BUGS. The Ole Perfesser hears about the resurgence of bedbugs, and blames Obama:

"...The reasonable course, Dr. Goddard said, is to recognize that we are, in effect, back in the 1920s ‘Sleep tight, don’t let the bedbugs bite’ era. People should be aware, but not panicky.”

They told me if I voted for John McCain, America would be taken back to the 1920s. And they were right!

He also quotes a reader:

What a horribly defeatist article. The “future is grim” and we are “back in the ’20’s ” with no proffered solutions? Parsing the lines, apparently there are some pesticides that work, but we are not told what they are. I guess we are supposed to not ask questions and suffer through this plague. This is a perfect metaphor for the Obama age.

These guys suffer badly from Susan Smith Syndrome.

Public service department: The Perfesser has in the past declared DDT is a cure for bedbugs ("Bringing back DDT would solve this problem"); here he lets a quote from the Times about DDT hang without comment. Confusion on this issue is sometimes found on political sites where commenters try to spread the word that Rachel Carson, in addition to being a mass murderer, condemned us all to life with bedbugs.

So let's hand it off to the folks at New York vs. Bed Bugs (h/t reader Hob), who know what they're talking about:

In a March 2008 Bedbugger interview, Texas A & M research scientist James W. Austin noted the continued resistance to DDT (emphasis added):

While screening multiple populations of bed bugs against various insecticides we have found virtually all populations were 100% resistant to DDT. This is not a surprise given that the first observances of DDT resistance were noted almost 50 years ago. It is a little surprising that they continue to be so completely resistant to DDT.

It's not just about global warming denialism -- conservatives treat science like they treat everything else: As an occasion to work on their lying skills.

NEW VOICE COLUMN UP about Beckapalooza. The distinguishing features of the rightblogger coverage, I found, were 1.) a conviction that this allegedly apolitical demo proved America was on their side (and no one was really buying the apolitical angle, as press coverage showed; it was universally acknowledged as a ploy, which made the rigor with which the fake neutrality was observed especially fascinating); and, 2.) an unshakeable awareness that, despite their best efforts, no one is buying Beck as the new MLK and teabaggery as the new civil rights movement, which irritates them no end, and reanimates their rage over the many unfair advantages enjoyed by black people in this country, even dead ones.

I did watch Beck's speech and I have to say, America's taste in demagogues has deteriorated. He comports himself like an overgrown child, all appetite, talking about dark days and civil wars and other bleak subjects but bouncing around like he just shotgunned a packet of Kool-Aid and now hopes to talk the crowd into giving him cake. That anyone would follow him to Washington in August says more about the parlous state of the nation than anything in his incoherent speech.

SHORTER RICK MORAN: Some say Glenn Beck is no Martin Luther King. But I have here Zombie MLK, and he tells me he hates affirmative action and Jesse Jackson. No, no quotes -- you'll just have to take my word for it.

[In fairness, MLK did advocate a guaranteed income, and I'm sure many of today's Restoring Honor attendees are on some form of government psych disability.]

UPDATE. I must commend in comments Kia Penso's peroration on Beck himself, whom she classes "a huckster, a person who gets the hell out of town before his customers wake up and discover that the hair restorer doesn't work. It's not even that what he peddles is shit to sane people, it's shit to his people too. But Beck's audience can't even recognize that, they think shit is what they are supposed to get..."

WHEN THEY SAY "NON-DEMAGOGIC," HOLD ONTO YOUR WALLET. At National Review, Avik Roy tries to explain in "A Non-Demagogic Disquisition on Death Panels" how conservatives are perfectly right to worry about this non-existent phenomenon because the Brits kill grannies and conservatives just know that American liberals will start killing grannies the second the money runs low. Let the healing begin!

Not adding to the versimilitude: Roy throws in as a supporting example the end-of-life counseling document "Your Life, Your Choices" used by the Veterans Administration for years before Obama walked in the door. Roy thinks this example shows that the state can't handle such delicate matters without trying to get veterans to kill themselves.

But as I found when I examined the controversy last year, the document in question is nothing like what Roy (and his source, a Bush Administration official who tried to get the VA to use his own document in its place) portray it as; also, that the controversy over "Your Life, Your Choices" was ginned up by rightwing shouters and fist-shakers who have never been anywhere near a "Non-Demagogic Disquisition" in their lives -- including Roy's colleagues Jonah Goldberg and Andy McCarthy. From McCarthy's ravings:

This Orwellian “Your Life, Your Choices” questionnaire, in the familiar “push poll” manner, methodically steers the patient toward the notion that he is a malingering near-vegetable causing a “severe emotional burden” for his family. I don’t know what the correct, non-hysterical term for such a process is, but “Grim Government Reaper” strikes me as more accurate than “Your Life, Your Choices"...

In essence, Democrats want to repeal individual liberty...

It's pretty rich to try and pull a fast one like that in the middle of an allegedly "non-demogogic disquisition."

I AM THE ONE, ORGASMATRON. I just want to recommend "The Ultimate Escape: The Bizarre Libertarian Plan of Uploading Brains into Robots to Escape Society" by Sadlynaut Brad Reed at AlterNet. It's an update on that whole transhumanist scheme Ole Perfesser Glenn Reynolds and other libertarians are into, whereby they hope to upload their brains into robots and live forever, free from the interference of looters and littlebrains.

One choice bit, involving Bryan Caplan (best known to us as one of the intellectuals who think women were more free in the 1890s than they are now, because of the socialism):

"Yes, I wish to clone myself and raise the baby as my son,” he confessed earlier this year. “I want to experience the sublime bond I'm sure we'd share. I'm confident that he'd be delighted, too, because I would love to be raised by me.”

If you've ever noticed that libertarians don't seem to care about people who do not very, very closely resemble themselves, this may explain a lot.

A useful concordance from my back catalogue: Reynolds' Universal Robots.

UPDATE. In comments Jay B explores the sitcom potential in Caplan's clone child: "Me 2: Millionaire narcissist Joseph Marriott (Macaulay Culkin), a self-help guru, realizes his dream of cloning and raising himself using his own 'living strategies'..."

A MATCH MADE IN HEAVEN. In the National Catholic Register, Kathryn Jean Lopez bids us attend the Passion of Mel Gibson.

But somewhere, in the ravenous appetite for news about the private lives of public people, there is something unhealthy going on. Media laptops and tweets and “E! True Hollywood Story” strategy sessions are a chisel to the lives of human beings, who by nature or surgery are beautiful; their lives now lie in pieces for us all to watch and discuss.

If Joe and Jane Schmo get into a domestic violence beef, they are spared this horrible chiseling. Of course, they don't have the millions of dollars either, so there's a trade-off.

It's full of gems, but this is my favorite:

Mel Gibson, presenting that fruit of labor and prayer [The Passion of the Christ], was more of a feminist than any activist in Washington devoting her energy to the destruction of innocent human lives.

Well, when you put it that way...

UPDATE. Satch, in comments: "Jeez, K-Lo, Mel Gibson's rant was a month and a half ago, and you're just getting to it now? He probably doesn't even remember it."

THE SQUARES DON'T GET ME. Ann Althouse thinks I missed her point:

Did Edroso even understand my point? I deliberately write in an elliptical style sometimes. You have to think a minute to get it, and I don't think Edroso did. The writing may look simple, but there is a challenge in that simplicity that you'd better be sure you see and meet before you decide you've done the easy reading and are now in a fine position to call me stupid.

731 words, folks. Seven hundred and thirty-one words. Not counting the title.

She eventually gets to her secondary target, and makes this generous admission:

I don't think [Savan] wanted to deal in higher level philosophy about individual freedom and autonomy (which is the subject that I went on to talk about, quoting James Madison).

Considering Savan was talking about some nut talking about Obama's Muslim seed, yeah, maybe she wasn't heading for the rarified air of higher level philosophy.

So, Roy, imagine that an editor at The Nation had responded to Savan's draft with these direct questions:

You can go look. Her prescriptions sound very little like what any editor would write in the margin of any copy, and rather like what someone might write across a blue book if he or she really had it in for the student who submitted it.

I'm starting to think they gave Althouse tenure just to shut her up.

THEY'LL BELIEVE ANYTHING. It appears John Derbyshire got punked:

An e-mail correspondent (Orthodox Christian) sent me the four pictures below, with this message:

This is an accurate picture of every Friday afternoon in several locations throughout New York City where there are mosques with a large number of Muslims that cannot fit into the mosque. They fill the surrounding streets, facing east for a couple of hours between about 2 & 4 pm.

...I have no idea if my correspondent is correctly relating the facts behind these pictures... I move around New York City a fair amount, and haven’t seen such things; but then I’m rarely there on a Friday. Can anyone shed light?

If this kind of obstruction of roads and sidewalks is really going on in Nurse Bloomberg’s city — where a restaurateur can get a four-digit fine for placing a chair on the sidewalk without the proper permit — it’s a disgrace. But give me the facts, someone, please.

I thought something was fishy when I saw one of the pray-ins was filling up Madison Avenue. I've been away from New York for five months, but I knew things couldn't have changed that much.

Turns out the photos are from the once-a-year Muslim Day Parade -- 2009 edition. (Adding to the jest, the photos come from Muslim hater Pam Geller.) They do not represent a weekly event, as Derbyshire's emailer portrayed it.

Of course, if you really want to believe the Mooslims are taking over, why bother to open Google and possibly lose your hate-on?

UPDATE. Derbyshire catches on: "Apparently the city enjoys a Muslim Day Parade," he sniffs (God God! First the Irish, now this!) -- but he leaves the original post as is. Expect your grandma to email you the link in a couple of months, or years.

UPDATE 2. Derb denounces this special parade for Mohammedans -- "To the best of my knowledge... the only one currently dedicated to celebration of a religious, as opposed to national, heritage" -- and is informed that New York has many such parades. (He does have the good grace, I must say, to observe, "today must be Show Up Derb’s Ignorance Day.")

But then he asks:

So can we get the Orange Parade re-started?

Why rely on the bloated socialist State to sanction you, Derb? You and a couple of yer mates should just get a permit and march through Woodside singing "The Sash My Father Wore." I can name a few bars for you to visit along the way where you will undoubtedly receive a bracing reception.

WHAT THEY DO WITH THEIR BRAINS INSTEAD OF THINKING. At The Nation's blog, Leslie Savan mocks the eminently mockable Franklin Graham ravings on Obama's Muslim "seed," and points out that "Regardless of what the Muslim world may or may not believe, this whole seed fixation is profoundly un-American."

Ann Althouse's response:

Is the author of this piece — Leslie Savan —paying enough attention the the way she is expressing contempt for Muslim beliefs? I didn't know you could do that in The Nation.

Tee hee. Because libs are so cowardly they cannot dispute Muslim articles of faith. Which Savan proves by just having done so.

The Old Perfesser hehndeeds, and soon all the cool kids will be laughing about the silly liberal who must be pissing herself with fear because she inadvertently offended her Muslim masters.

You can follow the rest of Althouse's dribblings ("Another point. Graham didn't 'claim that Obama is a Muslim.' So ironically, it's false to say that he did... And I'm wondering who did say Obama's a Muslim?") if you want to really, really feel profound gratitude that you were never stuck in one of this woman's classes.

LIBERTARIANS IS THE CRAZIEST PEOPLE. Where else but Reason would you read this:

Khan does not show, incidentally, that the Republicans have lost the Muslim vote for good. It's not as though the Democratic Party has been making Muslims welcome.

Written in the midst of a Republican-led nationwide Klan rally against the New York mosque, this is beyond rich. But the author, Jesse Walker, hasn't ignored the issue entirely:

More recently, Republicans may have taken the lead in condemning Cordoba House, but relatively few elected Democrats have risen to defend the project.

They hardly need to -- the Liberal Media, as some like to call them, have done an excellent job of carrying the GOP message that only liberal Democrats think those wretched Muslim-Americans, who would re-bomb Ground Zero given a close enough coat factory, have the same rights as everyone else.

If you still wonder why libertarians exist, this will help show why: Because someone's got to make the ridiculous arguments that even Andy McCarthy is too embarrassed to sign his name to.

UPDATE. Walker contends fairly in comments. You will be unsurprised to learn that I still disagree with him!

UPDATE 2. I really have to thank commenter commie atheist for pointing to this TPM list of Democratic Senators and Representatives who have spoken in support of the mosqueteers. Really, the idea that there's no meaningful difference between the two parties on this issue just doesn't make any sense.

THIS IS THE SADDEST STORY I HAVE EVER HEARD. On a late, lonely election night, starting here (click image for larger), scrolling down:



I don't know about you, but it's the "It's 1 A.M... What are you reading?" that made me want to grab Kathryn Jean Lopez by the shoulders and cry, "You're pretty J.Lo! You're pretty!"

I know all us horrible liberals are supposed to be mean to K-Lo, but I don't think we could ever be as mean to her as her own horrible colleagues are.

UPDATE. Aaaggh, no more shall I gaze: "This Is the best excuse to work from home," gleeps Lopez, linking to a story about that giant Chinese traffic jam. Translation: A bad thing that has happened on the other side of the world just confirms one's belief -- which one developed hiding in the closet while Daddy rampaged through the townhouse playing 3-D Whac-a-Mole -- that one must remain protectively snuggled with one's old Cabbage Patch Dolls and cardboard cutouts of the Buckleys if one wants to survive.

BENEATH THE BOTTOM OF THE BARREL, PART 429,467. I know nothing she does should surprise me anymore, but this Pam Geller "exclusive" repeating some comments by the New York mosque's Feisal Abdul Rauf is tendentious beyond belief.

For example, she quotes Rauf on the "genesis of conflict": "If gender is not what distinguishes us we'll look at skin colouring and say: niggers or whities, or whatever, and we create an ethnic conflict..." Here's how Geller interprets it:

Reverend Al Sharpton was unavailable for comment. Too busy endorsing the Islamic supremacist mosque. Rest assured, the tolerant Imam Rauf will not suffer as Dr. Laura did (and she was making a "word" point, Rauf is using it.)

It just goes on like that. Rauf says that when he saw in Fahrenheit 911 an Iraqi woman whose home and family had been destroyed by Coalition bombers, he understood how jihadi terrorists could be recruited, while adding, "it is true that it does not justify the acts of bombing innocent civilians, that does not solve the problem..." Geller's takeaway:

And the Imam is conspiracy theorist - 911 was an inside job:

Even if you're not interested in this conflict, but merely know how to read, you have to be appalled. It actually made me want to believe that she's cynical enough to have thus misread Rauf's statements on purpose, because if she really thinks they mean what she says they mean, I'd be forced to pity her.

UPDATE. If you feel you haven't lost enough respect for humanity yet, go over to the Hit & Run post about Ron Paul's mosque statement, scroll down to the comments and check out the libertarians arguing that liberals are keeping the mosque issue alive as a political ploy. No, serious. Bonus: Cameos by Jim Treacher!

NEW VOICE COLUMN UP, about the Obama-is-a-Muslim dumbassery. Among the outtakes: Chuck Norris, who does the heavy contextual analysis of a 2004 Obama interview his career in action movies prepared him for:

To the question do you pray often, Obama replied: "Uh, yeah, I guess I do."

"Guess"? Not sure?

When asked if he has read the Bible, Obama responded: "Absolutely. [But] These days I don't have much time for reading or reflection, period. … I'll be honest with you, I used to all the time, in a fairly disciplined way. But during the course of this campaign, I don't."

"I don't"?

In answering reporter Falsani's question, "Is there an example of a role model who combines everything you said you want do in your life, and your faith?" Obama's first response was, "I think Gandhi is a great example of a profoundly spiritual man."

Gandhi? A Hindu? How about Jesus, since Obama claims to be a "committed Christian"?

Clearly this Obama is no Christian, because he doesn't thump his Bible hard enough, as such Christian paragons as Newt Gingrich might on their way to their mistresses' houses. You know, for a long time I just accepted that bullshit artists did well in this country without analyzing it too much, but now I'm beginning to think that bullshit is really what this country's all about.

UPDATE. Ugh, Tammy Bruce:

There’s only one group of people who were mass murdered on 911 and that was Americans, not Muslims.

The most repulsive thing about this is, she probably knows about the Muslim victims of the attacks, and thinks she's doing them a favor by saying they weren't Muslims.

UPDATE 2. Oh, this is great -- from the National Review coverage of yesterday's anti-mosque demo:

The participants’ views on Islam varied. Some seemed to believe that no moderate version of Islam exists.

This is rather like saying, "The participants’ views on Judaism varied. Some seemed to believe that Jews were devoted to the destruction of Christendom. Others thought they just drank Christian babies' blood." (An example of their "seeming" hard line on Islam: "In the Muslim world, a moderate believes that you can take down America without violence.")

UPDATE 3. Have you read my column yet? It's pretty good.

MRS. KRABAPPEL AND PRINCIPAL SKINNER WERE IN THE CLOSET MAKING JIHAD AND I SAW ONE OF THE JIHADIS AND THE JIHADI LOOKED AT ME. Joe McCarthy's Stupidest Godchild:

A friend poses the following: Imagine that there really were these fundamentalist Christian terror cells all over the United States, as the Department of Homeland Security imagines. Let’s say a group of five of these terrorists hijacked a plane, flew it to Mecca, and plowed it into the Kaaba.

Now let’s say a group of well-meaning, well-funded Christians...

I have to say I'm disappointed. After a week or two of ratcheting up the anti-mosque arguments to previously unseen levels of crazy, it appears they're getting fatigued, and are just taking the usual, ridiculous Oh-yeah-well-the Ayrabs-wouldn't-let-US-build-a-CHURCH "thought experiments" and making them more complicated.

Next time around they'll probably get to, "Let's say there's a planet that's all Muslim and another planet that's all Christian and the Muslim planet bombs one of the Christian planet's moons. No, two of its moons, because it's like New York, New York, and that should totally be worth two moons. And then Han Solo crashes the Millennium Falcon into one of the Muslim planet's moons..."

SOMETIMES THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IS BREAKFAST TACOS.



It's either La Mexicana, per this sign, or Las Mexicanas, per all the others. $1.50 each; two will do for most people. Also has Mexican Coke and Pepsi, and agua fresca, which they ladle out of a big jar.



I can't show you the tacos because I ate them before I could get my camera out.



Las Mexicanas also advertises local events, like this show at what is advertised at the website as El Grahams. I am interested to see this band, because I am into cable, too, and want to see how they convey this through Norteño. (I kid. In-toe-ka-bley are pretty good.)



If you're in Houston, then this place will do fine, though you will pay those upscale Houston prices ($1.60-$3).

NO DEPTH TOO LOW. Byron York says people think Obama is a Muslim not because of crackpot mass emails and other strenuous efforts by bottom-tier conservative propagandists, but because other members of his family are Muslim, which Obama has admitted, which means he's hiding something and people can just tell.

Pew asked respondents how they learned about Obama’s religion. Most who believe Obama is a Muslim say they learned it through the media. But 11 percent say they learned it through Obama’s “own words and behavior.” Perhaps they read the White House press pool reports, which often describe Obama heading out to play basketball or golf on Sunday mornings.

See, a real Christian male would never skip church to play b-ball. Maybe to watch it, but not to play it.

This bullshit will of course eventually wind up in crackpot mass emails and other strenuous efforts by bottom-tier conservative propagandists.

Just because York dresses and coifs himself like a character from The Paper Chase doesn't mean he's any better than the grubbiest rock-throwing Juggalo.

NEW ARTICLE UP AT ALTERNET, titled "10 Shameless Right-Wing Tributes to Ayn Rand That Should Make Any Sane Person Blush" -- which some may find mildly misleading, as not all the Rand rants I picked are attributable to traditional conservatives. Paul Ryan (R - Pluto) is one thing, but the men's-mag nut who wants a girl like Dagny Taggart -- as opposed to the sort of "whore or drunken slut" he is accustomed to find in "today's filthy dumpster of what we call the dating world" -- is another.

Or is he? In real life, Randroidism appears to be a reliable indicator that the libertarian you met at a party is not the good, do-your-drugs-I-don't-care type, but the FDA-denies-us-Laetrile-we-are-slaves-must-resist type who will eventually wind up at the Republican Convention waving a WHERES THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE sign. All "liberaltarian" bullshit aside, these people consistently prove again and again and again that they're basically conservatives minus the elementary social skills.

NO CLEMENSY. Totally with Scott Lemieux here:

My official reaction to the indictment of Roger Clemens is that I don’t like perjury charges that are an outgrowth from “OMG baseball players use different kinds of PEDs than the good, clean ballplayers of my youth did” witch hunts. On the other hand, something bad has happened to Roger Clemens, so you can see my dilemma here.

The steroid witch-hunt is bullshit, but even the faint prospect of Clemens washing shirts in a prison laundry proves it's an ill wind that blows no one some good. Clemens is one of a select handful of people-and-I-use-the-term-loosely for whom my liberal heart does not bleed.

Oh, who am I kidding? If they do send him away, I'll chip in to get him an ACLU lawyer. With any luck, he'll reject it on principle!

THE PEOPLE OF THE ABYSMAL. The explosions of stupid on the Right are too numerous these days to address in their entirety, but this one by Ilya Somin bears noting: Author Jack London (d. 1916) saying racist things = "racist elements of Progressive ideology."

After a long list of caveats through which his readers probably plugged their ears and hummed, Somin adds that this stop-the-presses info "undercut[s] claims that racism is primarily a product of the 'right' and that economic leftism and racial progress necessarily go together." So if the brethren were feeling squeamish about the recent conservative pile on black people, they can relax -- here's a long-dead lefty who didn't like Asians.

And this is as far as Somin's willing to go on the difference between art and propaganda:

Despite London’s reprehensible racism and socialism, I don’t think it’s necessarily wrong to admire his novels on literary grounds.

Not necessarily! But we'll see what The Committee thinks before making a final judgement.

Christ, I need a drink.

AMERICA THE BEAUTIFUL. After he and his comrades did their level best to turn the discussion of the New York City mosque into a national Klan rally, Jonah Goldberg says

But there’s one point that I haven’t seen made that I think is really worth reminding people of. Simply: This is an incredibly tolerant country and, it has shown remarkable tolerance since 9/11. There has been no “anti-Muslim” backlash.

His defense is that Bush was nice to Muslims: "The supposedly 'crusading' and bloodthirsty President Bush could barely finish a sentence without saying 'Islam means peace.'" This would be more meaningful, of course, if any conservative had said anything remotely like that in the past week. Also:

The supposedly anti-Muslim 70 percent of Americans who don’t like the idea of building the Cordoba House near Ground Zero mostly also believe the owners have the right to do it if they can’t be persuaded otherwise.

Amazing that Goldberg knows this, as the CNN poll cited by his own magazine didn't ask if the builders had a right to build it.

I know he's allergic, but Goldberg might get a sense of the vox populi by looking at commenters who have come to yell at the Voice:

So you can rag on all the apes in flyover country all you want - we don't come to NY and find strippers, fags, and commies and stone them to death.

They do and will there in NY at the rate you people are appeasing them. If I thought for a minute you could keep them there - I wouldn't really be bothered to say or do anything... but they spread like rats.

Come to think of it, this cowboy puts the case about as well as their other writers -- maybe they should hire him.

OBLIVIOUS. Politico ran a surprisingly sarcastic -- dare one say, even satirical -- post called "Obama, the one-term president." After an intro echoing the usual bullshit about Obama's mishandling of the mosque situation ("I am not saying Obama is not smart... I am just saying he does not understand what savvy first-term presidents need to understand..."), Roger "Not the Insane One" Simon's article goes on to say that Obama was, like Lincoln and Eisenhower before him, a fool to put principle before popular prejudice:

You can go back to the mid-1800s and find a lot of legislators saying that Abraham Lincoln should stop lecturing people about ending slavery and listen to them about keeping it.

And there were plenty of lawmakers who said President Dwight D. Eisenhower was “disconnected from the mainstream of America” when he ordered the 101st Airborne Division to go down to Little Rock, Ark., to make sure some black kids could go to school with white kids.

Both decisions may have been “off-message,” which is about the worst sin you can commit in Washington.

...what’s the point of doing the right thing if your party is going to lose seats because of it?

Maybe Obama is disconnected. After all, as a former professor of constitutional law, he actually knows what the Constitution says.

His opponents have no such fetters. They know what they want the Constitution to say: yes to guns, no to gay marriage and never to mosques close to hallowed ground, though churches and synagogues are OK.

What’s so wrong with that? I’ll bet they poll great.

Ole Perfesser Instapundit linked to it. Guess what he thinks/wants his yahoo readers to think it's about?

UPDATE: Reader Troy Lovell writes: “Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I have been wondering for quite a while about that. The only evidence for Obama being smart is that everybody says so. But don’t smart people usually reveal themselves by knowing lots of stuff or making smart decisions?..."


It’s the Peter Principle on steroids, I think.

He's not the only one. Scared Monkeys even goes so far as to quote part of the punchline ("when it comes to doing what is right versus doing what is expedient, you do what is expedient so that you can get reelected and do what is right in the second term"), and his takeaway is still "Is Barack Obama a one term President? That is the questions asked and answered at the Politico … the answer is YES!"

Dave Weigel says, "Sometimes, it becomes clear that people are linking to what you write without actually reading it." While it's possible that these people don't read what they're yelling about, I think it's more likely that they're purposefully misrepresenting it. Oafs feeding the fires of bigotry don't scruple over the fuel.

NEW VOICE COLUMN UP, about the New York mosque nonsense. I largely confined myself to big-time bloggers as subjects, which actually made the whole thing more depressing. The small fry are sometimes capable of interesting, if deranged, turns of phrase or trains of thought, which adds some zany charm to the whole business; the major leaguers, on the other hand, are just reliably prosaic and tendentious volume dealers in bigotry and bullshit.

Which doesn't mean you shouldn't click over and read it, of course. There's some jokes! And pictures!

BUGHOUSE. In the name of glibertarianism, The Ole Perfesser is peddling his DDT bullshit again:

RATS ON THE WEST SIDE, BEDBUGS UPTOWN: “TVNewser has learned the human resources department of TBS Inc. has sent out an email this afternoon alerting staffers of a bed bug problem in their New York City offices at Time Warner Center — home to CNN, CNNMoney.com and other Time Warner entities.” Bringing back DDT would solve this problem. . . .

Forgive the repeat...

DDT proponents are generally reluctant to acknowledge the complicating and protean factor of mosquito resistance. Entomologist May Berenbaum finds this galling. An expert on insecticide metabolism, Berenbaum is director of the entomology department at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. "Read the entomological literature of the 1950s," she said in a telephone interview. "Way before Silent Spring, scientists were already trying to understand resistance. That's what insecticide toxicology was all about back then. Resistance to DDT was first detected in Italy, in houseflies, in 1947!"...

After Berenbaum published the article, she said, she was barraged by e-mails demanding that she support her claims. "To get them off my back, I finally culled a list of peer-reviewed articles documenting resistance to DDT and other pesticides in pockets all over Africa. This is not my life's work. I spent 10 minutes--10 minutes--and I found 15 articles. What would I have found if I'd spent an hour?"

...but it's important that everyone get this: These people don't know what the fuck they're talking about, and they want you to follow them into the abyss.

HOW BULLSHIT WORKS, PART 335,392.Doop de doo*, just checking the internet for Arcade Fire reviews and... hello?

American Socialists Release Names of 70 Congressional Democrats in Their Ranks
Posted by Jim Hoft on Friday, August 13, 2010, 4:16 PM

The Socialist Party of America announced in their October 2009 newsletter that...

(October 2009? How'd they keep it quiet all this time?)

...that 70 Congressional democrats currently belong to their caucus.
This admission was recently posted on Scribd.com:

American Socialist Voter–
Q: How many members of the U.S. Congress are also members of the DSA?
A: Seventy

Q: How many of the DSA members sit on the Judiciary Committee?
A: Eleven: John Conyers [Chairman of the Judiciary Committee], Tammy Baldwin, Jerrold Nadler, Luis Gutierrez, Melvin Watt, Maxine Waters, Hank Johnson, Steve Cohen, Barbara Lee...

Etc., skree, etc. Story spreads among other vendors of rock-solid information, including American Thinker, which marvels at "the astonishing number of Democratic House members who not only belong to the Socialist Party of America, but even more incredible, don't mind if people find out about it." There they are, boldly appearing as names on something someone else wrote! It's like they're hiding their socialism in plain sight!

At that other fine news org, Wizbang, commenters add depth to the debate over just how socialist these socialistic socialists are ("the headline 'Socialists in the Democratic Party' is quite redundant"). Then comes the skunk at the picnic:

Whoever the "Democratic Socialists of America" are, this is basically the exact same list as the Progressive Caucus. Which I'm sure you don't like - but which is no more socialist than the GOP is fascist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Caucus

So, in short, I think you've been had. In fact, I'll bet money on it.

But they know how to handle spoilsports like that:

Judging by this post and many others you have made recently, you must have been instructed to go into high gear as the election nears. Your posts are all aimed at defending the indefensible and your sputtering attempts to undermine your opponents are becoming laughable.

Do you really think that such trite manipulations are enough for this crowd?

Back to the drawing board tiny troll. Perhaps there's still time to think of something more effective...

At the 2012 Republican Convention, long after this has faded from the memories of sane people, you will find delegates and perhaps even a speaker yelling about Democrats who are also Socialist Party members. Regular media will assume it's just a bit of campaign hyperbole which they certainly couldn't take seriously.

* (c)

UPDATE: Aha! Crazy Dave Horowitz breaks it down:

The Progressive Caucus is an organization of Members of Congress founded in 1991 by newly-elected House Representative Bernie Sanders (Independent-Vermont), who is a self-described socialist.

Do we have to spell it out for you!

Until 1999, the Progressive Caucus website was hosted by the Democratic Socialists of America. After the press reported on this link, the connections suddenly vanished from both organizations’ websites.

1999! That's why they call them sleeper cells, I guess.

UPDATE 2: DSA on their connection with the Progressive Caucus:

Like our friends and allies in the feminist, labor, civil rights, religious, and community organizing movements, many of us have been active in the Democratic Party. We work with those movements to strengthen the party’s left wing, represented by the Congressional Progressive Caucus...

We hope that at some point in the future, in coalition with our allies, an alternative national party will be viable. For now, we will continue to support progressives who have a real chance at winning elections, which usually means left-wing Democrats.

Similarly, I hope to own a Mercedes someday, but till then I am riding a Schwinn Varsity. Which makes my Schwinn Varsity a Mercedes.

UPDATE 3. Talked to the the Democratic Socialists of America's National Director, Frank Llewellyn. Regarding the document to which Gateway Pundit and others are linking, which suggests the DSA named 70 Socialist members of Congress, Llewellyn says, "that's just total fiction... They certainly didn't talk to me."

Llewellyn also denies Horowitz' charge that the Progressive Caucus website was hosted by the Democratic Socialists of America. "DSA posted a list of the Progressive Caucus members as a public service," Llewellyn says, "but it had nothing to do with those people having any connection to us." He said DSA took the list down because occasionally "some hopeless Republican candidate would seize upon the fact that the names were listed [at the DSA site], and issue a press release condemning the candidate as a socialist. We took it down because it was causing them this problem."

But Llewellyn does admit that "I wouldn't know" whether the 70 Reps are members of the Socialist Party, because "we're not the Socialist Party." So keep digging, citizen journalists! The truth is out there!

UPDATE 4. At last, some of the commenters are talking about Arcade Fire!

THE BARREL HAS NO BOTTOM, PART 526,020. Jennifer Rubin of Commentary is fast becoming the worst hack on the internet -- and believe me, that takes some doing. I've been following her work for a while, and while it's always been noxious, of late she's just been cannonballing into bullshit, and at the deep end of the pool.

There was, for example, her commentary on the Palestinian flotilla incident in June, grandly titled "Does Israel Have a Right to Defend Itself?" in which she explained with a straight face, "when the Israeli commandos were set upon as they were lowered from a helicopter, they acted to defend themselves" -- spinning the IDF forces from invaders to innocent victims of unprovoked attack in one sentence. In July, there was her post associating the raving racist Mel Gibson with... Barack Obama.

But her post today reacting to Obama's support for the New York City mosque takes the cake. In this case she doesn't have to reach for unreason, as she and the whole conservative movement have been obviously bughouse on this subject all along. But the ripeness of her raving is something to behold:

Obama has shown his true sentiments now, after weeks of concealing them, on an issue of deep significance not only to the families and loved ones of 3,000 slaughtered Americans but also to the vast majority of his fellow citizens. He has once again revealed himself to be divorced from the values and concerns of his countrymen. He is entirely – and to many Americans, horridly — a creature of the left, with little ability to make moral distinctions. His sympathies for the Muslim World take precedence over those, such as they are, for his fellow citizens. This is nothing short of an abomination.

First, there's the slovenly writing -- Rubin's supposed to be a professional, yet she artlessly vomits out her catchrages (Obama doesn't understand Americans, he's a "creature of the left," he can't make "moral distinctions," etc) without bothering to use minimal skills to concatenate them as even a grade-school polemicist could manage. As we know she's not talentless, we can assume either that she was too shocked and upset by Obama's statement to perform adequately -- which is a long-shot, as her hatred of Obama is demonstrably so intense that she must have been expecting this all along -- or, more likely, that she simply wanted to get plenty of outrage signifiers out there as quickly as possible so that the yahoos might feed on them, and had no interest in building an argument she neither needed nor could manage.

I mean, she's actually saying out loud -- in a magazine that is not, or was not last time I checked, scrawled in crayon on pieces of scrap cardboard -- that Obama prefers the "Muslim World" to the country he serves as President. This is the sort of thing you expect to hear from Tea Party crackpots, or deranged shut-ins burbling ungrammatically on the internet. Now you see it in the "respectable" magazines of the right.

If I were more serious about this gig, I'd try to get a degree in abnormal psychology, fast.

WHY THEY SUCK. I think we've all enjoyed those Bed Intruder videos and remixes. But some of us can't lay off politics even for lulz -- like The Anchoress:

It’s entirely possible that Dodson and his family will be helped out of the projects not by well-meaning but stale and bloated government programs, but by imaginative, energetic, opportunistic art, and a culture that craves people it can like and root for.

For me the worst thing about these people -- and, really, this is the animating principle of this blog -- isn't the policies they push, hideous as those are, but the fact that they reflexively make everything about their politics. The Anchoress, who spends her days portraying Jesus Christ as very like Newt Gingrich, is one of the worst such offenders.

GAYS CAN'T MARRY, STRAIGHTS CAN'T DIVORCE: CONSERVATIVE UTOPIA! Let's be fair to our anti-gay-marriage, social conservative friends. They don't just want to keep gay people from entering the bonds of matrimony -- they also want to keep straight people from ever getting out of them.

You may not have noticed, but no-fault divorce has become a big deal among this crowd. It appears inspired by New York state's brand-new impending no-fault law. So social cons and their audiences take a break from the monotony of beating on homosexuals, and lament that fewer people are trapped in loveless marriages than in grandpa's day.

At World magazine, Alisa Harris has a heart-rending story:

Two days after Christmas in 1993, Thomas McClintock's wife told him she was leaving him. After five placid years of marriage, he was shocked and willing to do whatever it took to keep her.

"I thought we were a good match," he said. "[Our marriage] wasn't all that great but it wasn't that bad and I thought it was something we could work on."

But days later she left her job, her dog, her house, her country, and her husband. She came back a few months later. They sat down and divided their finances. Then she was gone.

That bitch! Harris rubs Tom's shoulders and whispers there, there:

McClintock, then a resident of Virginia, said he considers himself a "victim" of unilateral no-fault divorce: "What other kind of legal contract can you end like that without any kind of legal consequences?"

I will have my pound of flesh -- closest to your uterus!

Poor Harris has a hard job. She unwisely acknowledges that Bible Belt and anti-gay states actually have higher divorce rates than the other kind. Here's her explanation:

States that have low divorce rates also tend to have low marriage rates. Arkansas, for instance, has the second-highest divorce rate (5.9 per 1,000 people), but it also has more marriages per year: 12.1 marriages per 1,000 people as opposed to Massachusetts' 5.9 marriages per 1,000 people.

Thus red states show their respect for marriage by having lots of them, and then getting divorces. Third time's the charm, Lutie-belle!

Among the remedies Harris' experts suggest: Covenant marriage, the double-secret-probation of wedlock. That should go over huge in New York! But Harris has to admit that covenant marriage's success has been negligible, and retreats into gibberish, implying that no-fault means criminal spouses go scott-free: "If a man beats his wife in the face with a barbell until she's unrecognizable, as one man did," she says, "then society should say this is wrong." Assault charges don't quite do it -- society should force that man to stay married to his abused wife! It'll teach them both a lesson!

There are plenty of others out there ("No-Fault Divorce is Institutionalized Evil"), but all you really need to know is that both Gay Patriot and the Heritage Foundation are against no-fault divorce. When they think it will advance their cause, they pretend they oppose no-fault divorce for the sake of women and children. But I think it's really just a knee-jerk reaction they have when someone escapes.

UPDATE. The good Roger Ailes writes in comments: "If we can force spouses to stay married, we should be able to force single people to get married. 'Do you, "Gay Patriot," take this woman, Kathryn Jean Lopez, to be your lawful wedded wife?'" I smell sitcom!

Also, M. Krebs suggests you "click on the 'Sign the Lame Duck Petition' link on the left and do something horribly nefarious." But I must warn you: 1.) I make money off these ads; it would be harmful to my interests to countenance such tomfoolery; and 2.) I have already used the link to send Congressman Nadler a message of protest under the name Heywood Jablome.

SHORTER JONAH GOLDBERG: Comparing conservatives to the Taliban is lame and nasty. Comparing liberals to Hitler is brilliant. Why? Because farrrrt. Whoa, he who smelt it dealt it!

THE BARREL HAS NO BOTTOM. Just in case you thought the conservatives screaming about the New York City mosque had reached, or could possibly reach, their apex of lunacy, here's a column from Breitbart's latest vehicle comparing Michael Bloomberg to Nazi collaborator Marshal Petain.

Mencken said no one ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American people. I'm beginning to think counting on the psychosis of the American Right has become equally reliable.

(h/t Daniel Coyle)

SHORTER GREG GUTFELD: I hate Muslims so much, to get back at them I'll even pretend to like fags.

UPDATE. Comments are cherce. ("That tears it," says Jay B., "I'm going to open a library next to Fox.") But mds is a little behind the curve: "Imagine the whining" among conservatives, says mds, if the alleged bar can't get a cabaret license. "Islamists can build a monument to their conquest of America on an open grave, but we're denied a license by the leftist NYC government. Etc, etc." Sorry, Megan McArdle already got there. It's like they're preempting our satire!

ESSENCE OF PALIN. Sarah Palin, once again defending herself against reporters:

The LSM has now decided to use this brief encounter for another one of their spin operations. They claim I – wait for it – “appear to roll my eyes” when the lady tells me she’s a teacher. Yes, it’s come to this: the media is now trying to turn my eyebrow movements into story lines.

I'm actually sympathetic toward her on this score. But you know what would have really won me over? If she'd compared this attention to her facial expressions with the attention also absurdly paid to the facial expressions of Al Franken by wingnut shit-stirrers.

But that would never happen. Not only because -- to use a phrase traditionally employed by gomers -- it doesn't fit the narrative, but because it would require Palin to show sympathy for someone other than herself.

And I've never seen her do that.

She does defend her kids, but only when she fantasizes that they've been attacked by the media -- which isn't really a sign of interest in their welfare, but of an interest in the exploitive possibilities of one's own family that would have embarrassed Richard "Checkers" Nixon.

In other people's families, she's less interested. When Palin talks about "mama grizzlies," for example, she's clearly not talking about any actual people whose families are under threat -- such as single mothers who, unlike Bristol Palin, find it increasingly difficult to provide for their young. Her videos show lots of women, but we never hear a thing about their lives.

The sort of vulnerable mothers you or I might think of in this context never come up in Palin's mythology. Rather, it's all about winners: Grizzlies observed in their moment of protective rage -- rage being something to which her biggest fans of either gender can relate; mothers who are victorious just because they're angry (assuming that whoever they're mad at isn't holding a big old gun on them).

She doesn't bring up these symbols of motherhood to make her listeners sensitive to motherhood's perils and pains. She does it only to reflect glory upon herself, and her own brave, motherly defense of her clan against David Letterman and The Family Guy.

I still expect Palin to run for President, but her apparently ineducability to her own limitations may be a drawback to her. I think her awful poll numbers have very little to do with her affect as a politician (I actually think she's got a pretty good schtick), or with her politics, though they are perhaps a little more dumbed-down than even ordinary Americans can tolerate, at least so far.

No, the big thing Palin seems not to know or even be capable of noticing, and which ignorance may sink her, is that, except for the densest and most depraved rubes, anyone can tell that she doesn't give a damn about anyone except herself.

SHORTER MEGAN McARDLE. People who want to tax the super-rich are just jealous. If you want real fairness, cut social programs for the poor.

(You want to know what the real Reagan legacy is? That in a country where top earners once had a 91 percent tax rate, people like McArdle portray a 35 percent top tax rate on bazillionaires as bizarre and cruelly unjust. And get away with it.)

NEW VOICE COLUMN UP, in which the rightblogger mishegas about the Prop 8 ruling, Michelle Obama's vacation, Mexicans and Muslims leads me to ask: Are conservatives a white people's movement? Yeah, I know, de facto they've always been, but recently haven't they observably given up even pretending?

I know they've got a few non-honky operatives, conservative blacks, gays, and what not, but from the way they use them -- like in those Tea Party scenes where they go, "See? We do so have African Americans!" -- it seems they've decided that minority representation is totally a symbolic thing, which one engineers to reassure one's white supporters that one's virtually minority-free movement is not racist.

But the lion's share of their rhetoric is turned toward denouncing the Other. You will hear far, far more from them about the damned blacks, Mexicans, etc., than you will about Paul Ryan's pathetic tax reform plan. Stack up their recent references to Ryan against those relating to the Ground Zero Mosque -- in both volume and ferocity -- and you'll see what I mean.

I usually try to be careful about saying such things, but fuck it: These people are counting on racism and homophobia to get elected. And it just might work.

DON'T YOU FUCKING LOOK AT ME! Did you mother ever tell you, "Don't give me that look?" Power Line's Scott Johnson thinks this is a good basis for political outrage:

[Senator Al] Franken was presiding over the Senate during [Senator Mitch] McConnell's approximately 10-minute speech. During the speech Franken was making faces, rolling his eyes, laughing to himself, throwing his head back and shaking his head, shifting his chair from one side to another, and making obvious theatrical movements displaying his disagreement with the speech.

First punchline:

Everyone in the chamber at the time was acutely aware of his absurd behavior. Given the limitations imposed on the C-SPAN cameras, we don't have video of Franken's antics.

In other contexts, of course, Johnson finds lack of video of an event proof that it didn't happen.

Perhaps sensing that even some of the zombies who take Power Line seriously won't consider eye-rolling an impeachable offense, Johnson adds some shady sources-say, indicating that this is not the end of Franken physiognomic crimes:

I was told that Franken has become notorious on Capitol Hill for incidents of this kind. He is described as someone who frequently becomes rageful and lacking in control over the behavior related to his emotions. He is susceptible to outbursts, involving Republican Senators as well as staffers, immediately following which he is consumed with regret. He fits the profile of a guy with serious anger management issues.

Given the context, not the mention the lack of any specific incidents in the report, maybe these "rageful" acts go from eye-rolling to eye-crossing, nostril-flaring, double-takes, spit-takes, and the Curly Shuffle.

Or maybe it's total bullshit. With these guys that's always a possibility.

Actually, as I thumb through the blistering notices of other rightbloggers who jumped on this story, it reminds me less of of maternal intolerance of backsass and more of the famous New York child-killer Joel Steinberg, who said he was driven to violence because the damn kid wouldn't stop staring at him.

UPDATE. Commenter lawnorder asks, "So rolling eyes is a crime but shouting 'liar' to the President is peachy?"

YOUR MOMENT OF GOLDBERG. Busy with paying work ("Moscow gold!" as Alexander Cockburn's father used to say, "Where was it when we needed it?") so I'll just leave you with a portion of Jonah G. in full foot-in-bucket mode, on the New York mosque tsimmis:

But, truth be told, I also suspect it’s not as big a deal as a lot of people are making it into, on either side of the question.

Update: A number of friendly readers take great exception to my “not as big a deal” line above. A few quick thoughts: I didn’t say it isn’t a big deal, I just said I didn’t think it is as big a deal as some are making it. I get a lot of email from folks telling me this is a sign of encroaching American Dhimmitude and surrender and whatnot. I don’t buy that. Nor do I buy the liberal line that this shows what a wonderful and tolerant country we are. I think Bloomberg et al. are acting more through cowardice and parochial groupthink than open-mindedness. I think that this is offensive, as I said. I don’t think this will be a P.R. coup around the world nor do I think it will a P.R. disaster. Rather, to the extent it has any impact at all, it will confirm to radical Muslims that we are weak. Moderate Muslims will probably interpret it many different ways. Some will agree with the radicals, some with Tom Friedman. Most, however, just won’t care.

I'm beginning to think Goldberg farts these things out -- literally, like Le Petomaine -- and some poor intern has to transcribe. Writers, take note: This is what happens when you try to split the difference between two points of view and you neither understand nor genuinely give a rat's ass about either one.

PROP 8 RULING: FIRST DELIGHTFUL RESPONSES. Good news about Prop 8, not only for America but also for followers of conservative bloggers, who have begun step up their game in response.

Gay Patriot consoles his constituents that this is "a huge boon to Republicans in the Golden State," who will "make inroads into certain segments of the Democratic base when some Democrats who supported Prop 8 see a Republicans criticizing a court which overturned by fiat an issue they passed with their ballots" and "reconsider their partisan affiliation." It's a good schtick -- not only to promise that Democrats who don't want no fags gittin' hitched nohow will run to the GOP, but also providing these refugees with the socially acceptable cover story that they're really just fleeing judicial activism.

Speaking of bullshit libertarianism, Michelle Malkin skrees that "the decision from Judge Vaughn Walker is no surprise if you watched his show trial antics over the last several months." Her link indicates that by "show trial" she means proposed delayed-video transmission of the proceedings. I thought the blogosphere was all about maximum freedom of information! Well, except for gay trials, I guess. And Wikileaks.

"Another flagrant and inexcusable exercise of ‘raw judicial power’ threatens to enflame and prolong the culture war ignited by the courts in the 1973 case of Roe v. Wade,” roars Robert P. George. "This usurpation of democratic authority must not be permitted to stand." He also finds the ruling a victory for "those who seek to advance still further the ideology of the sexual revolution." George, longtime readers will remember, is also against heterosexual adults choosing their own marriage partners, so it's been a hard couple of centuries for him.

Anything that gets Kathryn J. Lopez palpably shaking with rage brightens my day:

Actual quote from the ruling today: “Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage.”

This is a court ruling, not an academic seminar at Berkeley.

This isn’t about equality. This is about recreating our fundamental institutions.

Visions of same-sex in Berkeley (with the Jefferson Airplane on the stereo and the smell of patchouli in the air) will leave K-Lo thrashing on the daybed in her office for weeks to come.

UPDATE. Also from Twitterland:



UPDATE 2. Rather massively missing the point, Ben Howe: "Let's legalize gay marriage and open a gay marriage chapel next to the #GroundZeroMosque. Then we'll see who's tolerant." I wish New York would do just that, thus enabling the sort of frank and free streetcorner exchange of ideas that makes the city great, but I suppose the "gay marriage chapel" would be required by the terms of liberal pluralism to marry hets as well.

Or would they? Maybe it's like one of those things where black people get to sit at their own table in the school cafeteria. Good Lord, not only are conservatives kept down by black people, they're also victims of homoppression!

UPDATE 3. Oh oh, the brethren are finding out that the judge was gay. "Homosexual California judge overturns citizen amendment banning gay marriage," roars Bryan Longworth. Next they'll be letting lady judges rule on abortion.

UPDATE 4. More from Evan Hurst.

UPDATE 5. Jeff Goldstein wants you to know that when he slaps you with his cock, it's not a gay thing.

MONEY TALKS, BULLSHIT WALKS. As I've observed before, conservatives vacillate between delusions of grandeur and delusions of persecution, depending on their psychological need at any given moment. These days, with Obama's poll numbers down, they're on the peppy side of the mood swing, and think they can do anything. At Ricochet, Peter Robinson:

Here on Ricochet the other day, Conor Friedersdorf asked, in effect, What would it take? What would those behind the mosque at ground zero have to do to demonstrate good faith? An arresting question. If the organizers of “Cordoba House” would publish the following brief manifesto, I’ve decided, I would welcome them to lower Manhattan. Heck. I’d contribute a hundred bucks to their construction fund.

Robinson then supplies a script for the mosquers to mouth, including much shit-eating and a declaration that "we will accept no Saudi funding whatsoever" (which, oddly, does not include an invitation to the Bush Family to do likewise).

Josh Treviño has been tweeting his own demands: "In exchange for the "Ground Zero mosque," Cordoba/ASMA could cover the legal bills of the Christian evangelists arrested in Dearborn... In exchange for the "Ground Zero mosque," Cordoba/ASMA could advocate for religious liberty in Saudi Arabia..."

They're acting as if they have anything to say about it. But Mike Bloomberg wants the mosque -- and, as one may observe by watching, Bloomberg gets what he wants, unless the complicating factor (as with the West Side Stadium project) is money.

And money isn't in it this time. No conservative group is going to make a serious counter-offer for the space. And none will ever be made. Because all their righteous yelling about those damn Mooslims isn't meant to stop the project -- it's meant to exploit it, so that their honky base will know that whenever White Christian America was under attack by liberals, conservatives were there, standing athwart everything crying, "Restricted!"

Whatever happens, one side will feel outrage and another will feel vindication. But in the end the disposition of the mosque, like so many of our allegedly moral issues, will be settled by money. Conservatives think they deserve a seat at the table, but it's covered with green felt and they simply don't have the chips.

BREAKING: OBAMA USES NEGRO CODE TO RILE THE SAVAGES! neo-neocon informs us of the latest racist attack by President Obama on white people:

"…[T]hey’re betting on amnesia. That’s what they’re counting on. They’re counting on that you all forgot. They think that they can run the okey-doke on you. Bamboozle you."

Like many of Obama’s most revealing remarks, these were made at a Democratic fundraiser, this time in Atlanta. And the word “bamboozle” is an especially nice touch, harking back to a famous scene in Spike Lee’s film “Malcolm X,” a reference that would most likely be recognized by a great many people in his Atlanta audience...

[NOTE: Obama has been called on this before, during the 2008 campaign, when he used “bamboozled” and “hoodwinked” repeatedly to describe the actions of opponents (see also this).]

Stay tuned -- I understand Stanley Kurtz has documentary evidence of Obama using lines from Car Wash and Three the Hard Way.

UPDATE. In case you don't want to get out of the boat, I will add neo-neocon's explanatory passage: "Rest assured that Obama (who has used these phrases quite a few times to describe his enemies) is aware of the racial code he’s employing, and what it means to many of the black people in his audience." Because black people are the real racists, and also primitives who can't control themselves when they hear magic words like "bamboozle" and "ungawa."

neo-neocon claims a "background as a therapist," so I guess we can include her among our previously-noted squad of volunteer rightwing shrinks. This bunch really needs a name. How about the New Serbsky Unit?

UPDATE 2. Something called ...With Both Hands gets in on it:

Who the hell ever uses Bamboozle, besides W. C. Fields and Spike Lee?... Please, President Obama,quit dropping your Gs, Mr. President, please on the verbals please, especially the gerunds and deverbals! Don't abort the Gs! Let them come to full-term...

...With Both Hands treats the angle neo-neocon didn't get to: The way these people talk. I'm waiting now for some cowboy to take it further. Do they have wifi in klaverns?

THE CONSERVATIVE COMEBACK, PART 54,993 -- MUSLIM-HATERS EDITION.Thanks to the completely normal actions of the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission in refusing to block the Park Place mosque, conservatives switched from attacking black people for their racism to attacking Muslims because they were all in on 9/11.

Though I can be convinced that these people are actual bigots, the way they zip from one kind of racial appeal to another like paparazzi chasing a celebrity suggests that they don't have any feelings about any particular race, but are just eager to jump on any opportunity to energize the white yahoo vote, which is their most reliable constituency.

You can see it in the formulaic outrage signifiers put up by people like Jennifer Rubin at Commentary. Rubin's always a horrible propagandist, but her shit today is really paint by numbers.

The left continues to feign confusion (it is hard to believe its pundits are really this muddled) as to the reasons why conservatives (and a majority of fellow citizens) oppose the Ground Zero mosque. No, it’s not about “religious freedom” — we’re talking about the location of the mosque on the ash-strewn site of 3,000 dead Americans.

Nice italics! Also, bullshit. The proposed site's a block over and a block up from Ground Zero. I've trod that turf many times, as do thousands of people every day, and they're not marching somberly and crying "Never Forget" but going to work. There's a Cohen's Optical there, and a Starbucks. Shall we smite them for making lattes and eyeglasses on the ash-strewn site of 3,000 dead Americans?

Ugh, God, how she goes on:

Again, no one is telling Muslims not to build or pray in mosques; we on the right are simply asking them not to do it in the location where Islam was the inspiration for mass murder.

By that reasoning, the city should put up flyers around Catholic churches that read SEX OFFENDER LIVES HERE.

And I certainly do believe “you are either for us or you are for them” — when it comes to Israel and to America. That this notion disturbs the left tells you precisely why it is estranged from the vast majority of Israelis and Americans.

It's pretty creepy the way she keeps saying, Yeah, don't fuck with America -- and Israel! I wonder if she does this during her regular life? Only in America -- and Israel! God bless America -- and Israel! Counting the cars on the New Jersey turnpike, they've all come to look for America -- and Israel!

Apparently she does:

But the left – which has become obsessed with universalism and finds particularism and nationalism noxious – thinks it unseemly for Americans to look after the interests of Americans, and Jews to look after Jews (as to the latter, we can only be grateful that so many pro-Zionist Christians do as well).

I didn't know only Jews died at the World Trade Center. Looks like the Times owes Retracto a big correction! Bonus points for getting the millenarians in there -- and so what if they only love Israel as a staging ground for the Apocalypse? You know it's Moses, I know it's Moses -- business is business!

Maybe the left is simply being oppositional — i.e., whatever the right believes is wrong.

Gotta admit, we're batting a thousand so far.

But if not, it is, quite vividly, advertising its own intellectual crack-up and unfitness to govern.

No offense, honey, but we don't sound like the ones cracking up.

UPDATE. Jay B in comments: "You know what else is blocks away from Ground Zero and lavishly funds every crooked Arab shiek and shady international billionaire? Wall St."

BEEN A WHILE since I looked at Lileks, and I thank Robert Kempe for pointing this out:

...At the Disney stores you can find all manner of Grumpy-branched merch, intended to tell the world you’re pretty much contemptuous of everything that impinges on your definition of how the world ought to work, and we should not hold you accountable for your moody, difficult, anti-social behavior because you have identified with a cartoon character intended to express a narrowly defined emotional condition. Got it!

Holy Jesus, he's complaining about the malcontents who wear Grumpy shirts. Don't they have hipsters that he can yell at in Minneapolis? It's like those family comic strips where the Bad Kids are still dressed like Seattle grunge rockers.

Clearly I'm not spending enough time on the internet.

UPDATE: Oh and:

Which is a roundabout way of saying the only Disney shirt I’ll wear around the Kingdoms is a Classic Mickey.

By which I'm sure he means Mickey Kaus. Mickey Kaus! (Howard Kurtz!) Mickey Kaus! (Howard Kurtz!) For others let us keep our standards high! BTW here's Kurtz on the nastiness of the modern world. Conservatives poison the airwaves, and liberals had "an off-the-record discussion group." Can't we all just throw our weapons down?

NEW VOICE COLUMN UP, in which I survey the recent spate of New American Revolution stories like that wacky "Will Washington's Failures Lead To Second American Revolution?" thing at IBD. This stuff sounds slightly crazier than usual to me, and I begin to wonder whether the strategy is to drop a lot of revolutionary ravings in the blogs, where not much of anyone will see them, and then claim when the Republicans pick up seats that this proves America has judged Obama a tyrant who must be impeached, at least. Let's just go with the simplest explanation: They're nuts.