by Cockney Robin | You've got to hand it to him for always being able to come up with new ways of being a pillock. Here is exhibit A (for 'arsehole'), from his comments about the cowardliness of the students who got slaughtered at Virginia Tech, with some reactions from across the spectrum.
First he quotes a discussion of a recent study concerning the disappearance of America's white majority.
"If we don't invest in educating and training
African-American kids, immigrants and Latino kids, we won't have a
middle class," said Mark Sawyer, the director of the Center for the
Study of Race, Ethnicity and Politics at the University of California
at Los Angeles. "We'll have a very, very poor disposable class that's
largely black or brown."[link]
Posted by Teh Nutroots | At our sister blog, Buck Naked Politics, Deb Cupples saw off Maureen Dowd's Hillary-based fiction about the Democratic convention in fine style yesterday. (Maureen Dowd Talks out of her ... Ear Again ). Dowd, as we all know, is wicked envious of just about everyone, so her stock-in-trade is undifferentiated mockery from the sidelines If she told us the sun was shining, we'd assume she meant, er, out of her "ear."
Here at IDLYE, our credo is: "Maureen Dowd is always wrong."
by Teh Nutroots | As he mulls over his former support for the war in Iraq, provides a summary of McCain's militarism in a nutshell .
For him, it is always 1938 somewhere; America's duty is to control,
occupy or intervene wherever any rival seeks influence and any group
does not share our alleged values. And so American power must be
brought to bear in Georgia and Iraq and Iran and Burma and Darfur and
Bosnia and anyplace else where American interests are threatened or
democratic allies seek help. And for militarist American
exceptionalists, this all makes sense. This is the higher purpose
McCain lives for: the glory of liberation, the thrill of conquest, the
adoration of the soldier, the defeat of evil.
I've never understood in the first place why this attitude was ever meant to be "conservative." The only thing they're conserving is American arrogance at the expense of everything else.
Posted by Teh Nutroots |Good for Colmes. Didn't think he had it in him. We generally type his name in the manner suggested by Al Franken: Colmes. But today he gets him some full-sized letters for talking back (reported by Crooks and Liars).
John Amato says: "The wingnut mentality is a wonder to behold, no?" Yep. For example, there's this.
By Blue Stockings | We already know there isn't enough shut up in all the world for Maureen Dowd. But John Edwards should probably be grateful to her. If there's one writer who can probably bring everyone together on his side, it's her. Certainly Dowd is one person everyone writing at this blog agrees on, even if we can't agree on anything else.
Every time I swear I'll never read her self-referential musings again, I find myself pulled in by curiosity to see whether she can outrage me further. So far, the answer always turns out to be "yes."
You know, I'm annoyed with John Edwards. I said so. He stands accused of hypocrisy at the very least. I draw the line at presuming to read his mind or to judge him based on this one act. Maybe he was carried away with himself. I easily believe that. But is there really no understanding anywhere for the pathos of the situation and its aftermath?
But it has occurred to me since then that men whose wives are seriously ill sometimes do very shocking and unbecoming things....out of fear. Men who fear losing their wives often seem to try to put some distance between themselves and the beloved. Who's to say that isn't what was going on with Edwards? It might be true and he might not even be consciously aware of it. And if he were, it's not really something he could ever say.
But yes, yes, yes: by all means. Let's all go ahead and sit in judgment on John Edwards. He's been a hypocrite---we would never do that. He's been disloyal to a spouse---we are all paragons of faithfulness and loyalty. He's betrayed his own standards---none of us have ever done that.
Blue Stockings | I like Michael Moore, and some of what he says in this piece in The Guardian is dead on, but the following annoys me. It's flat out hypocritical.
[Y]ou would think, with more than 200 million eligible voters, the Dems
would be cleaning up, election after election. Obviously not. The
Democrats appear to be professional losers. They are so pathetic in
their ability to win elections, they even lose when they win! Al Gore
won the 2000 election, but for some strange reason he didn't become the
president of the United States. (Guardian)
Some of us think that Ralph Nader spoiled the election for Al Gore in 2000, bequeathing to us our present ills. And do you know who was standing right out there on a soapbox in the middle of the ring, banging his knee cymbals, and yelling through a megaphone about the uselessness of Al Gore and the importance of voting for Nader? Guess. Go on. Guess.