The Scrutiny of Defeat

From fresh-faced young Republican website rebuildtheparty.com:

"2008 made one thing clear: If allowed to go unchecked, the Democrats' structural advantages, including their use of the Internet, their more than 2-to-1 advantage with young voters, their discovery of a better grassroots model -- will be as big a threat to the future of the GOP as the toxic political environment we have faced the last few years [ed.- emphasis mine]."

Is that the best euphemism you've ever heard for "our party's control of the White House, Senate, House of Representatives, and the courts and the full flowering of our ideological agenda" or what? Oh Republicans, your attempts to skirt the issue of your incompetent governance in your explanations of your electoral defeat are priceless. Don't ever change.

Ask Mister Legal Person

Perhaps you've heard this latest bit of farce oozing out from the Scooter Libby defense. Here's the gist of the argument:

"It appears to be undisputed that there is no day-to-day supervision of Special Counsel Fitzgerald by anyone, and no way short of removal even to assure that he complies with the policies of the Department of Justice or the Executive Branch..."

I can parry this ham-fisted thrust in one sentence: The Executive Branch and its attendant Department of Justice have demonstrated quite clearly, through the juxtaposition of the actions and words of the former and the sworn testimony of the latter, that their policies are unknown even to them, therefore rendering the compliance that forms the central concern of the 12 Distempered Men who filed the unbidden amicus curiae in question to be an unverifiable criterion, of interest only to fantasists.

Shazzam. Judge Walton, a smartass after my own heart, will likely be paraphrasing me presently.

Made In Our Image

I've got a new thought, brought to me by this piece here from June 5th. Have you ever heard the theory that, as their time together increases, people and their pets tend to look more and more like each other? Even so are the United States and Iraq. We get an uptick in homegrown terrorist cells, they get a morally limp-wristed chief executive who uses secrecy and misdirection to bypass the legislative branch, who then start drafting bills that incrementally back the over-reaching leader into a corner from whence he can no longer subvert the will of the people. It's just adorable.

The funny thing is that this situation was entirely foreseeable in 2002, only it was supposed to be Ahmed Chalabi in the top job, not this upstart Maliki character. It must gall dear old Mr. Chalabi something fierce, seeing all his conniving and subterfuge go to some other schlub's benefit, especially after everything went so well there in the early days, kudos to Judy Miller, the brain-trust over there at Project for a New American Century, and the Doug Feith Culinary Intelligence Agency. Ahmed, the course of coup love never did run smooth. Maybe you should try Iran or Pakistan? If you act quickly, before the Democrats get around to doing what they were elected to do, the same tactics will probably work again.

A Not-So-Well-Regulated Militia

Apparently, a group in Fairfax County held an event that they called the "Bloomberg Gun Giveaway" the other day, in which they raffled off a pair of expensive weapons to raise money for the gun stores that are being sued by New York's mayor for the illegal sales of handguns that were used in crimes in NYC. Now, I don't really like New Yorkers, especially outside of New York City (they tend to spend a lot of time bitching about how the hardware store in THEIR neighborhood stays open till 4am, and what the hell is wrong with this town that there isn't such a store HERE), but if a gun store in VA is illegally selling weapons that are subsequently used to commit crimes in NY, and VA doesn't appear too concerned, isn't Bloomberg's concern justified? Because, you know, guns are great and all, but this is a country that places a certain amount of emphasis on the rule of law, generally. So if someone is habitually breaking the law, and doing so in a way that brings a lot of negative attention to gun enthusiasts (by killing and robbing people with illegally purchased guns), wouldn't you think those gun enthusiasts would be the first to advocate for the shuttering of the offending store?

Or is that too reasonable? Totally. Let's all react like 12-year-olds who got their videogames turned off and have a "gun giveaway."