I have a theory about the conservative noise machine

I think that periodically the GOP spinmeisters come up with screwy neologisms just to see if they can get the Kool-Aid drinkers to follow along. Remember back in the 90's when conservatives all started talking about the "Democrat Party"? Not just talking heads, mind you- one day all the conservatives I argued with just started saying "Democrat party". Even more amusing is the fact that after a while they all just stopped, once the spinmeisters got tired of the joke. You would think that if all the conservatives had started saying "Democrat party" because they thought it made sense or something, then they wouldn't have all stopped in lockstep like that. Maybe there would be a few stragglers, if they were actually thinking for themselves. Stay tuned for the "Gree party".

Even better is "homicide bomber." The ostensible logic is that calling them "suicide bombers" is too sympathetic and touchy-feely, so we need to call them "homicide bombers" in order to remind everyone that these people are murderers. But the problem is that Americans have always been really been creeped out by the suicide angle. It's not like "suicide" in this context really brings to mind a depressed teenager making a desperate call for help. The media is full of discussion of what drives people to become suicide bombers because in American culture, the idea of embracing certain death in order to advance a cause just doesn't add up. This is true even when you divorce suicide attacks from the context of terrorism. Kamikaze pilots are a source of enduring fascination for Americans, but aside from the suicide angle, they were soldiers just like our own troops were. The suicide, and suicide alone, marks them as crazy. Using the term "homicide bomber" is not only redundant to the point of silliness, it actually defuses the reality of the situation. It's like saying, "You liberals think these are Kamikaze pilots? Ha! Real Americans call 'em Japanese Air Force pilots!"

Hence the conclusion that "homicide bomber" was actually proposed by the spinmeisters as a bar bet. If they really wanted to demonize terrorists, they'd call them "suicide fanatics" or something like that. But "homicide bomber"?

The brilliance of WaPo continues unabated.

From a recent online chat with Dana Priest on 5/11/06:

Anonymous: Dana - How does the NSA data "drift net" that
was exposed today differ from the Total Information Awareness (TIA) program led
by Poindexter that was supposedly disbanded? Did the Pentagon just continue the
program under a different name?

Dana Priest: That's a possibility. We don't know yet.

From Newsweek, 2/8/06:

Yet today, very quietly, the core of TIA survives with a new codename of
Topsail (minus the futures market), two officials privy to the intelligence
tell NEWSWEEK.

Of course, those who read liberal blogs already knew that, since Rumsfeld openly bragged about how they were going to keep TIA going under the radar, and all that.

Remind me again how Dana Priest earns her paycheck? Isn't a journalist supposed to know all about big, controversial front-page issues?

If Bush is not impeached, then America is no longer a democracy.

The Democrats are now reduced to proposing new laws saying Bush has to follow the old laws. If they're passed, Bush will simply sign them into law- along with a signing statement saying that he doesn't have to follow them, either.

The simple fact is that Bush is the only President ever to openly admit to committing an impeachable felony. Impeachable offenses are humdrum, workaday behavior for Shrubco. On over seven hundred occasions Bush has written signing statements in which he signs a new bill into law- and then amends it, unconstitutionally, to say that he doesn't have to follow the law.

If Bush isn't impeached, then America simply isn't a democracy. It's a dictatorship, and no amount of bicameral window dressing will change that fact, however much it may help the average American sleep at night. Remember Sinclair Lewis and It Can't Happen Here: the first thing President Buzz Windrip did was to reduce Congress and the courts to an "advisory capacity." A bit of garnish, like parsley, with no nutritional value, but it makes the plate of rat poison look so very pretty.

The fact of the matter is that it's shameful that the Democrats haven't done anything, and the fact that they haven't proves that they aren't interested in democracy, or even in personal power. The Democrats are the Alan Colmeses of Congress- they are happy to warm seats as whipping-boys for the Nazanderthals. The fact that they are in the minority means nothing. African Americans were in the minority in the 1960's south, and unlike the Democrats, they weren't pampered. And they won. What are you people afraid of? That Karl Rove will say nasty things about you? Then what will you do when they bring out the police dogs?

When the President has become a dictator, you stop him. I don't care if you filibuster every single bill that comes before Congress. I don't care if you chain yourself to the podium. You just do it.

My plan is simple. The Democrats get one last chance, because I'm grasping at straws. When they win both houses of Congress in November, they impeach Bush and Cheney. Period. And if they don't do that, we never vote Democrat again. Why throw away our votes on parsley, when we could vote Green?

If you want your democracy back, make one thing clear to your representatives in Congress: once they're the majority party, either Bush is impeached, or the Democratic party and the Greens are going to trade places.

Let Suemageddon begin!

Peter Swire and Judd Legum at ThinkProgress have an important observation on the recent revelation that the telecom companies have been helping Bush commit millions of impeachable offenses*:

"The penalty for violating the Stored Communications Act is $1000 per individual violation."

(Actually it turns out to be a $1000 minimum.)

Hey guys- free money!

It reminds me of those movies in which someone foils the bad guys by tossing a fistful of money in the air, so that all the bystanders immediately glom together into an impassable crowd. Surely, surely there are some ambulance chasers out there who are willing to bring a series of class-action lawsuits that could drive these fascist toadies to bankruptcy.

* You know, I've seen a graph of Bush's approval rating over time, and a graph of fluctuating gasoline prices, but isn't it time for a graph of impeachable offenses? We could have two versions: one for impeachable offenses per month, and another for his cumulative total over time.)

Pathologizing Dissent, revisited

Don't miss Paul Krugman's article on "loony conspiracy theories," excerpted by Atrios. It has a great deal to say about how the pathologization of dissent has become part of the landscape of political discourse. (And don't miss the excellent comment left by an anonymous reader of Archie-Archie.)

Two-headed cerberus, part 7: No true Scotsman

One of the recurring debates of the Internet goes like this:

Fundagelical: Christians are more moral than atheists.

Skeptic: Torquemada was a Christian.

Fundagelical: He wasn't a true Christian. Maybe if you had read the Bible, you would know that already.

Skeptic: You're just using the No True Scotsman fallacy.

If you ask me, this isn't so much a case of the No True Scotsman fallacy as a case of comparing apples and oranges. The No True Scotsman fallacy involves ambiguity of definitions. To the fundagelical, there is no ambiguity: Torquemada simply wasn't a Christian. The real fallacy is comparing apples and oranges: "Christian" is defined as "everyone who follows my teachings, which I pretend originated with Jesus," while "atheist" is defined as "anyone who doesn't believe in God." One could similarly declare- legitimately- that a "Secular Humanist" is anyone who truly follows the Humanist Manifesto, and conclude- illegitimately- that Secular Humanists are more moral than theists.

Even granting that the fundagelicals are identifying the N.T.S. fallacy correctly, the Skeptics have no real understanding of the fallacy. Their understanding is that when they hear the trigger phrase "Torquemada was a Christian," they reflexifely cry "No true Scotsman!"

You want proof? Here's another little debate that plays itself out time and again, particularly in the days immediately after 9/11:

Fundagelical: Islam isn't a religion of peace- just look at Osama bin Laden!

Skeptic: Osama isn't a real Muslim.

How stupid do the Skeptics have to be in order to say that? All along they've been attacking the fundagelicals for saying that Torquemada wasn't a Christian. Doesn't it give them pause to say that Osama isn't a Muslim? No, not a bit. Remember: they aren't thinking at all. They're just operating on reflex, coughing up canned replies in response to the appropriate keywords, just like Eliza. If they were really thinking, and were really honest about what they belive, then they would declare that most Muslims are shocked by 9-11, just as most Christians are shocked by the bombings of abortion clinics. But, unfortunately, that would require conscious thought.

And don't forget that I'm criticising the Skeptical subculture on the grounds that so many of its members aren't really skeptical. How do you think the Skeptics will rebut my argument?

"I do imagine, however, that there are plenty of people out there who dislike religion or fundamentalist versions of religion, and who happily parrot people like Dawkins, but who’ve not done the analysis of evidence and so on, and who, ultimately, take it on faith that that biblical fundamentalists are wacky. They’re not skeptics, though. They’re just people with axes to grind."