"The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing."


Glenn Reynolds:

Barack Obama:
"Impossible to transcend."

Albert A. Gore, Jr.:
"An incontinent brute."

Rev. Jeremiah Wright:
"God damn the Gentleman Farmer."

Friends of GF's Sons:
"Is that really your dad?"

Kickball Girl:
"Keeping 'em alive until 7:45."

Hired Hand:
"I think . . . we forgot the pheasant."

I'm an
Alcoholic Yeti
in the
TTLB Ecosystem

Monday, December 31, 2007


Can you say


Don't miss today's year-end editorial in your New York Times. The President of the United States, who has kept the incompetent whiners in lower Manhattan safe for the past six years, is without integrity, principle or decency, and uses the powers of the presidency dishonorably.

While we suppose that various psychoactive medications might provide some relief, we are of a mind to take up a collection to purchase airline tickets to someplace more amenable to the editorialists. Caracas perhaps?

Labels: , ,

Comments on "Unhinged"


Anonymous chesty said ... (3:12 PM) : 

precisely which portion of the times piece is it that the G&S editorial staff would dispute? that the current administration has been illegally spying on american citizens? that the administration has intentionally circumvented the Geneva conventions? that it has tortured detainees? that it has outsourced the torturing of detainees to countries with documented records of atrocious acts against prisoners? that the administration has attempted to assert the right to detain indefinitely, without access to the legal system, anyone it likes?

these allegations are the substance of the offending article, and are all pretty comprehensively documented and supported. i suppose we can be unhappy with these facts--i certainly am--but it seems strange to be angry at a news organization for publishing these facts.

perhaps the editorial staff at G&S are angry with the times for publishing these facts without ultimately forgiving the bush administration. after all, everything they have done has been in the interest of our own safety. isn't it, after all, necessary to sacrifice many of our essential freedoms and ideals in order to preserve our safety and way of life? that has certainly been the most common argument authoritarian regimes have relied upon in validating their actions that i can think of.

here's my real question for the G&S editorial staff. how do you tell the difference between when we're doing good and when we're doing bad? why is it bad when the viet cong torture prisoners, but not bad when the US does? why is bad when the USSR spies on its own citizens, but not bad when the US does? certainly all are done in the name of protecting their people and way of life.

they guy who said "those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" had it dead on in my book. the whole point of having values (like freedom) is that we believe in them and protect them all the time. we don't give them up when it gets hard.


post a comment