The style book here at Who Is IOZ? typically demands that we wrap our ad hominems in wordy, literary hoo-de-doo, but sometimes you've just got to ask: Lady, are you really this fucking dumb?
Obviously, I'm not the only one who can't for the life of me figure out why the congress is doing this.To which we reply, no, dear. You are the only one: the only breathing creature left on this hurtling ball of rock, water, and bad karma to fail to grasp that the Democrats, just like the Republicans, keep voting to increase the powers of government and of the Executive in particular because they believe in and desire a more powerful and ubiquitous government and a more powerful executive in particular.
And what's particularly delicious is that your Hillary Clintons and your Barack Obamas and your Democratic Congresscreatures all see the plain future of 2008, in which yawning fools like Digby and chirping careerists like Markos Moulitas and a whole passel of other Netrootsian Democrats, all of whom are ever and always along for the ride, doing their damndest to put a Democrat in charge of it all! They're front-loading everything and the kitchen sink into the swollen gift-bag of Executive power so that the Clinton dynasty can expand magisterially into its role and worry about important things, like new rugs and china. The Democratic candidates all understand that they could rape babies in Times Square, and Glenn Greenwald would write a post about how the George W. Bush administration has done unprecedented damage to the convention against baby rape; Digby would write a post beginning with "I can't for the life of me figure out . . ."; Atrios would write a one-sentence post that says, "Remind me why we're raping babies again?"; FireDogLake would ignore the baby raping to live-blog "Joseph Wilson has totally hot sex with his hot wife"; DailyKos would explain to us how electing John McNobody in the Million-and-First district of rural Northern California will prove that Joe Lieberman is a bad man; the folks over at The Poor Man will blame it on "The New Naderism"; Lawyers, Guns, and Money will explain that Libertarians R Stoopid; and Josh Marshall will surprise us by pointing out that this one Republican, he totally, like, lied one time, and we can prove it!
If I might crib shamelessly from the Progblog book of stock phraseology: These are not serious people. I mean, who has to goose-step down fucking Main Street before they understand that there are no Democrats; there are no Republicans. There's only the government, and it's not your friend.
25 comments:
you're quite the clueless lady, ioz.
I would amend your final sentence to read "There's only the government, and the large corporations and other interests that own it, and they are not your friend."
i [heart] brian.
Brian, how 'bout "there's only an incestuous timocracy" ? It has the virtue of brevity and covers the same ground.
Hey, now - it looks like Sifu Mumia Abu-Tweety Fish has started posting at the Poor Man. I'm holding out hope for Noam Editorsky to follow close behind.
Would Crooks & Liars have a video clip of it?
works for me, Scruggs :)
I think Marcotte is giving Digby a run for her money in the stupid sweepstakes.
Welcome to the Crazy Edie Feminist Fire Sale For Hilary '08 !! We cannot be undersold !!! Everything must go and no offer will be refused !! Millions more women around the world must be bombed to bits in order to halt partiarchy and that sort of commitment doesn't come cheap. So give give give !!!
[Groan.]
First, good post. Damn good post.
But, I have to say, I like The Poor Man.
So, you would be.... cynical then?
Nothing is as pertinent as saying everything and everyone. is hosed.
No Democrats, No Republican, nothing... nothing at all.
Yep, that's some real insight ya got going here.
Hey, nonny, nonny,
Saying that Democrats and Republicans comprise "everything and everyone" is something of an incorrect assumption on your part. So it's not cynicism, see.
And clearly you haven't noticed IOZ's crushes on Republican Ron Paul (professionally) and Democrat Mike Gravel (they'll keep it professional, wink wink).
But hey, if you want to declare it cynical and tossing everything out, because that doesn't harm your Democrats-are-good worldview, go for it!
"So, you would be.... cynical then? " Etc.. .
There's the voice of someone who's eager for another bilking at the three card monte table, can't admit it and wants company to give it a socially acceptable veneer. The aggrieved yet hopeful nebbish schtick always turns snotty when the propriety of being a chump is questioned. In a limited way, it's superior to the wingnut tactic of arguing from the angry and stupid schnorrer perspective. But it comes from the same place.
"No Democrats, No Republican, nothing... nothing at all."
Why is that familiar . . .
Ah. Yes.
"I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty."
Why does healthy, anti-partisan skepticism have to devolve into smug libertarianism? Honest to God, those damned functional bridges in Europe and Japan must be intolerable for all the non-friendly "government" that went into them.
Oh, goodness.
It might interest you to know, dearie, that the French system of road construction and maintenance is more thoroughly privatized than it is in the States. In fact, some of us smug libertarians point to it as a model for infrastructure improvements in these here United States of America.
It might interest you, but we rather doubt it does.
Oh, I'm interested-- France's form of privatization on limited forms of infrastructure has shown some virtues. The Big Dig tiles looming over my car as I drive on 1-93 are enough for me to suspect government contracts and oversight. But in the American context, "the government is not your friend" is Reaganite soma that precludes more concrete thinking about public-private ventures. Are there equivalent Democrat doses of delusion? Of course. I just think politically this line places you squarely in your own satire of ineffective politics along with Josh Marshall, FireLapDog, etc.
equivalent Democrat delusions?
Oh come on! hundreds of thousands of dead because Democratic foreign policy was "worth it." Slave-trading drug dealers and ethnic cleansers in power in Kosovo because of our "successful" Democratic intervention. Vietnam War. Korean War. Arguably World War II. Your lovely Party is 110% built on delusions. delusion after delusion after delusion. Exhibit One: Hillary Clinton and Barack Obomba as "progressives" in any way.
Me likee.
Me likee lots.
Me have small mind but me see truth too.
Why not dem Dem lackeys see it?
hey Brian,
The figure is over 1 million dead. And that's just over in Iraq, not counting US military or US contractor deaths.
And John Conyers says it's all worth it, to get a Democrat in the White House in 2008.
This is what the Democrats are: Soylent Green.
(the movie, not the food that gives the movie its title)
If I'd have known we were talking in the realm of pure forms, I'd've worn a bathing suit.
Bitsy Powell --
I just think politically this line places you squarely in your own satire of ineffective politics along with Josh Marshall, FireLapDog, etc.
Then what would you label as "effective" politics?
Glenn "on my knees for the DLC" Greenwald?
So what's your prescription, IOZ?
I don't know about prescriptions, kiddo, but I do drink.
Lady, are you really this fucking dumb?
Reliably.
Post a Comment