AatomBomb

TheDuhHeardRoundTheWorld

It's almost difficult to watch.

FlackAttack

Carly Fiorina is demonstrably venal and stupid, but I'm not saying it's the fact that she's a woman that makes her that way. You seriously have to be kidding me:

"[T]he portrait [on "SNL"] was very dismissive of the substance of Sarah Palin, and so, in that sense, they were defining Hillary Clinton as very substantive and Sarah Palin as totally superficial," Fiorina argued. "I think that continues the line of argument that is disrespectful in the extreme and yes, I would say, sexist, in the sense that just because Sarah Palin has different views than Hillary Clinton does not mean that she lacks substance."

Even Orwell would be amazed.

"Body"Slam

Jesse Ventura just got my vote. Here he is responding to some talking head doing a fluff piece on MSNBC about the Ron Paul rally in St. Paul:

Jesse: "It's just like pro wrestling, in front of the public we hate each other, but in the locker room we're all friends."

Idiot Reporter: "Are you suggesting that professional wrestling is fake?"

Jesse: "I'm suggesting that politics is fake."

SwanSongOfTheFuehrer

(via Sullivan)

Post-TraumaticOptimism

I've been fumbling around for a reasonable explanation for how I, and so many others, could have been so historically wrong about Iraq. Coming from a military family myself, I'm acutely aware of how disruptive this war has been for so many American families and Iraqi civilians. With no good news on the horizon, a sense of terrible failure has set in, as we grope for the least catastrophic end to this debacle. One of Andrew Sullivan's readers recently nailed it, at least from my perspective:

With at least ten golden years of history behind us, we told ourselves how good we were and convinced ourselves that the blighted Arabs needed our way of life, needed our product. We convinced ourselves that the Middle East was no different than Bosnia. There would be some resistance, but after a show of American power the population would fall into a sluggish acquiescence. Everyone would live happily under the flag of Nike.

Free-market economics, rather than Hobbes, is the driving philosophy of Donald Rumsfeld. He invaded Iraq with 100,000 troops because he believed the "spontaneous forces" latent in Iraq merely had to be tapped into to turn it into New Zealand. Some were a little concerned when we heard this phrase of his, recognizing its Hayekian overtones. We began to suspect that he was a fanatic Friedmanite, treating Iraq like some Libertarian laboratory, applying a philosophy that worked under certain precise circumstances to an irrational place. The light footprint of our military was to a significant extent borne of our better instincts, of a free-market ideology, worse: a do-gooder freemarket ideology. The rough and tough Rumsfeld thought that the U.S. merely had to subtract itself for the most part from a country whose order it had just annihilated, rather than act as a leviathan, providing the necessary security and force.

Having watched free markets sweep across Eastern Europe and Russia, we naturally thought the same would occur in Iraq. And flush with the profound success of our economic philosophy in our own country, we hurriedly grafted it onto a country so benighted, whose culture was so alien to liberal capitalism, that we instead cast it into further moral darkness and depravity. It was a kind of economic five-year plan. Many of us honestly believed that in five or ten year's time, in 2007 or 2012, Iraq would be awash in foreign capital. The historical naivete of the Republicans was breathtaking. Their shrunken time-frame was not conservative, was that of their enemy, a naïve, atheist liberal, of a teenager even.

After 9/11, many of us suffered a type of post-traumatic optimism, so profoundly disgusted and horrified by an attack on our soil that we desperately clung to the belief that we could re-fashion, in our own image, those parts of the world that bred the kind of hateful ideologies out to destroy us. If only these people had the option to live as we did, freely and openly with a respect for market economies devoid of tyrranical dictators or frothing religious bigotry. If only.

Bush & Co. offered a promise that this was possible. A promise so blindingly naive and unlikely that it would take a born-again Christian, or a nation deeply wounded by tragedy, to fall for it. Some of the more stridently anti-war folks out there now demand that each and every one of us who supported the war initially feel eternally guilty for it, personally responsible for every American death, and barring that we should sign up for military service ourselves. I'm not going to flagellate myself for their edification, but I will grant that my conscience is weighted with the knowledge that our mistakes have cost so many innocent lives. I will admit to a temporary form of delusional optimism, a willful suspension of disbelief for the sake of making the world a better place. As the cruel hangover sets in, all we can brace for now is a long, painful journey home.

InstitutionalizeMe

Towleroad reports that eight couples who have domestic partnerships in CT are taking their case to the State Supreme Court today.  A lawyer for the couples points out the fucking obvious for us:

"The legislature already determined a fundamental sameness between couples. Constitutional law has discarded long ago any notion that a separate institution for a minority can ever be equal."

Which is exactly what I've been saying to all of the pussies on our side who minge and whine whenever I insist that full marriage rights are the only logical goal for us.  The sheer inevitability of this kind of lawsuit makes compromise on this subject untenable.  If it is easier for us to sneak in the back door, so to speak, and demand a kind of grotesque simulacrum of marriage called something else first, then fine.  Although I refuse to call any future husband of mine anything but that.  But it's no surprise to me that our enemies are slightly ahead of the curve on this one, fighting any hint of partner recognition by the state.  They can smell the lawsuits and well-appointed wedding banquets a mile away. 

Best of luck to these courageous couples in CT.  And a hearty fuck you to anyone who still thinks it's possible to freeze time and prevent full marriage rights for gay couples. 

Vote4Aatom!

Who knew that midterm elections could be so damn sexy? Naughty page boys, crystal meth and escorts, even vague threats of Democrats raping your daughter!  And that's just the Republicans!  It's a veritable beltway circuit party.

I voted in my quaint little NJ town, at the local elementary school, staffed by elderly Cubans who took their sweet time to find your Ward and your name. It was strangely inspiring. I pushed the correct buttons and watched the choices light up with a green X before pushing the big red VOTE button.  I managed to resist the temptation to vote for the libertarian "Politicians Are Crooks" party, but it was difficult. 

I voted Column B straight down, and reflected that as much as I have drifted from the Democrats, I still seem to vote for them every time.  In this election particularly I really wanted to go on record as supporting the idea of New Jersey as a blue state.  We are about to enact some legislative history with respect to gay marriage, or whatever the hell they decide to call it, and as amusing as it would be to see it happen on the Republicans' watch,  it just doesn't seem right.  No one does corruption or sex scandals quite like NJ Dems, bless their crooked little hearts.

I did not, however, vote for the obnoxious ballot initiative dedicating a portion of my NJ tax money to ...wait for it....tax reform!  It's just too perverse.

So, get out and vote already!  And if you live in Chicago, vote for Aatom!  I promise there will definitely be more page boy scandals on my watch!

Foley'sFollies

Alright, let's get this out of the way first: ew.  That's the only response that feels unambiguous and true to me concerning this sordid affair.  Ew.

There are so many sick ironies and disturbing factoids relating to the Mark Foley page boy scandal that I don't know where to start. First and foremost, if anything good can come of this revelation, aside from keeping Foley a safe distance from the page boy circuit, it will be to underscore the idea that those who become obsessed with keeping children "safe" often have their own complicated reasons for being so fixated.  Keep that in mind the next time your fire-breathing minister ramps up the rhetoric against gay adoption.  Andrew Sullivan teases out the psychological aspects of being powerful and closeted. 

Next, there's the prickly matter of the gay liberal response to all of this.  Robbie does a good job over at The Malcontent of exposing some of the logical contortions and damaging hypocrisy on the gay left over this matter.  Jack Malebranche makes a convincing case in the comments as to why we should be very careful tossing the word "pedophile" around.  As tempting as it is to paint Foley with as brutal a brush as possible, the ages of the boys he was talking to don't technically make him a pedophile in DC, and it is our game to lose if the definition of the word becomes too malleable, considering the specious association that is already made between gays and pedophilia. 

Has anyone pondered the disturbing fact that so many page boys seemingly had no problem with his advances?  Again: ew.  Having grown up in the DC area, it's no secret that the most beautiful boys in the District get jobs on Capitol Hill.  Were they all hired by Mark Foley and Barney Frank?  Doubtful.  DC is, in it's own way, just as cutthroat and competetive as New York, and I have no doubt that many of these boys do whatever it takes to make friends in high places.  I would compare it to prostitution, except that it would cheapen the actual thriving gay escort industry in the District - much of which services...you guessed it: Capitol Hill.   

Stories like this are bound to bring out the crazy in some people, and Ben Stein certainly doesn't disappoint.  Because this sex scandal is obviously all about...that's right: gay Democrats.

We have a Republican man in Congress who sent e-mails to teenage boys asking them what they were wearing, and an entire party, the Democrats, whose primary constituency, besides the teachers' unions, is homosexual men and lesbian women. I hope it won't come as a surprise to anyone that a big part of male homosexual behavior is interest in young boys.

Does this tortured, insane logic ever wake you up in the middle of the night screaming, Ben?  Bueller?

I'll leave you with an even more interesting piece of insanity, from an organization devoted to peace and understanding that makes even the UN look effective by comparison. The Human Rights Campaign.

The largest gay organization in America and all its members can't see a single reason to weigh in on anything related to Foley, showing HRC has all the backbone of one of the dead, boneless chickens served at their dinners.

I have a piece of unsolicited advice for HRC, if it wants to change course and factor in somehow to this major upheaval in the House, weeks before the midterm election.

Ask Foley to return the $27,000 HRC has donated to him since 2000, especially the $2,000 for this election.

The HRC would pick this Republican to fund, wouldn't they?  Ben Stein's delusions have plenty of fertile area to flower in.  It took a lame sex scandal to tarnish Clinton, despite his many flaws, and it looks like karma is coming to bite the GOP in the ass hard finally. Good.  There is an undeniable schadenfreude to watching the GOP hoisted by the petard of its own "family values" campaign.  There are too many other real dangers that we face as a country right now to fiddle with reactionary social issues.  The religious right needs to take a long, soul-searching look at who they have lobbied and paid for on Capitol Hill.  Here's a hint for the retarded: they're all scumbags.

I'll leave with this bit of putrescence, courtesy of Wonkette:

Maf54: I want to see you
Teen: Like I said not til feb…then we will go to dinner
Maf54: and then what happens
Teen: we eat…we drink…who knows…hang out…late into the night

Ew.

UPDATE: Blog P.I. offers a refreshingly sober analysis of this mess, and sums up how I feel about blaming the Democrats for using it to their advantage:

...it’s hard to see the percentage in fretting over the fact that Democrats are getting as much electoral mileage as they can out of the erstwhile Maf54’s astonishing lack of discretion or propriety. Why shouldn’t they? Politics is full of lemons, but on those rare occasions when you’re handed a glass of lemonade, the thing is to enjoy drinking it.

Also, don't miss the brilliant cover of Time this week:

ASmallManWithBigIdeas

The interview with Ahmadinejad in this week's Time is chilling, in large part due to the fact that you almost want to like him.  He's got that magic Clintonian touch to his words.  You know you're being had somehow, but it feels good in a confusing way.  The President of Iran is currently just across town from me, and you can hear the disturbance in the traffic noise.  You can just sense the momentous nature of this visit.  It will be interesting to hear what he has to say to the General Assembly.  Here is a choice quote from the interview:

AHMADINEJAD: Whose confidence should be built?

TIME: The world's?

AHMADINEJAD: The world? The world? Who is the world? The United States? The U.S. Administration is not the entire world. Europe does not account for one-twentieth of the entire world. When I studied the provisions of the NPT [Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty], nowhere did I see it written that in order to produce nuclear fuel, we need to win the support or the confidence of the United States and some European countries.

UPDATE: I caught Ahmadinejad's UN address last night at the gym, and my suspicions were confirmed. This is a highly intelligent, very dangerous man who wants nothing less than the complete re-structuring of the global balance of power, and he knows that the time is ripe to make a major play in that direction.  And he's slipping the knife in with a polite smile and feelgood rhetoric about human dignity.  I am having trouble finding much feedback on his speech in my usual blogosphere haunts, which I find disconcerting.  But my spider sense is telling me that we've just witnessed the birth of a new era in some way.  Also: I was the only person watching the address on the treadmills, everyone else was tuned to some sort of mind-numbing pap.  It struck me that most Americans, even New Yorkers, are completely detached from the political storm brewing around them.  The decadence is deepening, and men like Ahmadinejad are more than willing to exploit our weaknesses.  Am I being alarmist?  I certainly hope so.

MORE: Sullivan nails it in the first paragraph of this post:

"...there is a chilling slickness to him that is as disturbing as it is obviously formidable. The way he deflected questions always back toward the U.S., the way he skilfully used every awkward moment to pivot to the themes his domestic and international audience want to hear, the very image of the informal, mild-mannered, quiet-spoken, constantly smiling serenity: all these represent a very, very capable politician."

NowThisIsGoingToHurtALittleBit

OK, I'll admit it: Sullivan is finally wearing me down on the torture issue. Maybe his obsessive streak isn't so bad after all.

I'm not so stridently pro-war that I can't be moved by first-hand reports like this. In fact, it's beginning to feel as if any responsible pro-war advocate would have to find this Administration's weasel-like power plays on the issue disturbing, and quite likely dangerous to the war effort itself. I would certainly rather err on the side of less torture-esque methods of obtaining information if possible. Barring any reasonable proof that things like water-boarding have actually secured life-saving data from prisoners, I'm inclined to find the practice, and those who would champion it, un-American.