Stump Lane
in the dirt since history began

SOME THINGS ANNOY Your Montag.

What is this?

1. Obama’s $3 million glorified overhead projector?
2. A tool for science education?
3. Bounty hunter turned club DJ, IG-88?
4. A great way to teach our littlest soldiers celestial navigation for use on the battlefields of tomorrow?

Let’s face it, we all know what it is. It’s a perfect example of the vacuous political bumblespeak of our rulers. What does John McCain take us for when he mentions this fucking thing three times in two presidential debates?

Don’t answer that.

[H/T: Pharyngula]

Could John McCain be the candidate to bring the flight suit back into fashion, after George Bush ruined it for everyone?

SO JOHN McCAIN had a hissy fit and firebombed the Wall Street bailout negotiations at the White House, all in hopes of weaseling out of the tonight’s scheduled presidential debate. That’s not Maverick at all!

But wait! Your Montag opposes the $700 billion $1.3 trillion Wall Street bailout. I’d even go as far as to liken it to giving one’s gambling addicted uncle a hundred bucks to “help” him out of a $100,000 hole, as if the hundred grand he borrowed from a loan shark to cover his debts was ever “his” to lose in the first place.

Destroyed wealth, in the parlance of our times, was never “wealth,” has not been “destroyed,” and was hardly more than nothing to begin with. Considering all the money that’s riding on “it,” “it” is now less than nothing.

So, when the debate in the halls of power seemed to be going like this…

“We must give billions of dollars to Wall Street no questions asked!”

“That is absurd, my good friend, to the contrary, we must give billions of dollars to Wall Street no strings attached!”

…maybe firebombing the negotiations was Maverick after all.

Perhaps we’ll be able to tell from what the McCain’s political opponents had to say about it:

“This is the presidential campaign of John McCain undermining what Hank Paulson tells us is essential for the country,” [whined] Barney Frank, the Massachusetts congressman who had been leading negotiations for the Democrats. “This is McCain at the last minute getting House Republicans to undermine the Paulson approach.”

Obama also [whined.] “When you start injecting presidential politics into delicate negotiations you actually start creating more problems,” he said.

[The Guardian: John McCain 'undermining' bail-out to lift campaign]

Yeah, upon further reflection, it was Maverick as hell!

But wait! We can’t go by what meanie political opponents say about the Maverick. It’s all a crock. McCain didn’t firebomb the negotiations at all. (Donald Douglas of American Power quotes Jennifer Rubin citing a statement from the McCain campaign:

At today’s cabinet meeting, John McCain did not attack any proposal or endorse any plan. John McCain simply urged that for any proposal to enjoy the confidence of the American people, stressing that all sides would have to cooperate and build a bipartisan consensus for a solution that protects taxpayers.

[American Power]

The official position of the McCain campaign is that John McCain offered no proposal, endorsed no proposal, offering instead [NOTHING OF SUBSTANCE] for input. Not Maverick.

There’s no there there, folks. Like the house of cards we lovingly call Wall Street, there is no Truth in these Rorschachian presidential politics.

Since there is no truth, or substance, or Maverickness in this post so far, Your Montag will now make it up to you with humorous dialog from some mid-nineties hipster independent film, that maybe only I remember. Is it the one where Eric Stoltz downs a fifth of vodka (all at once!) and claims his first memory to be of the birth canal? Maybe. But this post isn’t about no birth canal. Here we have the Quentin Tarrantino cameo Top Gun monologue. Though it may not be Maverick, it is fairly punk rock, (the character’s name is Sid, even!)

[Note: Now with less reading! See update below for video.]

Sid: You want subversion on a massive level. You know what one of the greatest fucking scripts ever written in the history of Hollywood is? Top Gun.
Duane: Oh, come on.
Sid: Top Gun is fucking great. What is Top Gun? You think it’s a story about a bunch of fighter pilots.
Duane: It’s about a bunch of guys waving their dicks around.
Sid: It is a story about a man’s struggle with his own homosexuality. It is! That is what Top Gun is about, man. You’ve got Maverick, all right? He’s on the edge, man. He’s right on the fucking line, all right? And you’ve got Iceman, and all his crew. They’re gay, they represent the gay man, all right? And they’re saying, go, go the gay way, go the gay way. He could go both ways.
Duane: What about Kelly McGillis?
Sid: Kelly McGillis, she’s heterosexuality. She’s saying: no, no, no, no, no, no, go the normal way, play by the rules, go the normal way. They’re saying no, go the gay way, be the gay way, go for the gay way, all right? That is what’s going on throughout that whole movie… He goes to her house, all right? It looks like they’re going to have sex, you know, they’re just kind of sitting back, he’s takin’ a shower and everything. They don’t have sex. He gets on the motorcycle, drives away. She’s like, “What the fuck, what the fuck is going on here?” Next scene, next scene you see her, she’s in the elevator, she is dressed like a guy. She’s got the cap on, she’s got the aviator glasses, she’s wearing the same jacket that the Iceman wears. She is, okay, this is how I gotta get this guy, this guy’s going towards the gay way, I gotta bring him back, I gotta bring him back from the gay way, so I’ll do that through subterfuge, I’m gonna dress like a man. All right? That is how she approaches it. Okay, now let me just ask you – I’m gonna digress for two seconds here. I met this girl Amy here, she’s like floating around here and everything. Now, she just got divorced, right? All right, but the REAL ending of the movie is when they fight the MIGs at the end, all right? Because he has passed over into the gay way. They are this gay fighting fucking force, all right? And they’re beating the Russians, the gays are beating the Russians. And it’s over, and they fucking land, and Iceman’s been trying to get Maverick the entire time, and finally, he’s got him, all right? And what is the last fucking line that they have together? They’re all hugging and kissing and happy with each other, and Ice comes up to Maverick, and he says, “Man, you can ride my tail, anytime!” And what does Maverick say? “You can ride mine!” Swordfight! Swordfight! Fuckin’ A, man!

[IMDb: Sleep with Me (1994) - Memorable quotes]

UPDATE:

I DON’T WANT Sarah Palin anywhere near the levers of imperial power, but then again, I wouldn’t want anybody at those levers if we could help it.

Do we really want to disqualify people who don’t know the Bush Doctrine from running for office?

Palin apparently stumbled when quizzed about the Bush Doctrine, however, while still insane from an anti-imperialist perspective, (ie: a perspective from which one might support, say, a war against Russia only if their troops presumably “hell-bent on destroying our nation,” were streaming across the Bering Strait to invade the Homeland,) Palin’s phrasing actually seems less insane than the actual Bush Doctrine.

Palin:

“If there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend.”

[SFGate: Palin would support war with Russia]

Less insane than justifying an invasion, after the fact, with, ‘well he wanted weapons of mass destruction.’ That’s a Thought Crime! I mean, this Bush Doctrine is some real Minority Report shit.

Of course, there seems to be an ample amount of crazy going around in the violently defending the United States’ imperial interests is “God’s work” department.

ISSUE: The rules that require us to report to a secret court that issues warrants which allow us to secretly monitor the communications of our citizens are too restrictive of our ability to protect the country from terrorism.

REASONABLE REPUBLICAN ARGUMENT: We need greater flexibility to monitor these communications without first getting a warrant from the secret court. AND… Corporations who may have helped us monitor communications in the past should be protected from civil lawsuits brought by their customers who may have been subject to unwarranted surveillance.

REASONABLE DEMOCRAT ARGUMENT: Greater flexibility to secretly monitor the communications of our citizens is perfectly reasonable, so going forward we should eliminate the need of first getting a warrant. HOWEVER… Corporations shouldn’t automatically get retroactive immunity for helping us do this in the past when it used to be illegal.

UNHINGED OFF-THE-MAP LUNATIC ARGUMENT: There’s a secret court to allow the government to spy on people?! WHAT THE FUCK? That’s bizarre and frightening. Look, we should be demanding more transparency in government, not less. If our society worked they way they told us it would in 9th grade Civics class, at the very least, “they” should have to go to a regular, non-secret court and get a warrant before conducting this kind of surveillance. In reality, however, “they” can’t be trusted with the power that “they” already wield, let alone even more.

McCAIN HAD some ‘splaining to do yesterday after he said we send troops to the Middle East after oil. But not to fear, with a little backpedaling he had US all believing he was really talking about that other Iraq war, you know, the one over oil:

[Emphasis added to highlight that true thing.] At issue Friday was a comment at a morning town hall meeting in Denver, when he said his energy policy would eliminate U.S. dependence on Middle East oil and would “prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East.”

He sought to clarify his comments after his campaign plane landed in Phoenix. He said he didn’t mean the U.S. went to war in Iraq five years ago over oil.

“No, no, I was talking about that we had fought the Gulf War for several reasons,” McCain told reporters.

One reason was Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait, he said.

“But also we didn’t want him to have control over the oil, and that part of the world is critical to us because of our dependency on foreign oil, and it’s more important than any other part of the world,” he said.
[LA Times: '91 war, not Iraq war, was over oil, McCain clarifies]

So yeah, he said that true thing, though it was couched in an astonishing amount of complete horse shit. What’s more, Your Montag is left somewhat confused about the dissonance between this professed hatred of foreign oil, and the candidate’s deep heartfelt love of the invasion and continued violent military occupation of Iraq.*

But this isn’t about my state of confusion. That, really, is neither here nor there. This is about something-or-other, which I am very sure is very, very judicious and serious. I know this because it involves saying serious, adult things like:

“The Congressional Record is very clear: I said we went to war in Iraq because of weapons of mass destruction.”

Thanks for clearing up the record, Senator. You’re infallible judgment and the courage of your convictions serve you well.

The constant whining about people taking your “hundred years” statement* out of context isn’t very presidential, though:

“It’s a direct falsification, and I’m sorry that political campaigns have to deteriorate in this fashion, because there’s legitimate differences between myself” and the Democratic presidential candidates on Iraq, McCain said.

Boo-hoo, boo-hoo! Al Gore invented the internet.

* Military presence to last up to a hundred years, if it is a peaceful presence where our men and women aren’t getting killed. No word yet on how long he is committed to staying in a violent, tenuous, failed-state situation where our men and women are being picked off daily. Only that we must win, and we are winning. After that, it’s smooth sailing for a fucking century. Lunatic.

The Coolest D.C. Party Is Still Lame — As is tradition, the President stood to do a short stand-up act, which included the retelling of an old joke about Vice President Dick Cheney watching Bush through a peephole in the Oval Office door while masturbating. Such is the state of Washington humor. — [H/T: Otto Man] –

DEMOCRATIC SENATOR Jay Rockefeller has no backbone:

“McCain was a fighter pilot, who dropped laser-guided missiles from 35,000 feet. He was long gone when they hit,” Rockefeller told the newspaper, which published the article on the interview Tuesday.

“What happened when they [the missiles] get to the ground? He doesn’t know. You have to care about the lives of people. McCain never gets into those issues,” he is quoted saying.

On Tuesday, Rockefeller issued a statement, saying, “I have deep respect for John McCain’s honorable and noble service to our country. I made an inaccurate and wrong analogy and I have extended my sincere apology to him.

“While we differ a great deal on policy issues, I profoundly respect and appreciate his dedication to our country, and I regret my very poor choice of words,” he said.
[FOX News: After Rockefeller Insult, McCain Camp Claims Obama Won’t Shut Down Campaign Smears]

Look, do you think John McCain apologized to the people his missiles landed on? Fuck no. This is America, politicians. Don’t. Apologize. For. Anything. You sound like a bunch of assholes when you do that.

[H/T Kevin Hayden]

YEAH, YEAH, YEAH, steroids in Major League Baseball is an abscess on the ass of America. I know. But did Roger Clemens lie to congress? And did Roger Clemens have an abscess on his ass? Who will answer these questions?

The report . . . addresses issues such as whether Clemens attended a party at then-teammate Jose Canseco’s house in 1998; information about injections of vitamin B-12; and whether Clemens developed an abscess on his buttocks.
[FOXNews.com: Republican Issues Report Questioning Whether Roger Clemens Lied]

Congress and the FBI will get to the bottom of it. (See what I did there?)

There Will Be Awesome.

PS: The president does the people’s work, too. You have probably seen the picture of him warmly greeting the Easter rabbit the other day at the White House. This wasn’t the first meeting the two have had. Stump Lane has this exclusive photo. Pretty sure the bunny is metaphor for something though I’m not sure what.

JUST FOR THE RECORD, under the right conditions, (i.e. if your political enemies are powerful enough,) fucking is an impeachable offense.* War and torture? It seems they are not.

You may have already heard that a new Pentagon study of 600,000 Iraqi documents coming out this week will continue in the United States’ tradition of EPIC FAIL in uncovering the document in which Saddam Hussein ordered the 9-11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. Or that there was any operational link between the Iraq and the al Qaeda, (bin Laden-type,) whatsoever.

But still, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, right?

Wrong.

Absence of evidence may not be definitive proof of absence, but it most certainly is evidence of absence. It’s the only kind of evidence of absence you can have, really. And you know what? In this case, there has been an absence of evidence ALL ALONG. From the start.

This was a lie:

[Emphasis added.] …acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 [Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002] is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
[White House: Presidential Letter]

Remember all those great Bazooka Joe rewrites?

No? Look here, here and here.

The result? Bush Tied to Child Prostitution – Resignation or Impeachment Expected!

To recap: Lies, war and torture? All in a day’s work. Fucking a high-priced prostitute? A fantastic way to take down a political rival if you can pull it off.

Is this paradox a symptom of a system that one can “work within” to “incrementally” effect change? Or can we rightfully call it Disaster?

[H/T: Monkeys for Helping for "Spider-Fail"]

*If the charge is money laundering, then yeah, that is pretty bad. But what do I care? I don’t live in New York. Yankees Suck!

There is an Associated Press report that quickly details the President’s Operation: Shifting Rationale. (As far as I know, credit goes to Norbizness for coining that phrase.)

The article goes into the many different justifications given for our involvement in Iraq and this observation is made:

The more ominous and determined his words, the more skeptical the American public appears, polls show, both on the war itself and over whether it is part of the larger fight against terrorism, as the administration insists. [Associated Press: Bush keeps revising war justification]

What is the relationship between:

1. Poll numbers reflecting increasing public skepticism about the war, and
2. increasingly ‘ominous and determined’ administration rhetoric about the war.

It’s one of those chicken/egg questions Your Montag likes to ponder from time to time: Could (1) be something that occurs naturally over time, when a war of questionable necessity is executed incompetently and exceeds by far all fatality/time/difficulty/budget projections, and degrades into a simmering civil war beyond the control of the troops sitting in the middle of it; and (2) actually come in response to (1) when it does happen, because the aforementioned incompetence combined with obstinate pride does not allow them to address the underlying problems?

Is that a loaded question?

Here, for rationally minded sticklers: Might (1) lead to (2) rather than vice versa? Or, might it at least be more likely that (1) leads to (2)?

I don’t want to call US stupid, but we— as a hive —don’t always seem all that good at parsing the rhetoric and coming to rational conclusions.

We’re nothing at the Stump if not unafraid to post on days old news, long after other people already have. That said, here are some random thoughts about Wednesday’s press conference.

Here’s what OFFAL had to say about the recent Medical Study that places the number of Iraqi deaths resulting from the war around 665,000:

Q …A group of American and Iraqi health officials today released a report saying that 655,000 Iraqis have died since the Iraq war. That figure is 20 times the figure that you cited in December, at 30,000. Do you care to amend or update your figure, and do you consider this a credible report?

THE PRESIDENT: No, I don’t consider it a credible report. Neither does General Casey and neither do Iraqi officials. I do know that a lot of innocent people have died, and that troubles me and it grieves me. And I applaud the Iraqis for their courage in the face of violence. I am amazed that this is a society which so wants to be free that they’re willing to — that there’s a level of violence that they tolerate. And it’s now time for the Iraqi government to work hard to bring security in neighborhoods so people can feel at peace. [Emphasis added.]

What does it matter that so many are dying? The Iraqi people are loving it! They eat the death toll up, they love Freedom so much! Death is very liberating!

—or—

What’s this got to do with our complete inability to maintain order as occupying power? It’s that trifling Iraqi Government that’s supposed to handle security. We said we’d leave once the Iraqis could take care of their own, right? Well it’s time they got up off their narrow butts and started doing it.

(We’re the guy who teaches his toddler how to swim by throwing him in the deep end and encouraging him, shouting, “Swim, boy! Aint nobody gonna come in there and get ya!”)

—or—

“What the fuck did he just say?” (Digs finger in ear to clear out any potential obstructions.) For the 14,637th time, “I can’t believe what I just thought I heard. I had to have heard wrong, right?”

And this:

[Continued from above.] No question, it’s violent, but this report is one — they put it out before, it was pretty well — the methodology was pretty well discredited. But I talk to people like General Casey and, of course, the Iraqi government put out a statement talking about the report.

Q — the 30,000, Mr. President? Do you stand by your figure, 30,000?

THE PRESIDENT: You know, I stand by the figure. A lot of innocent people have lost their life — 600,000, or whatever they guessed at, is just — it’s not credible. Thank you. [Emphasis added.]

I heard this quote on the radio. Now, I’m not saying the White House intentionally suppresses and/or supplements punctuation to alter the meaning of what was spoken, but those “bolded” sentences above don’t correctly reproduce what I heard. I’d transcribe it thus: “You know, I stand by the figure a lot of innocent people have lost their life. 600,000, or whatever they guessed at, is just — it’s not credible.” That is, he stands by the figure ‘a lot of innocent people.’ As in:

Q: “How many? 30,000? 100,000? 426,369?”

A: “A lot.”

Alls I’m sayin is, from what I heard, I don’t think he was standing by the estimate — which, after all, would be kind of ridiculous — considering that it was an old estimate, and thousands of people a month have been dying since then. Interesting what the written record says, though, isn’t it?

And a later so-fucking-fantastic-you-don’t-want-to-miss-it bit of doublespeak bumblespeak: (more…)

[Feel free to skip this post by scrolling down or clicking through to our usual Wednesday Bazooka Joe comic feature.]

This is from a New York Times article about the ‘handling of terrorism suspects’ legislation our leaders seem so determined to bulldoze through the process before they steamroll down the last stretch of the campaign.

Representatives and the White House were busy over the weekend tweaking the language here and there, to reach a “compromise.” You know, just some minor technicalities that don’t at all completely fucking change the meaning of key aspects of the bill: (more…)

[Cross posted at I Miss Fafblog, Spot!]

Let’s try our hand at one of them serious discussions in the form of a Fafniric-style dialogue between Falkor and Gizzard.

GIZZARD: Well, Falkor, before we get started I have an announcement. With the election less than two months away, I’ve decided I must make a late run for President. I’m announcing my candidacy today.

FALKOR: But, Gizzard, we aren’t electing a President this year.

GIZ: Pish! I’m not going to sit by idly while there’s a gaping power void in Washington. This place needs a President!

FAL: We got a President. He’s just real busy. Only the other day it was leaked that he’s “drawin up plans to control emissions a carbon dioxide and rapidly boost the use a renewable energy sources,” (or somethin.)

GIZ: Exactly! He’s capitulating to the envirofascists and surrendering in the face of climaterrorism! He’s weak and it’s time to correct course.

FAL: But Gizzard, the Constitution says the President “shall hold his Office during the Term a four Years” and it hasn’t been four years since the last Presidential election yet.

GIZ: The Constitution also gives the President absolute Unitary Executive power to rule over every aspect of the country and its people! But when the President fails to do that duty, it becomes our “duty to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for (our) future security.”

FAL: Wait a sec, Gizzard. Do you think the President hasn’t done enough on wielding absolute power over the country and people?!

GIZ: Are you kidding, Falkor? What kind of “Unitary Executive” crawls pleading, to Congress, begging for permission to spy on and detain the very terrorists he declares are terrorists with all the impunity necessary for the battle?

FAL: Uhhh… OK, Gizzard. We’ll just set aside the Constitutional issues. What’s your platform?

GIZ: Complete Safety. When I’m President, I will not rest until every last one of my underlings is completely safe from terror, no matter how insignificant.

FAL: You make a valid point there, Gizzard. The risk of any particular person becoming a victim a terrorism is kinda insignificant.

GIZ: No! Everyone, everywhere — even though safer than before — still must walk this life fraught with grave, terrifying, palpable danger! It’s my underlings that are insignificant.

FAL: Oh. But is it productive for people to walk through life worryin about somethin happenin that’s about as likely as gettin struck by lightenin?

GIZ: Falkor, you misperceive an essential truth. Sure, the odds against being struck by lightning at any given time are very great. But if you stand on high ground during a thunder storm where the worst of it is coming down, your odds become more grim, no? I call this the Lightning Rod Principle.

FAL: Ok…

GIZ: Well, living in the greatest country in the world during an International War on Terror is exactly the same. Freedom is our lightning rod: a lightning rod for terror! This is why we must forge a lightning rod for terror out of the mettle of freedom in Iraq. A well constructed one will draw the terrorist current away from the homeland. It’s kind of like flypaper — only with FIRE!

FAL: Don’t you mean metal? The lightning rod for terror in Iraq should be forged out a metal?

GIZ: No, mettle of freedom. Mettle of freedom!

FAL: Good idea! Those Medals a Freedom are a dime a dozen lately! You could make all a them guys who messed up Iraq in the first place give em back for the good a the project.

GIZ: METTLE. We need mettle. The grit and fortitude and perseverance to fight the forever war for Victory! For the Iraq of tomorrow.

FAL: “Forever War?!” I don’t think that’s such a great election slogan, Gizzard.

GIZ: No. I’m calling it the “Tomorrow War.” Much more bright and optimistic, right?

FAL: Tomorrow, tomorrow, you’re only a day away.

GIZ: Yeah. Now you’re getting it.

FAL: See, don’t you think a message of hope is more hopeful than a fearful message of fear? You seem pretty to be layin it on pretty thick.

GIZ: Falkor, fear is natural and necessary for survival. If you do not heed your fear, you will eventually die. So embrace your fear: VOTE GIZZARD, and keep on living!

FAL: Well, you’ve certainly convinced me! You’ve got my vote in November!

GIZ: Thanks! Thank you for your support.

The events and characters depicted in this bloggoplay are fictitious. Any similarity to actual persons, living, dead or bloginary, is purely coincidental… Or is it intentional? I always forget how that goes.

[Cross posted at I Miss Fafblog, Spot.]

Take heart, my children, when Donald Rumsfeld says he lies awake at night, “deeply troubled by the success of terrorist groups in ‘manipulating the media’ to influence Westerners.” Let talk of this sort worry you not. I can assure you, Our Brave Warrior rests as well as a baby, or a log, or the Kevin Pollak character in the jail scene in The Usual Suspects.

You too may rest easy, my dear friends, for the purpose of Our Media, as we have molded it, is to record history as We see it. To frame issues, and bound discussion inside the constraints of an ordained Neo-Reality. So to allow— and then complain loudly about —a ‘liberal’ (i.e. ‘terrorist’) bias within the media, is as if to say, “Thus far and no further,” when it comes to analyzing the issues. It is to head the dysfunctional loons of paranoid defeatism off at the pass through which information flows into the Utterly Rational Public Mind which informs our national discourse.

Concern yourselves not with the so-called “third way,” precious lambs. For there shall be no such thing. There shall be not even a second way! There is only the supremely right way; and the radically wrong way. Though, fear not! The radically wrong way is but a far-away straw-imagining; painstakingly constructed— in accordance with 19 Quart Lobster Pot doctrine —to most efficiently show the wrongness of all things other than the supremely right.

For an illustration of this in practice one needs look only as far as Our Mighty Master Cheney’s recent utterance:

I realize, as well, that some in our own country claim retreat from Iraq would satisfy the appetite of the terrorists and get them to leave us alone. But the exact opposite is true.

Now don’t all of you pessimistic demagogues of peacenikery who’ve claimed, “retreat from Iraq would satisfy the appetite of the terrorists,” feel stupid now? Now that your bizarrely wrong-headed notions about the war and terrorism is laid out on display, in all of its farcity, for all to see?

There is only one alternative to defeat in Iraq, and that is Victory! Thus spake Medium Lobster. Only through our unwavering faith, and unquestioning devotion may our rulers carve this necessary truth out of today’s Iraq.