"Go fuck yourself" was said by Dick Cheneythree years ago as he passed a Democratic Senator in the hallway of Congress.
It's an ugly phrase for an ugly sentiment.
And its now clear that its much more than just a singular insult from one man to another. Cheney was leading the way for the conservative movement -- "go fuck yourself" has become their creed. Its their response to anyone and everyone who disagrees with what they say or do.
While the actual words may not be said, it is a sentiment you will find even in our own Canadian House of Commonsthese days.
[more in Extended]

Some fun now. Oh, we're in for some fun now.
The hearings about the nomination of Robert Gates to be Secretary of Defense have every potential of turning into a little shop of horrors for the Bush administration, considering as Ray McGovern describes it, who Gates is and his history with the Bushies:
[more in extended]

dateline: Wednesday --
Everybody always knew that the Democrats were going to win and win big in this election.
Everybody always knew that Dean's 50-state strategy was a great one. In fact, it was actually not Dean's idea at all.
Everybody always knew that this election would be a referendum on Iraq, and that the Republicans would fail because everybody always knew that Iraq was a terrible mistake.
Everybody always knew that the Republican scandals and incompetence would disgust the voters and they would turn away from everything republican.  
Everybody always knew that progressive bloggers didn't really affect the result of this election; they're just too radical, too far out of the mainstream. In fact, they shouldn't really play any role in setting democratic policy in the future, and any politician allied with them isn't a serious legislator.  There are other interests which serious legislators have to take into account, you know.  Its a delicate balance which the bloggers just don't understand, like everybody always knew . . .

OK, admittedly not everyone who supports the Iraq War is in a position to sign up and go fight it -- they may have other priorities, or babies, or maybe they can't afford the loss in pay, or something equally valid.
But do they have money? If so, here's a great idea from Juan Cole.
[Continued in Extended]

My dad used to use the phrase "the story behind the story" -- often, when we were talking about the news of the day, he would ask "So what's the story behind the story?" -- meaning we had to look not only at the news story itself, but at why that particular story came to be cosidered as newsworthy.
This weekend, I wondered how come it took the traditional media weeks to cover the Downing Street memo and the Plame leak investigation, but they were all over a trivial column on The New Republic website in less than 24 hours.
[more in Extended

I, for one, welcome our new Internet overlord, The Keyboard Kingpin, aka Markos Moulitsas Zuniga.
I was absolutely thrilled to read about David Brooks's column in tomorrow's New York Times.
It about time somebody took on the job of organizing the Internets -- admit it, folks, its really pretty messy now, particularly here in left blogistan where there are just so many opinions all over the place (the Right, god bless 'em, already makes sure its people don't stray too far off the mark.)
And the quicker our Kos takes over everything, the better. He couldn't possibly do any worse than Bush and Cheney, and at least he's got military experience.
 

We don't get to choose the battle.
We only get to choose our side.
I have been thinking lately about how to reply to the apparently-reasonable-sounding argument that a person can support gay rights without supporting gay marriage.
But you can't. Not anymore.
This is because we don't get to choose the battleground for civil rights.
When someone says "I don't support gay marriage but this doesn't mean I am a bigot", this simply isn't true. Not anymore. The battle lines have been drawn.
The only choice left is to decide which side you are on.(More in extended)

"Yes, you have the right to an opinion.
"But you don't have a say in how I run my life."
My sister describes a phenomenon she calls "Jerry Springer Syndrome" -- when we start acting like we're a "studio audience" for other people's lives, and therefore we can pass judgment on other people's lifestyles. We act, she says, like we have a say. But we don't.
Every time she would dial past the Jerry Springer show and other shows of this ilk on TV, she would see the studio audience booing and cheering and yelling and jeering and howling at the poor smuck on stage, writhing in self-inflicted and vainglorious agony.
These shows, she says, promote the idea that everybody in the audience has a say -- the whole format of the show encourages people to think that their opinion about whatever is happening on stage must be continuously, enthusiastically and loudly expressed. Everyone seems to think they have to have a say in how other people are living their lives.  Why not, my sister asks, just leave people alone?
(more in Extended)

The blogosphere is unleashing its best fear and loathing on the prospect of the US starting an unprovoked, aggressive nuclear war against Iran.
First, for some perspective on Iran's actual political situation and actual uranium enrichment capabilities, see these two short articles:
Ian Welsh's The Three Principles of Iranian Foreign Affairs

[1]Iran wants its neighbours to not be a threat . . . [2] Iran needs a deterrent against the US and other great powers . . . [and 3] The Mullahs intend to stay in charge . . . Really, almost everything else is a corollary of these three rules . . .

More in Extended --

Its the bestest photo ever.
Havril at [insert something clever] titles this post of Bush with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper We'll always have Cancun
I found it referenced at Canadian Cynic.  
And I immediately thought that the irreverent group of people on the internet most likely to love it would be the Kossacks.
[UPDATE: And Havril writes a note on my blog -- "Bestest? Aw shucks. It was nothing -- a little Paintshop Pro, a little music from theBrokeback Mountain soundtrack. I'm just glad I was able to capture the tenderness of the relationship"]

This made me feel sick.
It is Lambert's listing of the ages of the family members executed last week by American soldiers, according to the Iraqi police report. The report reads

At 230 of 15/3/2006, according to the telegram (report) of the Ishaqi police directorate, American forces used helicopters to drop troops on the house of Faiz Harat Khalaf situated in the Abu Sifa village of the Ishaqi district. The American forces gathered the family members in one room and executed 11 people, including 5 children, 4 women and 2 men, then they bombed the house, burned three vehicles, and killed their animals...

Here is the AP storydescribing this massacre.

So what would happen during the first weeks of a war between the US and Iran?
Paul William Roberts provides a scenario in today's Globe & Mail. The essay is behind their subscription wall, so here's the summary of what Roberts says:
The US scenario of an attack on Iran is that their nuclear facilities would be bombed and that Iran will grimace and take its medicine.
The Iran scenario plays out differently.  This scenario -- "the one most likely playing to thunderous applause in the corridors of theocratic power in Qom and Tehran" -- is that Iran has already promised to retaliate and there are nearly 1000 missiles in place that could be fired at targets around the Persian Gulf such as ships, airbases, refineries and oil terminals.

Well, here it is -- USA Today is reporting that banning gay adoption will be voted on in 16 states in November, 2006.
I've been watching for this -- I knew there would be SOMETHING that would be used to get the Republican vote out.
In 2004, the ballot initiatives against gay marriage gave Karl Rove enough of the Christian wingnut vote that Bush was reelected. Now, while the Democrats are howling after the UAE port deal and Abramoff and illegal wiretaps and Kartina and Iraq and all the other Bush administration foul-ups, the Republicans are terrified about trying to save enough Senate and the House seats to maintain control of the US government committees.

Bush and company keep trying to compare Iraq to World War II. And indeed they may have a point -- if you think of the Americans army as playing the German role this time.
A few months ago, when we first started watching the TV series "Over There", I commented on my blog that it was like watching a TV show about the occupation of France except as told from the German side.
Now the war movies are being made -- like this one now showing in Turkey:

I didn't watch the show but when I read Adrianna Huffington's account of today's Meet the Presswith Democrats Tom Daschle and Jane Harman, and Republicans Pat Roberts and Peter Hoekstra I had a strange sense of deja vu.
The way Huffington described it, Daschle and Harmon apparently spent most of the program wringing their hands -- not about how Bush's domestic wiretap program contravenes the US constitution, but rather about how Democrats have to prove their patriotism by supporting the program:

The Washington Post reports on the domestic spying program and toward the end of the article I found some interesting stuff.
First, the National Security Agency machines are not selective:

. . . the agency has acknowledged use of automated equipment to analyze the contents and guide analysts to the most important ones. According to one knowledgeable source, the warrantless program also uses those methods. That is significant to the public debate because this kind of filtering intrudes into content, and machines "listen" to more Americans than humans do . . .

(More in Extended...)

After the disappointment of seeing the Alito cloture vote approved, I was thinking how downhearted the progressive blogosphere would be tonight.
But its not, not at all.
People are reciting Shakespeare, and channeling Churchill, and praising Kerry, and quoting Robert Kennedy.  Here is my modest contribution:

truthiness: the quality of stating concepts or facts one wishes or believes to be true, rather than concepts or facts known to be true.
Did you know that the American Dialect Society has selected "truthiness" to be its Word of the Year?  This word was first said by that noted Daily Show linguist Steven Colbert.  It is one for our times -- the news story announcing the award quotes North Carolina State professor Michael Adams defining truthiness as "truthy, not facty." He continues "The national argument right now is, one, who's got the truth and, two, who's got the facts. Until we can manage to get the two of them back together again, we're not going make much progress."
See Extended for more new words --