The postman never thinks twice

I have gotten into the habit of chatting briefly with the postman who drops off the mail at my business. He is a tightly-wound fellow, full of facial tics, and his eyes dart about nervously as well, but he is also quite well-informed on the neighborhood gossip, i.e., who’s moving, which landlord is having trouble leasing, and what businesses will be going into the various nearby construction sites.

He is also a conservative-type Republican. My realization of this was gradual. First of all, I noticed that he is derisive of, and somewhat frightened by, the various older black men who live homeless on the streets around here, even though these guys are in my experience not bad guys or criminals, outside of a little trespassing. In fact, if I were mugged or attacked on the street near my office, I know who I would run to for help, and it wouldn’t be the postman. It would be that sweet but batshit crazy guy who lives with his dog near the water spigot on the building across the street. Sure, it’s a little alarming to see him shadow-boxing his own reflection several times a day, because he’s not shadow-boxing in a “got to stay in shape for my life on the street” kind of way, he’s shadow-boxing in a “someday I’ll beat that no-good son-of-a-bitch fucking bastard reflection of mine” kind of way.

Plus, my postman made questionable remarks about his substitute postman. I had said to him one day that his substitute does not come inside to ask if there’s any outgoing mail, like he does. He asked me what the guy looked like, and I told him. “Oh,” he said, “he’s Filipino.” “Okay,” I said. “You know there’s a lot of Filipinos that work for the post office around here,” he said. I replied “Yeah, I’ve heard that Filipino immigrants have a tradition of civil service in Los Angeles.” I only know this because soon after I moved to LA, there was a white supremacist who shot a Filipino-American postman, and there was some discussion at the time as to whether it was truly a hate crime, because he had just come from gunning down several Jewish children at a religious school, and so it was unclear as to whether the perp even knew that the man was of Filipino ancestry, whether it would’ve mattered to him, whether his medium brown skin color was reason enough to shoot him, or whether his ire was more likely to have been motivated by a dented package or a surly window clerk from his past. In any event, it had become evident during the course of the discussion that went on in various forums throughout LA that you can’t swing a roll of bubble wrap in this town without hitting a Filipino postal worker. One of the many lovable quirks of LA, as far as I was concerned.

The postman blinked at me. “Well,” he said, “where I work, there’s only a couple of them. But you know that station over on Main? They’re almost all Filipino over there.”

I didn’t like where this was going. Unable to will my phone to ring, I got up and excused myself, and he left.

Recently, the postman has begun to make remarks on the presidential race. He actually said “Obama, Osama, or Chelsea’s Mama” to me at one point, and I, unwilling to feign indifference any more, countered, “Well, we could do worse. In fact, we have.” That utterance seemed to keep his desire for chat supressed for a couple of weeks, as he was mostly silent on the subject of the campaigns for a while.

Today, though, he came in bursting with news. “You know who my union is supporting for president?”

“Edwards?” I said, because I know Edwards has a lot of union support.

“No, Hillary!” he blurted, clearly agitated.

“Is that bad news?”

“Yeah, I thought it might be Giuliani, or who did you say? Edwards? Maybe him.”

“You know Edwards is a Democrat, right?”

“Oh, yeah, okay.”

“He ran with Kerry in 2004.”

“Oh, right.”

“Somehow, I don’t think your union would endorse a Republican.”

I chuckled a little, waiting for him to acknowledge the obviousness of it. He didn’t.

“Because,” I said, “if it were up to the Republicans, you wouldn’t have a union.”

“Huh,” he mumbled, and handed me my mail. He said nothing else but managed a weak smile and a few eye spasms and a small head jerk sideways on his way out the door.

I wonder how long he’ll chew on that.

I wonder if it will occur to him that what can be done to the TSA employees could be done to him. He could be outsourced, just like them.

I wonder if that will occur to him sometime between now and next Election Day?

Nah. Things like that never occur to guys like him. According to guys like him, he deserves his union protections, and his decent pay and his holidays and his pension, but no one else ever does. Let those other poor fuckers fend for themselves, is no doubt the basis for whatever thoughts do enter his head regarding the struggles of the working poor.

Unlike many Republicans, he probably can’t deny that the poor exist, because he encounters them all day long. But like many Republicans, I'm sure he thinks their problems are all their own fault.

A talk given to my imaginary child after watching BushCo’s new abstinence campaign commercial

To my son and/or daughter: do not listen to the Bush administration. They’re liars and they’re only pretending to care about you. Yeah, like that kid who pretended to be your friend so that you would let him cheat off you in Geometry? Remember that? That didn’t end well, huh? George W. was probably exactly like that kid when he was in school. And now that kid hits you in the face with the dodgeball on purpose because he thinks it’s funny when your glasses go flying across the room. Well, don’t worry about that, because we’ll have our revenge one day. In fact, Mommy’s plan is already in stage III…but let’s not get distracted.

Yes, sweetie, you’re right, the RNC did attack that boy who spoke up about that bill expanding children’s health insurance. And yes, BushCo was complicit in that. It’s been shown many times that right-wing talking points originate in the White House, as you know. You're such a bright child, have I told you that today? You really know your history.

What I want to tell you about abstinence is – it sucks. As long as you have reliable birth control, you should definitely have sex as soon as you feel you are ready for it, and DEFINITELY before you get married. Why? Well, Mommy IS a two-time loser, so let’s just say that she knows a little bit about what makes a marriage go to hell in a handbasket, okay sweetie?

First of all, sex is very important. Very important. And believe me, daughter, you do not want to get stuck married to some poor schmuck whose idea of foreplay is to ask you “See how big it is?” Nor do you, my son, want to wake up one day and realize that your wife only blows you when she wants another piece of jewelry. So it’s crucial to know if you’re sexually compatible with your partner. After all, you don’t want to spend the rest of your life fighting over the dildo, hm?

Secondly, the sooner you start having and enjoying sex, the sooner you can start annoying the fuck out of Republicans, who just seem to, well, I’m not sure exactly why, but they just seem to have a huge problem with sex. I dunno, it’s partly about controlling women, and partly about this whole disingenuous worship of this totally bogus version of Christianity, anyway, best to not think about the Republicans too much, sweetie, or you might go blind.

And Iran, Iran so far away

Slowly the realization has sunk in.

We’re going to bomb Iran.

How do I know? Because Seymour Hersh says so. And Seymour Hersh is never wrong:

The President’s position, and its corollary—that, if many of America’s problems in Iraq are the responsibility of Tehran, then the solution to them is to confront the Iranians—have taken firm hold in the Administration. This summer, the White House, pushed by the office of Vice-President Dick Cheney, requested that the Joint Chiefs of Staff redraw long-standing plans for a possible attack on Iran, according to former officials and government consultants. The focus of the plans had been a broad bombing attack, with targets including Iran’s known and suspected nuclear facilities and other military and infrastructure sites. Now the emphasis is on “surgical” strikes on Revolutionary Guard Corps facilities in Tehran and elsewhere, which, the Administration claims, have been the source of attacks on Americans in Iraq. What had been presented primarily as a counter-proliferation mission has been reconceived as counterterrorism.

And the U.S. Senate is being very helpful to BushCo by agreeing to that bullshit resolution condemning the Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization.

I still can’t fucking believe that thing passed 76-22. It’s like the last four and half fucking years never happened at all. It’s like that fucking lame-ass Senate has completely forgotten how they all got so easily snookered on Iraq.

BushCo’s stooges this time include of course all the Republicans (except Hagel and Lugar), plus plenty of Democrats, including Hilary Clinton, California’s own piece of shit Senator Feinstein, plus senators Reid and Schumer.

Opposing were dem presidential candidates Biden and Dodd.

Abstaining were Obama and McCain.

Hm. That must be the “maverick” position.

More from Hersh:

The shift in targeting reflects three developments. First, the President and his senior advisers have concluded that their campaign to convince the American public that Iran poses an imminent nuclear threat has failed (unlike a similar campaign before the Iraq war), and that as a result there is not enough popular support for a major bombing campaign. The second development is that the White House has come to terms, in private, with the general consensus of the American intelligence community that Iran is at least five years away from obtaining a bomb. And, finally, there has been a growing recognition in Washington and throughout the Middle East that Iran is emerging as the geopolitical winner of the war in Iraq.

During a secure videoconference that took place early this summer, the President told Ryan Crocker, the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, that he was thinking of hitting Iranian targets across the border and that the British “were on board.”

The British are on board, folks. The CIA is ramping up the intelligence-fixing machine, and our senators are more submissive than a retriever that just pissed on the carpet.

But the best part? The best part is that because the Iranians are Shia, the U.S. is now giving weapons and support to our former insurgent enemies in Iraq, the Sunnis. And who do the Sunni insurgent groups work with?

Al-Qaeda.

Fuck.

Christ, I give up.

Thanks, but no thanks

It’s really weird to see the recent unqualified support for Israel coming from hardcore Christian Evangelicals, two groups of people that you’d think would have precious little in common.

Several thousand Evangelicals are in Israel right now to support the nation and to celebrate Sukkot, the Jewish festival of al fresco dining.

Seriously, though, Sukkot, like a few other Jewish holidays, is a remembrance of the hardships suffered in the past, and an opportunity to give thanks for present blessings. It’s sort of like the US holiday of Thanksgiving. Only it’s too bad that while the holiday is being celebrated, more contemplation isn’t given to the people who have been displaced by those who were blessed enough to inherit a land of abundance.

I’m talking about Native Americans, of course. Who did you think I was talking about?

According to this NPR story, while many Israelis welcome the support of the way-Christian pilgrims, some rabbis and officials are warning citizens against participating in any Evangelical-type events:

The fervor of these evangelicals worries many Israelis. Mina Fenton, a Jerusalem city councilwoman from the National Religious Party, says missionary activity has increased in recent years. She says she is even more disturbed by the theology of many of the evangelical Christians who are waiting for the Second Coming of Christ.

"Everything is linked with the belief in their messiah," she says. "They want, ultimately, any one of them, when you speak more than 10 minutes — after the political support and the economic support — they say what their aim is: The Jewish people have to convert."

Über-Christians aren’t the only ones who require conversion as the price of paradise, of course, and the Jews aren't their only targets, either, so I urge the Israelis not to take it personally. The god types have let me know more than once that when the Rapture comes, I and all my godless/gay/sexy/substance abusing/generally naughty friends will be hanging in the hot tub of eternal hellfire, while they will be enjoying the company of God himself, in a heaven that is as restricted as the Augusta National Golf Club during the Eisenhower administration.

But despair not. Because I say, let ‘em have it. Who the hell wants to live in a place that, anyway?

First of all, the music would suck. Seriously, have you ever heard Christian rock? It’s a lot like Nickelback, only without the amazing musicianship, thought-provoking themes, and timeless compositions. Plus, they only ever sing about God and Jesus. If they were to ever sing one line of any song that wasn’t about how much they love God and/or Jesus, their entire audience would wake from their worship-The-Almighty-induced trance, and start yelling at the stage “Hey, you’re not singing about God or Jesus! Stop that at once! I demand only God or Jesus-related content, please.”

Secondly, need I say that the only sex you would be having up there is of the I’d-rather-be-watching-Dancing-with-the-Stars variety?

Thirdly, no booze or drugs allowed. Some of you out there would be cool with this stipulation, others of you…um, not so much. And far be it for me to judge anyone on this count, especially since the last time I drank too much was…last night.

Hey, it was Top Chef finale night.

Fourthly, I don’t know how many of you have eaten with Evangelical types, but the food they serve is just awful. Sure it’s all mayonnaise-, jello-, or mayonnaise AND jello-based, but that’s not even the worst of it. It’s all bland as hell. Look, I once took some potato salad to a family reunion, and all I heard about all day long was how “spicy” it was. “Lord, this is so spicy!” they observed as they fanned their tongues with their reunion programs. “My goodness, does everyone in the big city eat such spicy food?” they all said as their eyes watered, and they all reached for their jumbo glasses of fucking awful sweet-ass iced tea.

What did I put in the potato salad, you ask, that caused such physical discomfort?

Garlic salt. A teeny tiny, itty bitty pinch of garlic salt.

That’s a true story.

Mostly. But back to my point, which is that their heaven would suck, and they can have it. If the price of margaritas and Kung Pao and hot, unmarried sex with my Spooney while listening to Interpol’s fucking rad new album is that I have to spend all eternity not regretting that I did it any other way, then sign me up, bubba. Sign me the fuck up.

Gored

After reading Evgenia Peretz’s wonderful piece in this month’s Vanity Fair about the savaging of Al Gore by the lazy-ass, insincere, cynical press in the 2000 presidential race, I was reminded once again what a piece of shit Chris Matthews is. Not that he’s alone in abandoning his journalistic duties in order to engage in crass, self-serving behavior, but he is particularly good at it.

Some examples from the article:

On two consecutive nights of Hardball, Chris Matthews brought up this same trio as examples of Gore's "delusionary" thinking. "What is it, the Zelig guy who keeps saying, 'I was the main character in Love Story. I invented the Internet. I invented Love Canal.…' It reminds me of Snoopy thinking he's the Red Baron." "It became part of the vocabulary," Matthews says today. "I don't think it had a thunderous impact on the voters." He concedes, however, that such stories were repeated too many times in the media.

First of all, I suspect I need hardly remind my readers that Gore did not say he was the inspiration for Love Story, did not say he invented the internet, and did not say he discovered Love Canal.

But to a journalist like Matthews, it hardly mattered. Saying so was good TV.

Secondly, calling Al Gore a liar on television didn’t have a thunderous impact on the voters??

Chris, you are too modest. And that’s unlike you.

But more than that, it wasn’t as if the journalists themselves picked up on what Gore said and decided to exploit it or misquote him themselves. They took their cues from the opposing party. No journalist cared about what Al Gore said about the internet until Republicans starting making fun of him, and then all of a sudden it was a “news story.” It was, as Rove would no doubt put it, “fair game.”

Just like that debate in 2000. Remember? The one that all the talking heads gave to Gore. And then, the next day, they all changed their minds. Gore was too peevish. He had sighed too much. He rolled his eyes when Bush spoke. Who did he think he was?

What happened overnight to bring about the change? Republicans had spliced together a tape of Gore sighing and sent it around to journalists.

And a campaign narrative was born. Born not in the minds of the press, but in the camp of the opposing party. The press was only the carrier.

More Matthews via Peretz:

One obstacle course the press set up was which candidate would lure voters to have a beer with them at the local bar. "Journalists made it seem like that was a legitimate way of choosing a president," says Newsweek columnist Jonathan Alter. "They also wrongly presumed, based on nothing, that somehow Bush was more likable." Chris Matthews contends that "the likability issue was something decided by the viewers of the debates, not by the commentators," but adds, "The last six years have been a powerful bit of evidence that we have to judge candidates for president on their preparation for the office with the same relish that we assess their personalities."

Oh, really, Chris? Then I expect you to not only stop slavering over the manliness of George W., but to resist the temptation to speculate on whether Hillary is faking her laughter.

Especially given the incredibly fake laughter escaping from your mouth as Jon Stewart roasts you over a hot coal or two.

Suddenly, I feel so much better.

Sister, Sister

This is weird.

My team? In the playoffs.

My boyfriend's team? Playoffs.

My sister's team? Hello, playoffs!

I'm not really worried about who would win a Cubs v. Red Sox World Series, because as everyone knows, that was long ago predicted as one of the seven signs of the apocalypse, and so all my friends and I would be dead and swimming in the lake of eternal hellfire while a blue-faced Mel Gibson whips us and calls us "sugartits" and we are forced to watch the complete Lethal Weapon canon for the rest of eternity.



My vision of hell is very Gibson-specific.

Anyhoo, I'm not so worried about the series as I am a scenario in which my team meets my sister's team in the next round of the playoffs.

This could trigger a sibling rivalry not seen between us since we discovered DSW only had one navy blue distressed leather Firenze hobo bag left on clearance.

As I recall, I won that battle.

FRRREEEEEEEEEEDOOOOOOOOOMMM!!!!!!

This goes to 11

Every once in a while I run into someone who, while informing me that they’re a Democrat, also confesses to me that if John McCain were the Republican nominee, they would have to vote for him in the general election.

Why? Because he’s “honest,” or “sincere,” or “tough but fair,” or other “words” and “catch phrases” that they’ve “heard” from “television,” or from “their daddy.”

Honestly, I don’t think people will ever learn. Never, ever, learn. Apparently we re-elected our current numbskull-in-chief because he seemed like a guy we would want to have a beer with.

Except, ew. I’m not trying to be all “I told you so,” but I knew that dude was a creep the first time I saw him. C’mon, how stupid do you have to be, willfully or otherwise, not to see through that good ole boy act? W is and always was the very epitome of all-hat-no-cattle. I mean, Jesus Christ, he bought his “ranch” about two minutes before he entered the race, stuck, like six cows on it and decided he was gonna be our cowboy president.

I mean, the guy is scared of horses. Scared. Of horses.

Horses.

So when people tell me that they like John McCain, I usually ask them if they know that he is pro-war and anti-choice, for a start. You’d be surprised how many people don’t know that. Or, oh hell, you know what? You wouldn’t be surprised at all, I bet. Like me, the ignorance of voters probably surprises you not a whit.

But now, now that McCain has decided that the next step in his be-president-or-die-trying campaign is to leap into the possible breach in the party caused by the Council for National Policy’s decision to announce that if the Republicans are going to nominate Giuliani, then they’re going to take their ball and go home.

McCain stated in a recent interview for Beliefnet that "the No. 1 issue people should make [in the] selection of the president of the United States is, 'Will this person carry on in the Judeo-Christian principled tradition that has made this nation the greatest experiment in the history of mankind?'"

Wow, pander much?

He also said “I admire the Islam.”

The Islam? Is that like “the Iraq?”

But uh-oh, then he said something not so admire-y. He said “I just have to say in all candor that since this nation was founded primarily on Christian principles.... personally, I prefer someone who I know who has a solid grounding in my faith. But that doesn't mean that I'm sure that someone who is Muslim would not make a good president. I don't say that we would rule out under any circumstances someone of a different faith. I just would--I just feel that that's an important part of our qualifications to lead.”

Holy shit, did you see the size of that pander? That was HUGE!

But here comes a bigger one: “I would probably have to say yes, that the Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation. But I say that in the broadest sense. The lady that holds her lamp beside the golden door doesn't say, “I only welcome Christians.” We welcome the poor, the tired, the huddled masses. But when they come here they know that they are in a nation founded on Christian principles.”

If someone were to ask me if he could possibly pander more, I would have to say: none. None more pander.

I mean, seriously. The Constitution established us as Christians? Which part, exactly? The part about the power to mint coins, or the bit that prohibits inter-state tariffs?

Or, let’s see…maybe the part where they talk about establishing a Post Office?

It’s kinda sad, really, to see McCain, who used to talk smack to all those religious charlatans, trying so hard to get them to finally, finally choose him next for their team.

I know how you feel, buddy

Tavis Smiley-hosted debate scheduling conflicts, according to the top 4 Republican candidates:

Rudy Giuliani: Nothing to wear, besides, just washed his hair and couldn’t do a thing with it.

John McCain: Straight Talk Express making funny rattling noise, had to take it to mechanic.

Mitt Romney: Had to clean campaign bus upholstery after unfortunate “accident” that followed strapping campaign mascot to the roof.

Fred Thompson: Still working on hand-held device that would punctuate every remark with Law & Order-esque “Dah – dum!”

Uh-uh, you can't tell me nothing

I know y’all have been checking my blog daily, waiting, waiting for the day when I will finally weigh in on the Kanye v. 50 controversy.

Well, I’m throwing my weight behind Kanye. And not just because his new album is pretty freakin’ rad. Although it is.

I know, I know, Kanye’s an asshole. I get it. I watch the award shows, I’m aware that he seems to have made a hobby out of throwing very public fits over the industry’s not-quite-sufficient appreciation of his genius.

How can I truck with such a self-absorbed young man? Well, to get the answer to that question, you have to check out this self-deprecating and hilarious song from his new album. It’s called Can’t Tell Me Nothing. And except for the part about buying lots of jewelry, I soooo identify with this song. I’m a know-it-all. It’s a fault of mine. I admit it freely. And Kanye gets me, yo.

But more than that, I love Kanye because during a fundraiser for victims of Katrina, he chastised himself on camera for going shopping before he made his own donation. And most of all, I love him for blurting out, during that same segment, “George Bush doesn’t care about black people.”

Because he doesn’t. Otherwise, why would W turn his back on blacks drowning in their attics while he was off on the Redneck Riviera assuring wealthy crackers that they would get their vacation homes rebuilt?

Why would he oppose minorities receiving admission points on college applications, while remaining a happy recipient of the “my daddy” form of affirmative action, as in “my daddy went to Yale so I get to, too.”

Why else would his election campaign coordinate with Republican officials in Florida in 2000 to intimidate black voters or simply scrub them from voter lists entirely, rather than attempt to win their votes in a legitimate manner? Why else ensure the continuation of ill will by directing the Department of Justice to side with those who sought to keep blacks from voting in Ohio in 2004?

Why systematically dismantle the Civil Rights Division of the DoJ, and install so many partisan operatives that his administration actually pursued more cases claiming discrimination against whites than against blacks?

So it’s no surprise that W, when asked to comment about the racially-motivated intimidation, and unequal treatment of black youths by law enforcement, in Jena, Louisiana, responded that the events there “saddened him,” and that he could “understand the emotions.”

What. The. Fuck.

What the hell kind of response was that?

Unfortunately, I know the answer to that question. It was a response carefully worded so as to avoid taking sides.

Because George W. Bush does not want to offend racists. Hey, who do you think those 25% of Americans are that still support that clown?

It’s not like I expect W to, for once, act like he is president of ALL of the people in this country, but given the white supremacist backlash in Jena in the wake of the showings of support for the black students, W had better get the fuck off the redneck fence and show some fucking support for people who are on the side of EQUALITY. Because if he doesn’t, and if he doesn’t send someone down there to tell all those honkies to simmer down, then he’ll be responsible for whatever bad shit happens.

C’mon W, this week it’s been exactly 50 years since a Republican president last stood up for black people, and given the current crop of contenders, it’ll likely be 50 more.

Down the Jonah Goldberg rabbit hole (and back out , thank all that is sweet and holy)

Sure, Jonah Goldberg is a douchebag, but he’s a nationally syndicated douchebag. And because his weekly column runs in the LA Times, he’s also our nationally syndicated douchebag.

Goldberg’s got a problem. He thinks everyone is taking Alan Greenspan out of context in this minor dust-up over Greenspan’s little admission in his recently released memoir that the war in Iraq was motivated by oil. He called his column on it “Bashing Bush with Greenspan,” which I have to admit makes me laugh, because “Bush bashing” is SO 2003. I mean, even Chris Matthews must by now be admitting that people who don’t like Bush aren’t necessarily all “whack-jobs.”

But, as usual, let’s just let Goldberg speak for himself:

Greenspan wrote that the Iraq war was "largely about oil," according to an excerpt in the Washington Post on Saturday. The statement quickly raced around the globe, with headlines like this one from Britain's Daily Telegraph: "Iraq was about oil -- Greenspan attacks U.S. motivation for war." The Independent began its own editorial by declaring: "The credibility of President George Bush's policy on Iraq has suffered another devastating blow. It is all the more powerful for having come not from a political enemy but from someone who was showered with plaudits by the administration."

It’s funny how he makes it seem like “the statement” that “raced around the globe” was only this: “largely about oil.” Here’s the entire statement: "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil." Yeah, see, that’s a tad bit different, isn’t it? But hang on, there’s more dissembling in store from Mr. Goldberg.

The quoted phrase ran through the Sunday news shows and the blogosphere like a bad intestinal virus.

He’s comparing it to poop, see? That’s how nationally syndicated columnists express disdain.

Hey, watch me, I’m going to write like a nationally syndicated columnist:

Jonah Goldberg’s a shithead.

Wheeeeee! That was fun!

On CNN's "Late Edition," Rep. Tom Lantos (D-Burlingame) was asked if he agreed with Greenspan. "To a very large extent I agree with him, and I think it is very remarkable that it took Alan Greenspan all these many years and being out of office [to state] the obvious."

Well, that is very interesting. But first we should clear the air about something. Greenspan claims that the quote was taken out of context. Greenspan called the Post -- Bob Woodward, no less -- to say that, in fact, he didn't think the White House was motivated by oil. Rather, he was. A Post story Monday explained that Greenspan had long favored Saddam Hussein's ouster because the Iraqi dictator was a threat to the Strait of Hormuz, through which much of the world's oil passes every day. Hussein could have sent the price of oil way past $100 a barrel, which would have inflicted chaos on the global economy.

Yes, let’s do clear the air about something, namely, that as influential as Greenspan was in his time, it is not within his power to change the meanings of words.

He said “is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.” He did not say “what everyone knows to be my opinion,” or “what everyone knows I would’ve done if I were the decider.” So Greenspan’s protestations that he was taken “out of context” are a little disingenuous, don’t you think?

And even if I were to believe that Greenspan meant what he now says he meant, it’s simply ridiculous to attribute Greenspan’s fear regarding the Strait of Hormuz into a rationale for our current entanglement. What, Hussein takes over the strait, and instead of taking back the goddamn strait, we capitulate, and the price of oil goes through the roof?

Huh?

Thereby making an indefinite, bloody, trillion-dollar engagement in Iraq unavoidable?

Say what?

So let's get back to Lantos, the California congressman who agreed with the misconstrued Greenspan that it was "obvious" we went to war for oil. What's funny -- though not really ha-ha funny -- is that Lantos voted for the war. If it was so obviously a war for oil, why did he vote for it? Unless, of course, he thinks it's hunky-dory to go to war because of oil -- though that didn't sound like what he was trying to say.

Um, dude, okay, even though you work for the National Review, I’m pretty sure you do things like “read,” and maybe even “think.” So by now you’ve surely been made aware that most members of congress believe they were, at best, misinformed by those interpreting the intelligence on Iraq, and that the majority of them have now stated that they based their decision to go to war on information that was not exactly, er, true?

Surely you must have heard that. Surely you must. So to write the above paragraph like you’ve never heard that, and to therefore encourage an erroneous conclusion among your sympathetic readers, (which, I’m sure, are legion) is kinda creepy and integrity-free and not exactly worthy of a nationally syndicated columnist, now, is it?

As several other politicians and officials noted over the weekend, no White House briefer ever told Congress that this was a war for oil.

Yeah, and unless career suicide becomes the hot new trend in DC, it’s not very likely they ever will.

The debates in Congress didn't say this was a war for oil.

Which debates? The debates in 2003? Well, first of all, one could hardly call them “debates.” I would characterize what when on in congress as “I’ve been told Saddam is a bad man who wants to kill us and has the power to kill us which seems unlikely but everyone else is doing it and I hate being called a traitor and I do kinda want to be re-elected so I guess I’m going along because the Republicans hold the majority anyway vote.”

Bush never gave a single speech saying this was a war for oil.

That’s correct. And you know what else Bush has never done? Gotten down on his hands and knees and begged forgiveness from the American people for being so obsessed with his hard-on for American oil companies and their desire for a seat at the Middle East oil table that he ignored the warning signs that could have prevented the attacks on 9/11. And you know what? The latter seems much more likely than the former.

(If oil was all Bush wanted, he hardly needed to go to war to get it.)

Oh, really? How else do you propose to force an enemy government into giving American oil companies the contracts to extract, refine, and export their oil?

So why is it so "obvious" to Lantos that it was a war for oil?

You know, I’m getting a little tired of this guy’s false ignorance, but sure, okay, I’ll bite one more time: It is “obvious” to Lantos, and to any thinking person who is not so emotionally invested in the lie that they have drawn a lead curtain around their brain and forbidden the truth to enter, because we have, since the war began, become aware of a number of incidents that point to no other reasonable conclusion.

Look, Goldberg, stop pretending you don’t know what I’m talking about. The head of the British intelligence service told the Prime Minister of Britain that all of our stated reasons for going to war in Iraq were, you know, kind of, um, made up.

So clearly there was a reason for going to war that we were not being told. We could guess about what it was, but we don’t have to, because, for one thing, Cheney and his little energy task force forgot to burn their big post-Iraq Christmas wish list, dated two years before the war was begun, which makes fairly plain their motivation, doesn’t it? Doesn’t it, Goldberg? C’mon, Goldberg, forget your crazy-ass momma and your family legacy of hating on the Dems, and admit the logic of the whole thing for just a second.

Perhaps the answer is that when it comes to bashing Bush about the war, no accusation is inaccurate -- even if it contradicts all the accusations that came before. Some say it's all about the Israel lobby. Others claim that Bush was trying to avenge his dad. Still others say Bush went to war because God told him to.

Look, the US didn’t go to war for Israel. If we were merely Israel’s fairy godmother, I’m sure Iraq wouldn’t have been at the top of their wish list. And if an enduring US presence in Iraq that inflames anti-western (and anti-western-ally) sentiment in the Middle East gets Israel off, that’s their fucking problem. It’s merely a perk of the war, and not the cause.

Ditto the dad-avenging thing. Look, clearly Bush has daddy issues. But even a freshman psych student could tell you that Bush’s issues lie not so much in the “avenge daddy” area, and more in the “show up that cold-hearted bastard who sired me but never thought I was smart enough or good enough to carry his name” area.

And as for God telling Bush to invade, well, I’m afraid you’ve gotten your attribution wrong, Goldberg. That story originated not with Bush-bashers, but with Bush himself.

Again, not the sort of quality of investigation one would expect from a nationally syndicated columnist.

Which is it? All of those? Any? It doesn't seem to matter. It's disturbing how many people are willing to look for motives beyond the ones debated and voted on by our elected leaders.

You know what’s more disturbing? Leaders who lie to their people. But that reality seems to be beyond your grasp. Except, of course, when a Democrat is in charge. Goldberg, your agenda is so laughably transparent I don’t know how you manage to churn out these ridiculous screeds. Doesn’t all the guffawing, and pants wetting, and thigh slapping, and eye tearing-up make it really hard to type?

The last time Greenspan made a gaffe of sorts, his comment about Wall Street's "irrational exuberance" sent worldwide markets into a tizzy. This gaffe is more ironic because it was so plain-spoken, but it also managed to call attention to a case of irrational exuberance -- among Bush-bashing war opponents.

Yes, it was a plain-spoken “gaffe,” wasn’t it? Some people would say that therefore it required the most minimal of interpretations, because its meaning was clear. Some people would seek to spin it backwards, and try to make it mean what it clearly did not, and then claim that they are the ones possessing the rational heads.

Fuck it. I’ll admit it. I am fucking exuberant, okay? People are finally starting to acknowledge the truth, and it makes me feel like at long last, we can get somewhere.

Question:

How many times do you have to stick a gun in the face of a woman and threaten to blow her brains out before a jury believes that you stuck a gun in the face of a woman and blew her brains out?

Answer: at least six times.

Because five different women testified at Spector's trial that they had been held hostage by Spector at gunpoint in his home, and threatened with death when they tried to leave, but apparently that information was not particularly damning in the minds of the jury.

An argument they found more compelling, apparently, is that the victim committed suicide. Yeah, it made more sense to them that a beautiful actress would choose to bite it by shooting herself in the face while standing with her purse in her hand next to the front door of a man she had not known before that night.

This argument was made compelling by the defense's assertions that the victim was "depressed."

I know! A forty-year-old non-working actress in Hollywood, depressed? Holy shit! The streets of LA must be literally running with blood! It's a wonder we haven't all been made poor, persecuted, innocent witnesses to actress suicides, just like Phil Spector!

Not only fools, but fat, badly-dressed fools

The clues were all there. We just collectively, as a nation, refused to see them.

The first clue was when Cheney was chosen to head the search for a VP candidate to run with W in 2000 – and chose himself. As CEO of Halliburton, Cheney had made the following remarks in 1999:

"Oil companies are expected to keep developing enough oil to offset oil depletion and also to meet new demand...So where is the oil going to come from? Governments and the national oil companies are obviously in control of 90 percent of the assets. Oil remains fundamentally a government business. The Middle East with two-thirds of the world’s oil and the lowest cost is still where the prize ultimately lies."

The second clue was the Cheney energy task force, a group formed in order to establish "a national energy policy designed to help the private sector." Remember how hard BushCo fought to keep its members, and its documents, secret? Now we know why. It wasn’t just that the preponderance of oil executives participating would make them look bad. No, it was a little bit more important than a mere image problem, as former CIA intelligence analyst Ray McGovern explains:

[A] Freedom of Information Act lawsuit forced the Commerce Department to turn over task force documents, including a map of Iraqi oilfields, pipelines, refineries, terminals, and potential areas for exploration; a Pentagon chart "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts;" and another chart detailing Iraqi oil and gas projects – all dated March 2001.

Another clue: In post-invasion Baghdad, every public or commercial building, from banks to libraries to universities, was looted and stripped down to the drywall. Thieves walked out of the Iraqi National Museum with priceless artifacts tucked casually under their arms. But the oil ministry was guarded by 50 tanks and sharpshooters on every floor and corner of the building.

Another clue: Richard Clarke, in his memoir, tells how, on September 11, 2001, BushCo responds to the attack on the Pentagon and WTC by wondering if they could use it to justify invading Iraq.

Another clue: The Downing Street memo is leaked to the press, and we find out that the chief of British intelligence told Tony Blair that "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." He also said that, as of July 2002, Bush was determined to invade. Of course, our leader would tell us right up until the invasion in March of 2003 that he hadn’t made his mind up yet.

Another clue: We find out that we are building large permanent US military bases in Iraq, complete with fast food restaurants, gyms, car dealerships, and a swimming pool.

I could go on, of course. The clues have come at us constantly and from all directions, but still we continue to attribute our war to WMD and/or terrorism. Never mind that the terrorists moved into Iraq AFTER we invaded. Any rookie detective could’ve told us that you can’t assign a motive based on a condition that occurred after the crime, but by now we are grasping at any straw of respectability that we can find.

Look, everyone. It was for the oil. It was. It was for the oil. I know you don’t want to believe that our country would invade another country so that we could force them into a sweetheart deal for their oil, but we did. We did do that. I know it sounds like it might be some kind of war crime, some kind of thing that only a very bad country would do, and not us, because we are a good country, aren’t we? Aren’t we a good country?

History will say no. History will look upon the citizens of the United States at this time and conclude that we are all either liars or fools.

"Shut up," he explained.

So Giuliani’s campaign took out an attack ad against Hilary Clinton in which he says “These times call for statesmanship, not politicians spewing political venom.”

It gets better.

In the ad, which seeks to create a non-existent alignment between Clinton and the left-wing political group MoveOn.org, Giuliani accuses the Democrats who questioned Petraeus of an “orchestrated attack.”

I’m not kidding.

In defending the ad, in which Giuliani characterizes Clinton’s remarks to Petraeus in the Senate as a “character attack,” Giuliani said "I can't imagine why we can't get beyond maligning other people's motives nowadays in politics."

This shit is not from The Onion. I swear it is for real.

Meanwhile, I would just like to say to Clinton that telling General Petraeus that his progress report on the Iraq war required a “willing suspension of disbelief” is not really all that effective as a criticism. Because Americans ARE ALL ABOUT the willing suspension of disbelief, baby. C’mon, our politicians talk about tv characters like they’re for real. They’ve been doing it for years!

Not only that, but a significant portion of us actually buy into theories such as “fighting them over there, so we don’t have to fight them here,” as if, in defiance of our own use of the pronoun “them,” we actually thought there was only one of them, and that one was unable to move beyond certain geographical boundaries as long as we kept driving through the place in Humvees.

And to MoveOn.org, I would just like to say: stop it with the “General Betray Us.” Not because you shouldn’t malign a member of the armed forces, because I think they’re as fair game as the rest of us, and not because I think Petraeus is particularly steeped in integrity, because, seriously now, how can you have exactly the same optimistic assessment of Iraq three years ago that you have now and have it NOT be a pose, but because, well, it’s just a really bad pun. And I hate puns. I hate even good puns.

I take it back. There are no good puns.

Furthermore, if you really want to smack down the Petraeus, or any other military official who sells his soul to his commander-in-chief, may I suggest a different insult?

You could call it “pulling a Colin.”

I know. Ouch. But desperate times call for desperate measures.

It gets worse here every day

Just when I thought Bush couldn’t hurt me anymore, I hear on the radio that he is considering nominating uber-toady Ted Olson to replace Gonzalez, and I have to pull my car over to side of the road and scream and pound my steering wheel for a few minutes. And then I have to turn off All Things Considered entirely and play the classic rock station really really loud and sing “Welcome to the Jungle” until my rage is mollified.

And I don’t even like Guns N’ Roses.

It’s not just that this ass-kisser was W’s attorney in the Bush v. Gore case, although lord knows that’s enough.

He was a member of the Arkansas Project, the organization financed by Richard Mellon Scaife for the sole purpose of removing President Clinton from the White House. Scaife is so fucking rich and so fucking scary and so fucking mean that he makes Mr. Burns look like Teddy Ruxpin. Scaife, with the help of attorney Olson, was so intent on finding dirt on Clinton that they paid people to lie about their encounters with him. They proposed theories so nasty that even Ann Coulter refused to endorse them. He shook the bushes so hard in Clinton’s home state that sad, tragic people fell out and were picked up and used by them and eventually discarded.

Not only is Ted Olson vile, but his dead wife, conservative commentator Barbara Olson, was so vile that she managed to be condescending and presumptuous while dying heroically on Flight 77 on 9/11. Allegedly phoning her husband from the plane, she asked him “What should I tell the pilot to do?”

Excuse me while I retch.

Trouble with a capital T

As I said to a friend of mine yesterday, the capacity of the American public to engage in massive self-delusion seems to know no bounds.

Case in point: Fred Thompson, Republican frontrunner!

Thompson is all over Iowa, talking about his humble beginnings, natch, in places like Music Man Square, a museum full of picket-fenced and hay-baled settings based on the rural-Iowa-as-utopia musical The Music Man.

Look, it's none of my beeswax if the Repubs want to nominate him. They seem to fall pretty hard for that "aw shucks" act. It worked for Reagan, and for W. In fact, I think at the times those two were elected there was very little else that WAS working for them, so it might be safe to safe that as far as Americans are concerned, a pick-up, a pair of cowboy boots, and whiff of le shirt-collar bleu, however improbable, is just about ALL you need to con the electoral college.

It is interesting to me, however, that Democrats are smacked down pretty hard whenever they are perceived to be condescending to be one of the people. Witness the harsh treatment of John Edwards, who is a perfectly fine and upstanding candidate, even if he does obsess about his hair.

The hair obsession doesn't phase me. C'mon, I date a musician. What does bother me, though, is that Edwards, whose positions are solid, and whose campaign focus is right on, is dismissed as a light-weight, whereas Thompson, who has so far dodged stating a position on just about every issue except one, is being slavered over like he's John Wayne, Jimmy Stewart, and Abraham Lincoln all rolled into one.

And what's the essential, urgent, high-priority issue on which Thompson has rushed to press his agenda in these dangerous times of ours?

Gay marriage. He's agin it.



Yes, and the whole country just sunk a few millimeters lower into the abyss of lost integrity and moral wrongity-wrong-wrongitude.

Oh, and by the way, lovers of Thompson, before you go and burden the country with another election based on appealing to the "git 'er done!" demographic, I beg you to consider this:

The Music Man is a story about a swindler who convinced a whole town that he was what he wasn't.

Think about it.

This just in: Pope is Catholic!

Petraeus says we are winning in Iraq!

Yes, we are winning. Just very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very slowly.

So if a general in the army says we are winning, it must be true.

Know how I know? Because I am an American, and 68% of us believe that only the military can resolve the war in Iraq.


See?

Only the military can resolve the war. Now if only we can figure out who is in charge of the military.

I hope it's not that 5% guy.

But if it is, at least he's better than no one. By 2%.

Be reasonable

Hey guys, sorry I’ve been neglectful. Life is busy these days.

If you haven’t seen this BBC interview (above) with former interim UN Ambassador John Bolton, check it out. The dude still won’t admit that there were no weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq! Because to him, see, just even THINKING ABOUT WMDs is as bad as actually having them. And they can prove that Saddam was thinking about them, see? He was thinking about them in the north, south, east and west - right Rumsfeld? Plus, Bolton tells us that our mistake was not invading Iraq, because no reasonable person would ever question THAT, but how it was handled afterward.

What?! He’s admitting that we screwed the post-invasion pooch?

Not really. What he’s saying is that we should’ve let the Iraqis decide things for themselves earlier. For instance, whether or not to disband the army totally should’ve been their call.

Okay, I’m not saying that I would disagree with that as an idea, but exactly who would he have picked to put in charge? Um, Chalabi?

And speaking of totally chock full o’ integrity and non-US puppet Iraqis, there is now more evidence that there were extremely reputable intelligence guys in the CIA who were screaming from the rooftops (or the CIA equivalent, which I think equates to very loud, urgent-type whispering) that Saddam had no WMDs. Their source? An informant in Saddam’s inner circle. But Bush said at the time that he didn’t believe that intelligence. He chose to believe the intelligence from one (now completely discredited) source: Curveball.

Ah, Curveball. We trusted you, and you turned out to be about as reliable as…well… as reliable as your code name would seem to imply. Curveball, Curveball, Curveball, how on earth could someone so completely steeped in “Hi, I’m a crackpot!” hold entire factions of the US government in thrall? Could it be that those same factions didn’t truly believe you, either? But simply propped you up in order to justify their own reasons for invasion? Reasons that had more to do with our reluctance to continue life bent over a Saudi oil barrel, and our eagerness to expand profits for US companies with significant, dare I say familial, ties to aforementioned factions?

No reasonable person would believe otherwise.

Heckuva job, Bremer

(L. Paul Bremer receiving the Presidential Medal of Freedom)

The latest in a long line of twisting-in-the-wind former Bushies?

L. Paul Bremer. He of the less than distinguished batting average in Iraq as head of the Coalition Provisional Authority. Or, as I prefer to call the CPA, the group that came in and fired all the career diplomats with any experience rebuilding countries, and installed instead an army of loyal, if grossly under-qualified, Christian-y Bush disciples.

One of Bremer's more genius early moves, and one which was not shared with Colin Powell, Richard Armitage, or (so they claim) the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was to disband the Iraqi army. According to many working in Iraq prior to Bremer's decision, the Iraqi army had been standing down, and in negotiations with "the coalition of the willing" to re-form and to cooperate with the rebuilding and the establishment of some much-needed order. But when BushCo decided that all members of Hussein's political party need not apply (all of them Sunnis), the CPA cut them loose, fully armed and pissed as hell and well aware of where Saddam kept all the spare armament that was laying around Iraq unguarded.

And thus was born the insurgency.

You know, so few things are predictable in this upside-down, topsy-turvy world of ours, and of course I know that hindsight don't need no lasik, and yet....

The insurgency, predictable? Yeah, I think I would put that in the category of, oh, night following day, or spring following winter, or even the ultimate in predictability: that BushCo will betray anyone, no matter how loyal, if they think it will deflect criticism from themselves.

Apparently, in a recent interview for a book that has yet to be released, W has been quoted as saying that our policy in Iraq was “to keep the army intact” but that it “didn’t happen.”

Or, more accurately, "Didn't happen. Heh heh."

And Mr. Bremer, unwilling to provide the sole set of shoulders for that load of blame, called up a reporter at the New York Times and said “This didn’t just pop out of my head."

And he produced letters from W to that effect. Sort of. That is, the letters detail Mr. Bremer's plans, and our great leader's reply was “Your leadership is apparent...You have quickly made a positive and significant impact. You have my full support and confidence.”

Sooooo....am I the only one who looks at W's reply and thinks that maybe he never read Bremer's letter?

Yeah, I didn't think so.

Apologies to Mr. Chandler

The gal kicked off her flip-flops and hoisted her bare, sweaty gams onto the coffee table. She was the kind of leggy brunette that still turned the occasional head, despite the fact that she was clinging to her forties like a roof rat clings to the last orange on the tree. And despite all her years in what could more accurately be called the City of Demons, the utter misery of Los Angeles in late summer never failed to take her by surprise. How could this city be a virtual paradise for 11 months of the year, and then, in late August, become a plastic raft in the Lake of Eternal Hellfire; a hot, sweltering, endless expanse of stripmall-lined blacktop, devoid of life, hope, or even the smallest nugget of human compassion.

Yeah, it was hot. And it had been hot for days. It was so hot she couldn’t remember a time when it wasn’t hot, when she didn’t feel a murderous impulse every time the oscillating fan turned its limp ripple of air away from her and toward the boyfriend who sat sweating beside her on the sofa. “If I killed him,” she thought, “there’d be more cool air for me. Besides, I wonder how much heat his body is generating, even at rest.”

But she soon abandoned her calculations and ambled slowly into the kitchen. It was too hot—even for physics. “All I want to do,” she thought as she opened the icebox door “is crawl inside and curl up next to the pickles and beer.” She sighed heavily. “Maybe tomorrow will be cooler,” she said to herself as she pushed a damp curl back from where it clung to her forehead like a cheap starlet clings to Bruce Willis at a movie premiere.

Hey, want to be the star of your own pulp novel? Check out PulpStar, this awesome site run by two friends of mine. You can order a detective story customized to include yourself (and someone you love) as the main characters. It's pretty freaking cool. You can enter your stats and get a free sample if you want a taste of what the final product will look like.