Thanks to The Fixin's Bar, from the Onion:

Patrick J. Fitzgerald offered renewed evidence of that old Washington axiom: the cover-up is always worse than the crime.

Right-o! The cover-up of murderous treason during a time of war is "always worse" than plain old murderous treason during a time of war.

Idiots.

Sez the WaPo:

The question now facing the embattled president is whether he will use this moment of vulnerability to reflect on what has gone wrong this year and why, and then look for ways to regain his effectiveness.

As the only "effectiveness" this "president" has ever shown has been in killing U.S. citizens, endangering the public health and safety, and looting the federal treasury, let us sincerely hope he will never, ever, ever "regain his effectiveness."

Fine, Libby is an indicted criminal. Rove is an as-yet unindicted criminal.

But more importantly, Bush is a proven liar.

Bush Lied.

Bush Lied.

Bush Lied.

Can everyone understand that?

I listen to Air America Radio every day. I've heard Bloomberg's commercial over and over and over again. Every commercial break, Bloomberg.

How often do I hear a Ferrer ad on AAR? Never. Not once, ever.

Sad.

If Fox News Had Been Around Throughout History:





More here.

Anyone read George Saunders' short story "In Persuasion Nation" (the title story in his new forthcoming collection) in Harper's?

He's definitely taken his art in a new direction: from stories about dehumanized people whose lives increasingly resemble TV commercials (or the weird embodiment of some anonymous corporate fantasy) to stories about people who actually exist within TV commercials--or more precisely, in eternally-recurring spatio-temporal units known as the "vignettes."

Saunders has also become increasingly didactic, advancing a thesis that advertising culture, having achieved nearly total control of our consciousnesses, has not only destroyed the sacred and the real but inflicts actual graphic violence upon its victims. These victims are trapped in cycles of endless regressive violence enacted upon (and received from) other victims. Such cycles, Saunders contends, always serve the ends of the advertisers.

Certainly Saunders means for these newer fictions (even more so than his past stories) to serve as works of criticism. I wonder how far such fiction can go without the supplementary context of explicit, argumentative criticism to discuss the issues it raises?

If nothing else, his mastery of a single form--the concise tragicomic parody of TV shows and advertisements--is sufficient to ensure his place the contemporary canon.

Is John Kerry going to be indicted today?

I won't bother to link to the sublime atrocity perpetrated by Kristof on today's Times editorial page. You can't read it anyway, unless you have paid for "Times Select"--and why would you have done that?

The teaser given by the Times is: "It was wrong for prosecutors to cook up borderline indictments during the Clinton administration, and it would be just as wrong now in the C.I.A. leak case."

You get the "idea."

Nearly a year and a half ago (and how it pains me to write those words!) I issued a post called Nicholas Kristof: Suicide-Bomber. I asked why Kristof was criticizing Michael Moore when mass death (including Kristof's own) was so hair-raisingly imminent. My conclusion was that the columnist for the New York Times newspaper actively desired his own death and the death of everyone around him. That conclusion still applies, in spades.

Bush is probably convincing Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Richard Miers to launch a targeted nuclear strike on Alexandria, Virginia, and Kristof is talking about how Fitzgerald shouldn't bother trying to figure out what, if anything, has gone wrong, and who is responsible.

Given the fact that Kristof's newspaper has been made, by Judith Miller, a party to the conspiracy, one might wonder why this columnist for the New York Times seems not to care about it. But that seems to be a question that answers itself, right? Kristof, too, along with Keller and Sulzburger (obviously) must know that Miller was a White House Iraq Group propaganda plant. And the Times--if it can rightfully be called "alive"--would never be able to "live" that one down.

But what am I saying? Why flatter Kristof with these (relatively) high-minded motives? Why assume that he is smart enough to conceal, or even notice, the conspiracy? Just look at the SHIT he is spewing!

WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS ASSHOLE? WHY CAN'T IT FIND A TOILET?

I don't know what to say. Kristof seems to be in the grip of the most reduced and automatic reflex functionings of the death-instinct: be killed, and kill.

Absinthe--seemingly the real shit--now available for purchase on the internet, in really neat looking bottles with labels featuring what appears to be a sketch of van Gogh's head. It comes in 3 different strengths, ranging from 10mg to 100mg of "thujone," the psychoactive ingredient.

What with the immanence of Fitzmas, maybe we ought to break out a bottle.

Anyone tried this stuff?

Anyone know why someone shouldn't order me a bottle for Christmas?

Update: The reason why is that the website linked above has dubious information and probably an inferior product. I just got a mini-crash course in absinthe; this site has smart prose and a lot of seemingly good and interesting information.

Dear Shailagh Murray,

I read with interest your Washington Post article "Young Democrats Sharpen Tactics Against Old Rivals," but was taken aback by the following sentence:

Their conversation even veered to religion, a subject many Democrats are afraid to touch.

I was wondering if you could provide some evidence for your sweeping insinuation. Did you interview Democrats (presumably elected Democrats, since they are the subject of your article) who told you that they were "afraid to touch" religion? Did you speak with Democrats who were hesitant or unwilling to discuss religion with you?

If so, could you please provide me with the names of those Democrats, or at least the context in which you gathered your information?

If not, could you tell me whether you make false and baseless assertions because you are a sloppy and lazy reporter who tosses out chestnuts when you feel like it; or because you are a liar?

I look forward to your clarification in this matter.

Sincerely,

Blicero
amcop.blogspot.com