Selling soap

The conservative movement is founded on twin implausible literary pillars.

One is Ayn Rand's fictional philosophy, epitomized by the execrable and ridiculous Atlas Shrugged. Calling it literary immediately demands an episode from Leonard Pinth-Garnell.

The other is an ossified literal reading of a notoriously dated translation into English of the bible. At least it has true literary merit, but anyone who labels it the inerrant word of god is either whoppingly ironic or resolutely opposed to learning. The King James translation was done a millennium and a half after the New Testament was written, written often by authors who lied about who they were and whose works have been canonized more theologically and politically than historically.

It's no surprise then that conservative Republicans in the House today spin tales they can't substantiate to outraged true believers.

Congressional investigators have not produced evidence to link the harassment of conservative groups to the White House or to higher-ups in the Obama administration. But the lack of evidence that any political appointee was involved hasn’t stopped the lawmakers from assuming that it simply must be true. And so, they are going to hold hearings until they confirm their conclusions.

Americans love soap operas. Who cares that these daytime dramas are at best semi-plausible half-truths!

What John McCain means

When John McCain praises Jon Kyl as "a decent & principled man," he means that Kyl is not a bigger asshole than the usual run of unreasonable, unreasoning, and impossible-to-reason-with Republicans.

Invented the Internet

On behalf of the big media, Dana Milbank reports the complete and total bullshit coming from Arizona Governor Jan Brewer (R-pearls of a swine) - with a dollop from Sen. John McCain (R-not a maverick). (Of course, he doesn't credit the liberal blogosphere, which has been on this story for a while.)

But tomorrow or the next day, she'll be on TV again, and no one will impugn her credibility despite her repeated willingness to justify her policy on the basis of lies.

This media laxity, not ever extended to a Democrat, is why Democrats must every day call out Republicans for their lies. The media won't help. They're too busy protecting their sources and proving they're not liberal. Democrats have to stop being polite in the face of unregenerate, unremorseful liars.

"You're well known, Gov. Brewer, to state the most breath-taking falsehoods as the basis for your immigration policy. Why should anyone believe a single word you ever say?"

The only alternative is to accept that American politics will continue to be driven by unrebutted lies.

Beating the hell out of WaPo

I'm looking for journalism that's a few steps up from mere transcription of official remarks. The Washington Post seems to be having a lot of trouble with that lately.

I once was confident the Post would survive the current vicious shakeout. Now I'm not so sure. With

• this proffer by Katharine Weymouth of Establishment access,
  
• this perennial blindness from Howard Kurtz
• in defense of this misleading tantrum of spite from Dana Milbank,
  
• and this ideological purge of Dan Froomkin,

the Post is a hollow shell of its former self - and you don't even have to consider the neocon dominance that makes its editorial and op-ed pages irrelevant in the real world.

Here's one more small example in the death of a thousand cuts.

This CNN report on the Air France Airbus 330 crash over the South Atlantic is far clearer about what we know and what we don't know than this reprinted Washington Post story. The Post story, which is supposed to be straight news, is more concerned about reassurance than facts:

[T]he 216 passengers and 16 crew on AF447 from Rio de Janeiro to Paris were probably unaware during their final minutes that they were speeding from 35,000 feet toward the deadly crash.

Even if the investigator implied this, which I doubt, it's bullshit. You can't fall that far without noticing that something is very wrong. I can't understand how any writer could fail to know this. He's a foreign correspondent, so he's been on a plane before. Surely he's noticed the tremendously more subtle but still plain-as-day moment when a plane starts its controlled descent.

The CNN story, although labelled an analysis, is factual and evinces the writer's prior knowledge:

Not only did the passengers have no reason to expect to ditch, but with the aircraft out of control it may have been impossible for them to reach them due to high G-forces.

What neither of them reports, presumably because the facts are still unknown or unproven, is what trajectory the aircraft took to its ditching point and whether it had any forward airspeed.

The one scenario I'm aware of that is consistent with what little we know is an uncontrollable flat spin to a pancake crash. My reasoning:

• Landing belly down means the plane was not ballistic.
• Vertical crushing means vertical speed dominated over forward speed.

Yeah, it's not much, and I don't know much about this subject, which is why I'd like to hear more from Kieran Daly. The Post? How is it relevant?

David Vitter watch, day 608

Vitter suggested Wednesday the report was overblown.

It's not the only thing. That girl sent by the DC Madam accidentally fell on him mouth first.

How he set off the jetway alarm doesn't matter that much to me. After two prostitution scandals, both of which involved the use of his wife's name by the paid talent, he still represents himself in the Senate as a social conservative in the anti-sex party. And the Republicans still press him to their breasts. That matters.

Hypocrisy is inextricably woven into Republican DNA. It's a legacy of their one true conviction and interest - that rich people should have an easier life, and that the very, very rich should have it very, very easy. To win with that, they have to hide from day one their real platform, and it makes them as comfortable with the stinkiest bullshit as a coprophagous hound dog.

If you need an example to illustrate, there's a particularly appropriate one from David Vitter. He used parliamentary maneuvers to try to scotch the spending bill in the Senate with a poison pill vote to maintain automatic Congressional pay raises. When Harry Reid responded with a separate measure that agreed with Vitter and stopped the pay raises, Vitter said this:

"Pure partisanship for partisanship sake and political games and a cynical approach," he railed yesterday morning on the Senate floor. "Maneuvering and cynical political games," he repeated, looking into the C-SPAN camera in the gallery. "It's a cynical maneuver. . . . What's swirling around my amendment is a cynical political game."

This is a guy who could fuck you and then pillory you for adultery.

Truth comes out

Dana Milbank makes the mistake of believing his own paper's reporting. What he reveals is that the Washington press corps is oh-so-tired of trying to keep up with Obama's full schedule. And some of the vain and fickle reporters are starting to not like the work. Poor babies.

They call Obama arrogant

I'm actually glad David Addington and John Yoo took their surly, unaccountable Bushism before Congress. Maybe if they piss off enough Representatives and Senators, those two war criminals among others will wind up hog-tied on a slow boat to the Hague.

There is very little in intent that distinguishes the Bushists from Vladimir Putin (or even Robert Mugabe). Sadly, there is very little in effectiveness that distinguishes our Congress from the Duma or whatever rubberstamp legislature Mugabe is bullying at the moment.

I am dying to hear these words, "Sergeant-at-Arms, take these men into custody."

Lipstick on a pig

If the GOP succeeds at this lame attempt to whitewash the damned spot of its culpability, those of us who again remain sane will need some serious antidepressants (not just something to give us better boehners). The change we deserve is much, much greater than anything the Republicans would ever be willing to deliver.

David Vitter watch, day 273 (or so)

Vitter's (imaginary) testimony:

"Sen. Vitter, is it true that you possess a penis?" asked prosecutor Daniel Butler.

"Yes, though my wife did make some threats."

"No vagina in your other pair of pants?"

"Mr. Butler!" remonstrated Judge James Robertson.

"I apologize for my co-counsel, your honor," said Catherine Connelly. "We have no further questions for this witness. There is a 63-year-old woman I need to ask about her menses."

"Sen. Vitter, you're excused."

"Thank you for your discretion, your honor."

There's a reason what we're getting is called 'titillation'. Women have 'em.