Clown Car

I wish I could draw. Palin's pickup by Fox News suggests a political cartoon derived from the old circus visual cliche where a stream of clowns get out of a tiny car. The new version shows a television tuned to Fox with a line of clown-attired pundits spewing from the screen. Palin leads O'Reilly, Rove, Hannity, Beck, the Cheneys, Perino, Goldberg, and the rest. I see them all Munchkin-sized, in polka dots, orange bozo wigs, white gloves, huge shoes, and red globe noses. They strut into some poor bastard's living room, arms bent and elbows swinging in exaggerated happy self-importance.

Fool me twice...

(h/t driftglass)

No wonder the neocons did such a great job selling the Iraq war. Rummy, Cheney, and Wolfie had practiced combining delusion and fear thirty years earlier during the Ford administration:


Those clowns rolled the CIA in the mid-70's. Cheney learned how to bully and cherry-pick until the facts fit his expectations. The neocons got away with it then, and used the same script beginning September 11, 2001.

I have often wondered why our spies were seemed so wrong about the Soviet Union. Reagan and his cronies described the Russians as massively powerful and fearsome while the Soviet Union was withered and destitute. Now, I know. The neocons ignored reality. It was an overlimit credit card notice hidden unopened at the bottom of the in basket. Much better to pull every piece of information inside out until war is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength.

Justice Scalia Has No Robe

Earlier this week, "conservative intellectual" joined its half-brother, "compassionate conservatism," on the official list of oxymorons. The two terms are working hard to displace "military intelligence" from the top of the list.

Fat Tony Scalia is often cited as a great example of conservative intellect. He is articulate, witty, and crowned with a mind like a steel trap. On Wednesday, however, the Justice played buffoon during oral arguments in Salazar v. Buono. No excuses. He wasn't being flamboyantly provocative during a lecture or at a dinner party. Scalia was on the job; one of nine appointed as the final line of protection for our Constitution.

JUSTICE SCALIA: The cross doesn't honor non-Christians who fought in the war? Is that -- is that --

MR. ELIASBERG: I believe that's actually correct.

JUSTICE SCALIA: Where does it say that?

MR. ELIASBERG: It doesn't say that, but a cross is the predominant symbol of Christianity and it signifies that Jesus is the son of God and died to redeem mankind for our sins, and I believe that's why the Jewish war veterans --

JUSTICE SCALIA: It's erected as a war memorial. I assume it is erected in honor of all of the war dead. It's the -- the cross is the -- is the most common symbol of -- of -- of the resting place of the dead, and it doesn't seem to me -- what would you have them erect? A cross -- some conglomerate of a cross, a Star of David, and you know, a Moslem half moon and star?

MR. ELIASBERG: Well, Justice Scalia, if I may go to your first point. The cross is the most common symbol of the resting place of Christians. I have been in Jewish cemeteries. There is never a cross on a tombstone of a Jew.

(Laughter.)

MR. ELIASBERG: So it is the most common symbol to honor Christians.

JUSTICE SCALIA: I don't think you can leap from that to the conclusion that the only war dead that that cross honors are the Christian war dead. I think that's an outrageous conclusion.

MR. ELIASBERG: Well, my -- the point of my -- point here is to say that there is a reason the Jewish war veterans came in and said we don't feel honored by this cross. This cross can't honor us because it is a religious symbol of another religion.


An "outrageous conclusion?" One of conservatisms leading lights lacks the imagination to see any part of the world, any other people, as existing differently from his experience. No wonder the Republicans went bonkers over Sonia Sotomayor's wise Latina comments and Obama adding empathy to the SCOTUS job description. Conservatives have locked themselves inside their gated communities of a white Christian nation. Everyone different is a threatening enemy including, as Scalia sees it, vocal decedents of dead Jewish war veterans.

One by one, the great conservative thinkers parade naked through the streets, thrilled by the cheers of the few, but naked all the same.

Hijacked Republicans

Pundits including Paul Krugman and Rachel Maddow tell us that the Republican party has been "hijacked" by conservative crazies. When was the party different? Maybe in Abe Lincoln's time. The GOP has long been an assembly of sociopaths worshiping the flag and stomping on the Constitution.

Who among Republicans publicly choose principle over right wing orthodoxy? I can only think of two events. Both are now distant history: Eisenhower sent troops to Little Rock to enforce court-ordered desegregation and Rep. Pete McCloskey opposed the Vietnam War. Anything else? How many Republicans spoke out against Joe McCarthy or Richard Nixon when it mattered? No; they acted like vultures hovering in the distance until time to feast on the carrion. How many Republicans admitted that Bill Clinton's impeachment was an obvious, unwinable, mean-spirited distraction from the nation's problems?

Look, I'm too old to expect magnificence in politics. There are no more profiles in courage. But, the Republican farm system produces a unique stream of craven dullards without capacity for self-reflection. They only know a three-page playbook: false piety, fake indignation, and manufactured fear. Reality is an enemy. Craziness is normal.

Ronald Reagan preached against Social Security and Medicare. He forecast socialism and doom. Has any Democratic president made such outrageous claims? Conversely, have any conservatives apologized for their idiot decisions? Instead, they Winston Smith history to convert failed right wing nuttiness into victory: the United States could have won in Vietnam, Joe McCarthy was correct all along, and Franklin Roosevelt prolonged the Great Depression.

Once again, I advocate a simple strategy. Every response to every conservative statement needs a preamble, "You were wrong about Iraq, wrong about financial deregulation, wrong about torture, wrong about civil rights, wrong about global warming, wrong about Terri Schiavo, wrong about sex education, wrong about energy conservation, wrong about tax cuts for the wealthy. Why should I believe you now?"

Surprsing New Poll Result

Despite criticism from the left, a new Harrass Poll shows Sarah Palin getting a large boost in popularity from coverage of her Hong Kong speech.

Her popularity bounce also showed up in this week's Fantasy Presidential Voting League. The former Alaskan governor and beauty queen trounced Thomas Jefferson in head-to-head polling. Participants favored Palin's directness and plainspoken qualities. Jefferson had the advantage in experience, but that wasn't enough to overcome a long list of negatives. At the top was Jefferson's sexual relationship with his slave, Sally Hemings, who bore him six illegitimate children. His numerous writings questioning God and religion were also a strong negative issue for the voting group. Charges of elitism came up because of Jefferson's admitted enjoyment of expensive French wines and his long-winded oratorical style. That caused some of Palin's supporters to liken him to John Kerry. A few said they were uncomfortable with the third president because he used Bill Clinton's middle name as his own.

When told about the results, Palin said she had great respect for Mr. Jefferson, despite his age, but favored changing the US twenty-five cent piece to show Ronald Reagan's likeness instead of Jefferson's. She added, "It's OK to keep him [Jefferson] on the three-dollar bill."

Creationist science fair

The Creation Museum is organizing a science fair. The web site says, "Put your knowledge of science to the test." I would say "a test." And, not a very good one. Here is the third item in the list of guidelines:

"All projects should be clearly aligned with a biblical principle from a passage or verse. The student should be able to explain why the verse or passage selected relates to their project. (Students should read the article “God and Natural Law” by Dr. Jason Lisle for an explanation of this concept.)

• • Students should consider the context of the verse(s) they are using.
  • The verse chosen does not have to directly apply to the project topic (e.g., Scripture does not directly address radio waves), but may simply relate the project to the Creator of the universe.
  • Students should read the article 'God and Natural Law.' "
    

Dr. Lisle's essay is pure tautology and silly sophistry. He infers that natural laws required a supernatural source. The next logical step is untenable: What created the supernatural laws that allowed creation of a god who could then create natural laws? And, what created that creator and the creator before and the creator before that? Nonsense.

Despite the fallacy of Lisle's essay, I have been trying to think of science fair projects that fit the creationist constraints. Some ideas:

1. Compute the enthalphy required to change one liter of water into wine.
2. Determine the Q-factor of the walls of Jericho and the number of horses needed to make the walls tumble down after seven circuits of the city.
3. Compute the size and displacement of an ark holding two of every species and sufficient food for 40 days afloat. Assume only baby dinosaurs were collected.
   

I imagine a creationist science fair version of the Monty Python Cheese Shop skit:

CLEESE: This is a science fair?
CHAPMAN: Oh, yes, sir. Finest in the district!
CLEESE: How can you say that?
CHAPMAN: It's so pure.
CLEESE: Well, it certainly is uncontaminated by science.

I most pity the little buggers who think they are getting an education and then make a break for the real world. It's gonna hurt.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong again

Every response to every conservative comment must begin with a list of right wing failures. The Republicans got it wrong about the economy, wrong about deregulation, wrong about Iraq, wrong about torture, wrong about taxes, wrong about civil rights, wrong about global warming, wrong about Medicare, wrong about Social Security, and wrong about the environment. Why listen to them now? Why give them air time? Why imply any credibility?

Dick Cheney is a chronic liar. Nothing he says can be trusted. Jonathan Landay and Warren Strobel at McClatchy describe some of his recent lies here. Yet, Cheney goes unchallenged in interview after interview. Why?