Plus ca change and all that.

The classics never go out of style, do they?

"Why, of course, the people don't want war ... That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."

"... voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
-- Nazi Reichmarshall Hermann Goering, 1945

"What's wrong with you people?"
-- Kate McMillan, 2006

Godwin's Law, in one post. Slam fucking dunk. Top that, bee-yotch.

"The Angry, Angry Left."

Reportedly by following a link from a comment she left on Liberal Catnip's site, regular reader Procrastinatrix had a reader from Small Dead Animals pop by this post of hers, in which Procrastinatrix is talking about her 19-month-old nephew going in for cancer surgery, whereupon said visitor left the following delightful bit of moral support and compassionate conservatism (which I quote in full):

hope the little fucker dies

But don't sweat it, Stephen. After all, it would be ever so tacky and classless to issue a "blanket condemnation of the entire right-wing blogosphere for the fringe opinion of one sole member." Or one of its commenters.

On the other hand, Steve, this thing with Small Dead Animals and publicly wanting people dead -- you might want to nip that in the bud. Advertisers might start getting a bit squeamish being associated with that sort of thing. It's just bad for business, know what I mean?

I fear for my safety. Seriously.

Let me see if I can summarize this:

"My God, it never occurred to us that evildoers might use knives and box-cutters to take over an airplane and use that to kill thousands of people, so now we'll stop them from bringing those deadly weapons on board!"

"My God, we never believed that evildoers might hide explosive material in their shoes of all places, so now we'll make sure we check everyone's shoes really, really carefully!"

"My God, who on earth could have possibly imagined that evildoers might try to kill innocent people by bringing liquid explosives on board with them, so now we're definitely going to crack down on that sort of thing!"

Your government anti-terrorist agencies: When thinking ahead is just too much like work.

Because, sometimes ...

... all you have left is merciless parody.

I see ... people who have a freakin' clue.

So, on the one hand, you have numerous Canadian wankers (read: Blogging Tories) who, through the clouds of their various medications, claim that the recent Ned Lamont primary victory in Connecticut is a gift for the GOP. And, on the other hand, you have people who are not terminally bewildered.

Who to believe? Decisions, decisions ...

SPEAKING OF STUPID ... Man, everybody's got their talking points in the morning mail, haven't they?

Now THERE'S a smart move.

From the latest news coverage of the Islamojihadifarian terrorist threat (emphasis added):

Officials raised security to its highest level in Britain - suggesting a terrorist attack might be imminent - and banned carry-on luggage on all trans-Atlantic flights. Huge crowds formed at security barriers at London's Heathrow airport as officials searching for explosives barred nearly every form of liquid outside of baby formula.

So ... if I was an evil Islamojihadifarian terrorist and wanted to sneak a liquid bomb past security, I wonder how I might possibly do that. No, no, don't tell me, I'm keen to guess.

Barbarians at the comments section.

Oh, dear. Poor Catnip. And for those of you who may be coming to this for the first time, a recap of bloviating, neo-con wanker hysteria over the years:

"OHMIGOD, Saddam has weapons of mass destruction and ... um ... OHMIGOD, Saddam has mobile, biological weapons labs and ... um ... OHMIGOD, Saddam is in league with al-Qaeda and was behind the 9/11 terrorist attacks and ... um ... OHMIGOD, Saddam is buying yellowcake from Niger to make nuclear bombs and ... um ... OHMIGOD, Iran is going to make Jews wear badges and ... um ... OHMIGOD, more bad things are about to happen, run, run, for God's sake, run!!"

Did I miss anything?

All of the credit and none of the blame.

Predictably, Crazy-Assed Racist Redneck and the Redneckettes are all over the latest Islamojihadifarian terror scare, and wondering just what the hell is wrong with those of us who are not getting terrified so much as just getting old and jaded by all of this. But this latest hysteria brings up a ticklish question.

Apparently, as one after another evil, swarthy terrorist plot is thwarted, we are supposed to be boundlessly grateful to those courageous and tenacious authorities who manage to nip these schemes in the bud just in the nick of time. Yes, the most compelling proof of their successful tenacity is, of course, the utter lack of recent, actual attacks. ("Of course this elephant repellent is successful. You don't see any elephants around here, do you?")

So we're supposed to give these people all of the credit for our ongoing safety, but that inspires the obvious question, then: Are we then allowed to heap the blame on these folks when something does go horribly, horribly wrong and people end up dying?

The Bush administration is constantly crowing about how their dogged efforts to protect the American public have resulted in no actual terrorist attacks in, what is it now, almost five years? Of course, they'll conveniently forget about that bit of unpleasantness of September 11, 2001, which is, naturally, everyone else's fault.

So, the question stands: If these folks are constantly going on about how we should be grateful that they're protecting us, are they equally willing to take the blame and let the proper heads roll when/if they eventually fuck up? Or will that always be someone else's fault?

And why do I insist on asking such painfully rhetorical questions?

There's dumb ...

... and then there's Confederate Yankee dumb. I swear, I really need more of a challenge in this job.

Hyperventilate much, Stephen?

Shorter Stephen Taylor: "OHMIGOD OHMIGOD OHMIGOD OHMIGOD OHMIGOD OHMIGOD OHMIGOD OHMIGOD OHMIGOD OHMIGOD OHMIGOD!!!!!!!"

If it's that old, it's not called "news" anymore.

Well, hush my puppies ... I didn't even realize there was a "Political Wingnut of the Week" award, and I'm flattered to have been a small (utterly unintentional) part of it. But if we can extend that award to cover commenters, I'd like to nominate "nomdenet" from that very Daifallah piece, who writes (on Aug 9, keep in mind):

Now the question for Hilary [sic] as a Presidential candidate in 2008 is – who will she support for Senator in Connecticut? The Lamont pacifist, i.e. the McGovern, Carter, Michael Moore wannabe? Or Joe the independent , former Democratic VP contender.

And from back on July 4 (over a month earlier), we have Hillary herself:

"I've known Joe Lieberman for more than thirty years. I have been pleased to support him in his campaign for re-election, and hope that he is our party's nominee. But I want to be clear that I will support the nominee chosen by Connecticut Democrats in their primary. I believe in the Democratic party; and I believe we must honor the decisions made by Democratic primary voters. The challenges before us in 2006 call for a strong, united party, in which we all support and work for the candidates who are selected in the Democratic process."

The Blogging Tories: when being hopelessly uninformed is still good enough.

SLIGHTLY-MIFFED AFTERSNARK. In breaking with tradition, I decided to leave a comment on the Daifallah article above. It's been an hour since I submitted it and it still hasn't shown up, which suggests that Mr. Daifallah has the kind of thoroughly-grating sense of self-importance which demands that he pre-screen all comments to make sure nothing gets in that would offend the delicate sensibilities of he or his readers.

I'm pretty sure that's why they call it a "bubble."

Jackass: The Stephen Harper edition.

"L'etat, c'est moi." And ... how curious ... no outraged, howling counter-attack from the Blogging Tories. I'm sure it's coming ...

Dear Stephen: Drop dead.

I'm sorry ... hadn't you heard? It's now all right to wish death on other people. Kate McMillan says so.

Joe Lieberman must die!

Of course the title is hyperbole, you dingbat. But beneath the tawdry, childish sensationalism lies a straightforward fact -- Joe Lieberman has to be tossed out of the Democratic Party. Right fucking now.

The instant Joe said, in his whiny-ass concession speech:

Tomorrow, our campaign will file the necessary petitions [to secure a place on the November ballot] so that we can continue this campaign for a new politics of unity and purpose.

was the instant he stopped being a Democrat, and he should be treated as such.

Right this instant, he should be stripped of all of his committee and caucus memberships, and every other perk that comes with being a Democrat, including every cent of funding he gets from the party.

The moment Joe announced his run as an independent was the moment he left the party, and it's only right that the party help him out the door.

Damian Penny: When breathtakingly stupid just isn't stupid enough.

[Adam Daifallah update below.]

I swear, every time I think I've reached the bottom of the intellectual barrel over at the Blogging Tories, someone comes along and lifts up the barrel. Witness the latest spectacular idiocy from Damian Penny. Let's start slowly, shall we, so as not to startle the children:

Victory for the Nutroots

Why, sure, and there's no better way to give credit to all of those involved in the democratic process than to insult them collectively. Any more insults on tap, Damian? Ah, here we go:

Kongratulations, Kossacks.

But of course, since Markos and his dark minions personally infiltrated the political process in Connecticut and brainwashed almost 150,000 citizens to vote for Ned Lamont. My word, but that Kos fellow is a tricky, tricky bastard. (Activists working on behalf of Joe Lieberman were, naturally, taking a stand based purely on principle. But you knew that, right?)

But here's the most glorious part of Damian's unspeakable dumbfuckitude:

What was a guaranteed safe seat for the Democrats is now wide open.

Why, yes, Damian -- if all those progressive activists had left things well enough alone, it would have been a cakewalk for Lieberman this November. And what does one glean from this? Quite simply, that for a lot of these people, simply being a Democrat wasn't enough anymore.

What it shows is that there were a lot of folks who were fed up with Lieberman sucking up to the GOP every chance he had, and these people were willing to put it on the line to replace him with someone with principle. If all these people cared about was electing a Democrat, then they would have kept their hands off and Holy Joe would have waltzed to victory, crushing whatever sacrificial lamb the GOP offered up come election time.

But just having a Dem going to the Senate wasn't enough for these people, was it? Which is why they took the chance, and put in all that work, and blogged, and organized, and walked door-to-door, and donated their time and money. Because they actually had some fucking principle, Damian -- something you wouldn't recognize if it walked up to you and kneed you in the groin.

146,041 people in Connecticut decided they'd had enough of Holy Joe Lieberman's duplicitous back-stabbing and took it upon themselves to replace him with someone who they supported more. And, in Damian Penny's eyes, well, that's just 146,041 "nutroots" and "Kossacks."

I'm not sure I'll find anything stupider on the BT site today but, just to play it safe, I'll check in over at Adam Daifallah's place later. You just never know.

ASK, AND YE SHALL RECEIVE. Oh, geez ... all you have to do is wish for some Adam-inspired stupidity and it appears, as Adam writes:

Lieberman lost.

Good beginning, Adam. Always start with a known fact so you can't possibly be 100% wrong.

The George McGovern wing of the Democratic Party has flexed its muscle, ...

Jesus Christ ... how fucking stupid do you have to be to describe almost 150,000 Connecticut voters as "the George McGovern wing of the Democratic Party?" Is there anything these idiots won't hyper-generalize into ten words or less? But that's just the warmup for this bit of lunacy:

... giving the Republicans a nice little political gift for the November elections.

Did they, Adam? Did they really? Because, the way I read it, the GOP are shitting their pants in pure terror since it's now become painfully obvious that George Bush is politically radioactive, and anything that he touches turns to absolute crap, and Holy Joe Lieberman is living proof of that. But, hey, don't take my word for it -- why not read someone who actually has a fucking clue?

You keep hanging out in that echo chamber of yours, Adam. Because anyone who imagines that this latest development is good news for the GOP deserves to be bitch-slapped by reality when it comes calling.

Wickedly clever humour, wingnut style.

Brace yourself, folks -- we got some serious, kick-ass, cutting edge, political humour from the wankersphere, courtesy of "Conservative Canadien" Scott A., who challenges us with a caption contest. Ready? Set? Go:

The Blogging Tories: Because you don't want to get your infantile, shoulder-shrugging, humourless political observations from just anyone.

Dear Joe: Why you suck.

Athenae sums it up nicely, which is why anyone who continues to claim that Joe Lieberman was defeated solely because of his support for the Iraq war really should be dragged outside and clubbed like a baby seal.

P.S. And, no, that's not the position of the "Angry Left," it's just me, OK? For once in your dishonest, worthless lives, try to tell the two apart.

Joe Lieberman and Blogging Tory idiocy. Part 2.

I'm guessing it's going to be a very Joe Lieberman kind of day, responding to unspeakable Blogging Tory dumbfuckery like this (all emphasis added):

The Democrats slide even further left...and into irrelevance.

And since when has 50% ever been considered "heavy turnout?"

Let's let CNN handle that one:

Voter turnout was high in the high-profile primary fight, according to Connecticut Secretary of State Susan Bysiewicz. Bysiewicz predicted Tuesday that turnout for the primary could reach 45 percent to 50 percent, nearly double the normal turnout for a primary election.

CC HQ: When you need your daily dose of Blogging Tory dumbassitude, and don't want to go looking for it.

The Lieberman fallout, Blogging Tory-style. Part 1.

There is oh so much that can be written about the self-destruction of that political skank Democrat Joe Lieberman but we can start with one simple observation: The fact that so many Blogging Tories support him would seem to be reason enough to kick his sorry ass out of office. I mean, seriously, when the wankersphere so unanimously admires a Democrat, do you really need more excuse to end that miserable, traitorous fucker's career?

Much more to come as the caffeine starts to take hold.

Well, I'm glad we settled THAT.

Apparently, you can't dislike Joe Lieberman without being virulently hateful and anti-Semitic. Kate McMillan and the Wall Street Journal say so.

Of course, if you prefer not to be an ignorant douchebag like Canada's Crazy-Assed Racist Redneck, you might want to read Steve Gilliard to understand why so many Dems despise that wretched little quisling Lieberman.

Be ignorant. Or don't be ignorant. The choice is entirely yours.