality, if campaigns were publicly funded he couldn’t profit from them. Profits before country!

SuperV – I don’t know why jpete stays in that snake pit. She is far too nice a person, like so many others who could not watch the ‘lynchings’ by a bunch of cowards, she makes them look so bad. If only they could see themselves the way others do. And that Musings character is vicious piece of garbage.

I still would like to get them to a neutral ‘thunderblog’ (lol, thanks Marisacat) and watch them run crying to their mommies. Annalyze too, she’s way to sharp for that place.

What’s amazing is that they are truly paranoid now about ‘all those other blogs’ that are attacking them’, poor babies. Maybe they should ask themselves why are there so many, and why do the numbers keep growing? Couldn’t have anything at all to do with them.

Btw, it looks like some Ann Coulter’s advertisers have pulled their ads re her attack on Edwards using the word ‘faggot’. Kos better watch it re his advertisers with people like Luscious Vagina calling women cunts on that site. Way to alienate one of the largest voting blocks in the country –

74. liberalcatnip - 5 March 2007

Mcat, what confused me was that it would say something like “this post is being saved elsewhere.”

I have it now. Pay up.

75. Revisionist - 5 March 2007

re xeno #71 – there was a story the past couple of months about a visiting NY woman who was physically assulted because she wouldnt give up her seat to a man on a bus. It went from a verbal shouting match to her being shoved around and spit on.

76. marisacat - 5 March 2007

Well I have nto looked at Kos this week, but last week he was without a premium ad and iwthout a second ad. Just the revolving ads, you pay one price and placement constantly revolves.

usually the one and two spot are MSM, iirc. I easily forget ads, so I could be wrong.

77. ms_xeno - 5 March 2007

Revisionist, I’ve had female friends who went over there for a visit who had men throwing stones at them because they were wearing shorts. >: Just one more reason to stay the hell home from there, I think. I mean, I can put on a pair of shorts and walk up SE 82nd St. and get harassed in my native tongue for free. :/

78. marisacat - 5 March 2007

ms_xeno… your comment was there, it slipped to spam. I bailed it out… 😉

79. ms_xeno - 5 March 2007

Merci, Mcat. I will restrain my natural paranoia for one more evening. 😀

80. liberalcatnip - 5 March 2007

ms_xeno… your comment was there, it slipped to spam. I bailed it out…

Darn! I was hoping to get some ransom money out of the situation. Foiled again!

81. liberalcatnip - 5 March 2007

News on Iran:

VIENNA, Austria (AP) — Iran seems to have at least temporarily halted the uranium-enrichment program at the heart of its standoff with the U.N. Security Council, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency said Monday.

The pause could represent an attempt to de-escalate Iran’s conflict with the Security Council, which is deliberating a new set of harsher sanctions on the Islamic Republic.

Do you think Bush will talk to them now?

Neither do I.

82. supervixen - 5 March 2007

They are so hilarious over there:

People that stand in the way of electing (1+ / 0-)
Recommended by:musing85

Democrats because of their addictions to drama and constant conflict have found their homes at MLW, Booman Trib, and other sites filled with malcontents that would like to collectively destroy dkos effectiveness and mission. The malcontents need to be shown the door so that they can not contaminate dkos.

Politics is the business of dkos, personality and discontent is the business of the sites Musing mentioned.


WWYTR? “Love is the only force capable of transforming an enemy into a friend” MLK

by PaintyKat on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 04:22:43 PM PST

The sig line is a wonderful contrast in tone, eh?

83. Madman in the Marketplace - 5 March 2007

Nuclear war is nuclear war! It crosses the moral line.

The physics major in me has to respond to this. In fact, as someone who is uneasy in crowds, it’s hard to believe that I had one period in my life when I appeared in a couple of public forums, during the whole “No Nukes” thing, my advisor in the physics dept arranged a panel where several of his like-minded physics and engineering students did presentations on nuclear weapons. Mine was on “tactical” nukes, esp. nuclear artillery and “suitcase” nukes. Anyway, I offer that only as background for where I’m coming from. Take it or leave it.

Weapons are weapons. Bombs deliver blast effects (shrapnel), fire effects and, if nuclear, radiation. The main advantage, from an ECONOMIC standpoint, of nuclear weapons, is that it takes fewer of them to do the same damage. Dresden citizens are as dead as Hiroshima citizens, to be blunt, but Dresden took multiple sorties and Hiroshima took one bomber. To say that Hiroshima is more immoral is unsupportable, to my point-of-view. Dead is dead.

Every week I read of 2000 pound bombs killing civilians. Is it worse that multiple aircraft deliver multiple 2000 pound bombs, or one B-2 delivers one nuke? Is a pounding of heavy artillary quantitatively different than a single nuclear cruise missile to the people in the blast radius?

Dead is dead. Immoral is immoral. I don’t mean to pick on DT, I really don’t, but the only thing that makes nukes “worse” than waves of conventional munitions is their relative economical ease of use, but a country willing to slaughter by wire is immoral whether it uses a few munitions or multiple munitions. A “civilization” that harnesses it’s best and brightest to figure out efficient ways to decimate other human beings is evil, and not worthy of the word “civilized”.

As for the additional threat of radiation, again that is only a question of degrees, and one could argue that a “dirty” weapon that contaminates the spoils of bloody war has a certain “just desserts” quality to it.

Fuel-Air Explosives, Cluster bombs, tactical nukes … we should be ashamed that this “free” country, this “champion” of freedom, this “Republic”, has mechanized and commodified death to the extent that we have. Nuclear weapons are not “worse”, they are only more ” efficient … and thus the perfect representation of ” laissez-faire” American emperialism.

84. Madman in the Marketplace - 5 March 2007

oops, meant that to read (including shrapnel).

85. liberalcatnip - 5 March 2007

Politics is the business of dkos, personality and discontent is the business of the sites Musing mentioned.

Damn near spit out my Coke when I read that!

86. ms_xeno - 5 March 2007

Yeah, because that would be my big selling point once I hit the bloggin’ big time: We’re all blissfully contented in this warmongering shitheap of a country ! Plus, we don’t have personalities because Our Leaders prefer it that way !!

Catnip, you wouldn’t want a ransom in US money anyway. It’s boring looking and not worth anything…

87. arcturus1 - 5 March 2007

MM – As a moral argument, I agree, dead is dead; mass death comes from ‘weapons of mass destruction’ of all forms – from nukes to Clinton’s Iraq sanctions (an act of overt warfare we won’t even acknowledge as such).

But I won’t minimize the cumulative environmental & human sonsequences of releasing additional radiotion into the atmosphere, soil, & water of the planet – those consequences simply aren’t comparable to firebombing a city (& you already know just how dirty the entire process is, from the mining to the unsolved waste issue). That too is a moral responsibility we refuse to own. Immoral. There I’d part with you – it’s a quantuum degree of difference to my mind.

What I tried to get at earlier is that the longstanding inculcated fear of nuclear weapons is something that can & should be used – hammered, whatever when speaking of this possibility – tactical reason enough to strongly support Lakoff, DT & anyone else who insists on saying the words aloud:

we’re planning to start a nuclear war

88. arcturus1 - 5 March 2007

(meant to add that Gertrude Stein wrote a piece w/ a similar stance to MM’s – in her own inimical prose of course – the gist being she wasn’t all that overly impressed by a newer, bigger technology of death-making – I typed it out once & posted to bmt – mebbe I’ll hunt it up for ya

89. liberalcatnip - 5 March 2007

yeah, but it’s still worth more than a canadian buck is. I’m just sayin’… 😉

My, my, some people think so highly of themselves:

Exactly what I did (0 / 0)

when I walked away from MLW and BT. And why I fervently hope the purveyors of impeachment porn at this site will get tired of it and go somewhere else, or else force Markos to boot them and ban that kind of mindless shouting at the rain.

When the signal-to-noise ratio drops to 1 or less, it’s time to move along. That hasn’t happened here yet, but it’s well past that at MLW and BMT–or was when I left both places.

So explain to me why I would particularly want to have them on “my” side? Especially since it just makes it easier for the MSM to mischaracterize blogs and bloggers as a temporary annoyance instead of a true threat to their traditional dominance of the field of news and opinion.

Musing’s musings

by musing85 on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 11:15:49 AM MST

Yes, surely Daily Kos is a shining beacon of pure light in the eyes of the MSM, is it not? And how dare the unruly rabble dirty up the neighbourhood and try to make them all look bad! They must be banned!

It’s a glorified fucking chat room musing85. Get over yourself.

90. marisacat - 5 March 2007

What I tried to get at earlier is that the longstanding inculcated fear of nuclear weapons is something that can & should be used – hammered, whatever when speaking of this possibility – tactical reason enough to strongly support Lakoff, DT & anyone else who insists on saying the words aloud:

we’re planning to start a nuclear war

Oh this I agree with. After decades of scaring old people about Social Security (that would be the Dems that do that, on their drop ins at the Old Folks HOmes) you’d think they could sprinkle a little nuc-le-ar propaganda. Just to wake the nation… a bit. To the yellow haze about to appear off shore.


91. marisacat - 5 March 2007

…the MSM to mischaracterize blogs and bloggers as a temporary annoyance instead of a true threat to their traditional dominance of the field of news and opinion.

Lordy! The one true threat?

Actually Blahger Boyz best look over their shoulder.

I don’t think the current lay of the land is gonna hold.

Sorta like the Hayward fault, due for a swarm or a big one.

It just stands to reason.

92. Madman in the Marketplace - 5 March 2007

It’s a cumulative difference, not a qualitative difference Arcturus.

Does that make any sense?

A bullet to the brain vs beating to death in front of the victim’s family … is the second more evil? There is an argument that it is, but …

We can’t parse murder. I appreciate what you’re saying, that mass murderers are worse than serial killers are worse than spree killers are worse than killers-of-passion, but …

I can’t make that calculation anymore. I can’t “grade” levels of evil.

93. Sabrina Ballerina - 5 March 2007

Rotfl SV, that is hillarious. And the sigline following the the angry diatribe about kicking out all their enemies is too much!

You people have to stop making me laugh, ms xeno you are too funny, and catnip too!

94. Sabrina Ballerina - 5 March 2007

Stop, they are too funny! Musings didn’t get the memo. Wasn’t Bob Johnson following Buhdy around a day or so ago claiming Buhdy was making it up that dk tried silence those who favore Impeachment? So what’s this? Lol!

And why I fervently hope the purveyors of impeachment porn at this site will get tired of it and go somewhere else, or else force Markos to boot them and ban that kind of mindless shouting at the rain.

Bob Johnson swore this didn’t happen on dk. They just can’t seem to coordinate their message. Poor musings, so miserable about all the ‘enemies’ on dk. You’d think he’d be more worried about the slaughter going in Iraq or something. They really do need to get out more!

95. Sabrina Ballerina - 5 March 2007

The Constitution according to Musings = ‘impeachment porn’ and ‘mindless shouting in the rain’

Why did those ‘purveyors of Impeachment porn’ Jefferson, Hamilton et al have to make life so difficult for poor old Musings? lol! And these are the bright lights that are going to put the media out of business – too funny, really!

96. bayprairie - 5 March 2007

The malcontents need to be shown the door so that they can not contaminate dkos.

dkos isn’t contaminated. dkos suffers from an auto-immune disorder.

all that “contaminated” tissue is healthy. its the immune system thats WHACKED!

97. liberalcatnip - 5 March 2007

‘mindless shouting in the rain’

Yes, once again, that Clash line is running through my head…

“Someday a real rain will come and wash all the scum off the streets.”

98. arcturus1 - 5 March 2007

I appreciate what you’re saying, that mass murderers are worse than . . .

actually, I’m not going there – I’m happy to agree that dead is dead

what I’m trying to say is that the nuclear cycle introduces another whole order of immoral disaster beyond immediate targets of war – I suppose one cd analogize the poisoning of future generations – the planet itself – as another sort of collatoral damage? I guess my mind finds ithem useful to differentiate

99. James - 5 March 2007

Sez Musing:

So explain to me why I would particularly want to have them on “my” side?

Not to worry, champ. The feeling’s mutual.

100. marisacat - 5 March 2007
101. wu ming - 5 March 2007

that’s a great metaphor, bayprairie.

oh, and madman, i think the global consequences of all but an extremely limited nuclear exchange is of a magnitude of evil that it becomes qualitatively distinct from just your average blowing innocents to pieces.

but it is all evil, no argument there, and we should never let the comparison with a nuclear holocaust dull us to the torment and senseless destruction that conventional war is.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: