Wingnut No More

Charles Johnson at the conservative blog Little Green Footballs has finally had enough. In his essay "Why I Parted Ways With The Right," he sets out point by point why "The American right wing has gone off the rails, into the bushes, and off the cliff". In the process, he defines exactly what I mean when I use the term "wingnut," including but not limited to: "bigotry, hatred, and white supremacism"; "Support for anti-science bad craziness "; and "Support for conspiracy theories and hate speech". And he names names.

It's particularly significant because this used to be one of the blogs that was Wingnut Central. Mr. Johnson and I would probably disagree on just about everything political, but it's nice to see a conservative denouncing the crazies who have hijacked his movement.

It's definitely worth reading in full, but stay out of the comments section unless you have a strong stomach.

And before anyone starts shrieking about Michael Moore or Alec Baldwin or whoever the right wing bogeyman du jour is, let me make two points:

(1) None of these people has done or said anything that's nearly as insane as the stuff Michelle Bachmann or Rush Limbaugh spouts every freakin' day, and, most importantly,

(2) They're not leaders of the Democratic Party. No one, for example, backpedals to kiss Michael Moore's ass the day after even mildly criticizing him.

Welcome to the ranks of the sane, Charles. Only problem is, you keep this up, and other conservatives follow your lead, I won't have anyone left to make fun of.

Holiday Correctness

Latest Newspaper Column (the director's cut):

Now that Thanksgiving is done and the shopping frenzy of Black Friday has passed, we are well and truly into the Christmas season.

At this time of loving, giving and maniacal consumption, let's not forget that there are some people for whom this time of year is particularly difficult. I'm speaking, of course, about people who suffer from SWORS: Spasmodic Wingnut Outrage Syndrome.

People with SWORS have it tough during the holiday season. Even the mention of the word "holiday," however innocent, can trigger an attack of SWORS:

NORMAL PERSON: Happy Holidays, Mr. Gundermeyer!

SWORS SUFFERER: You mean "Merry Christmas."

NORMAL PERSON: Oh. Sure.

SWORS SUFFERER: Say it! Say Merry Christmas! SAY IT! SAY IT!

NORMAL PERSON: OK! OK! Merry Christmas! Just don't hit me, please!

Good will toward men, indeed.

Like the shopping season, the SWORS season seems to begin ­earlier every year. This year, the first company to be attacked was that mainstay of the American ­shopping mall, The Gap. The American Family Association, a hotbed of SWORS infection if ever there was one, got cranky about not seeing any mentions of "Christmas" in Gap advertising. Perhaps the fact that it was early November may have had something to do with it, but nevertheless, the AFA called for a boycott.

A few days later, The Gap responded by releasing one of those ads that seems destined to go down as one of the most annoying ever, the kind of ad that makes you dive for the remote and fumble for the "Mute" button. "Go Christmas!" chirps an insanely peppy group of dancing teenagers, dressed, of course, in Gap clothing.

Now, you'd think that mentioning Christmas right up from there would serve to soothe the riled-up nerves of the SWORS-afflicted. A SWORS sufferer, however, looks at every olive branch as if it contains a nest of tarantulas. And in this case, the fact that the group also chants "Go Hanukkah, Go Kwanzaa, go solstice!" seems to have nullified whatever palliative effect was intended. "It seems like a desperate attempt to get every possible demographic to shop in their stores," sniffed The Dallas Republican Examiner.

Now, to the non-SWORS-infected, it would seem obvious that the whole point of having a store would be to get as many people as possible in the door. And most normal people realize that when they hit the stores to do their shopping, they'll be right there alongside "every possible demographic," including Jews, African-Americans and the sort of person who likes to go on and on about "solstice."

One of the tragic things about SWORS, however, is the feeling of deep resentment and bitterness that its victims experience at the very thought that someone may look, feel, or believe differently than they do, coupled with a paranoid certainty that those "other people" are getting more of life's goodies than they are.

While it's certainly easy for a nonsufferer to be annoyed by people with SWORS, it's important to keep in mind that these are people with an illness. They just can't help themselves, and the problem is only made worse by the plethora of high-profile wingnut media figures who, like crack dealers, make themselves fat and rich by feeding other peoples' disease.

It is a shame that SWORS spoils people's appreciation of the things that all people, whatever their beliefs, celebrate during this season. Things like peace, hope, good will, generosity and reflection on what's really important in life.

It seems even more a shame that they have to inflict their lunacy on the rest of us. But in this time of comfort and joy, take a moment to talk to someone who suffers from SWORS. Put your arm around them, look into their angry, troubled eyes, and say those simple words that mean so much at this time of year:

"Lighten the hell up, will ya?"

Happy Holidays to you and yours.

The Resigning Woman Strikes Again

Tri-City Herald : Mid-Columbia news:

Sarah Palin visits Washington State and bails out again:

Palin had announced on Twitter that she would be running the 5k race organized by the Benton-Franklin Chapter of the Red Cross.

She didn't finish the race, opting to leave the course early to avoid more crowds at the end. About 40 minutes into the run, word started trickling out to people gathered at the finish line that she was gone.

A few days ago, she reportedly left a book signing early, leaving angry crowds chanting "quitter!' and "sign our books!"



Has this woman ever finished anything other than a pregnancy?

A Simple Explanation (Updated)

After a pair of uninvited guests crashed a State Dinner at the White House, there's been a lot of hand-wringing and finger-pointing, a lot of accusations and questions about how something like this could happen.

The answer is simple, and illustrates one of the undeniable truths of life:

a hot blonde can get in anywhere. Anywhere. it's like having an all-access pass to the entire world.

UPDATE: More proof of this point here.

Who Among Us Does Not Love Zombies?

Have Fun With The Zombie Outbreak Simulator!

Set the number of civilians, police, and zombies, decide whether you want your zombies fast or slow, and watch the zombpocalypse play out! Click around the map to watch the unsuspecting civilians go about their day as the undead horde bears down on them! Fun, fun, fun for the entire family!

No Surrender

Latest Newspaper Column:

Boy, there sure are a lot of people these days who want to give in to the terrorists.

I remember back in those dark days after 9/11 when people were affirming that America was going to stand tall, that we weren't going to let ourselves be intimidated by maniacs who were trying to kill us.

But lately, it seems like there are a lot of politicians, on both sides of the aisle, who want to let fear of terrorist attack, or even terrorist's words, ­dictate how we run our ­country and how we bring the people responsible for the attacks to account.

Recently, the Obama administration announced that some terror suspects, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged "mastermind" behind the 9/11 attacks, were going to be brought to New York to face trial (and possibly the death penalty) for their crimes. Predictably, the protests against the move took the form of dire and occasionally hysterical warnings about what the terrorists might do.

Even Rudy Giuliani, who distinguished ­himself by his coolness under pressure as mayor of New York in the days after 9/11, proved disappointingly craven. "It gives an unnecessary advantage to the terrorists," he said, " and it poses risks for New York."

This is in marked contrast to Rudy's pronouncement in 1994 that the conviction of the people who tried to bring down the Twin Towers the first time "shows you put terrorism on one side, you put our legal system on the other, and our legal system comes out ahead." But hey, he's a former Republican presidential candidate. No one expects consistency from them.

Rudy's hand-wringing was also in marked contrast to the current Republican mayor of New York, who appeared with his police chief to assert that the city of New York wasn't afraid of trying terrorists there. "It is fitting," Bloomberg said, "that 9/11 suspects face justice near the World Trade Center site where so many New Yorkers were murdered."

Perhaps the silliest objection to the trial of the terrorists is that -- horror of horrors -- they might actually say stuff in public. Rep. Peter Hoekstra claimed that a civilian trial will allow the accused terrorists to turn such proceedings into a "circus" and "use them as platforms to promote their ideology."

Yeah, because without a courtroom, they've been as quiet as church mice. And so what if they start babbling jihadist nonsense in court? How do you think that'll play to a jury of New Yorkers sitting in judgment a few blocks from where the Towers fell?

And while we're at it, is anyone other than Sarah Palin delusional enough to think there's even a small chance that these people are going to be acquitted? If you really think there's a possibility that a New York judge or jury is going to let them walk, there's a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you.

(Actually, I did have this fantasy of the judge saying: "The Court has decided that the case against the defendants must be thrown out because the evidence is irrevocably tainted. You're free to go. Now let's see you make it to the corner, you [really bad word]." )

Some people, including Democratic Sen. Jim Webb, say the suspects should be tried by military tribunals despite the fact that their acts occurred in the United States, because the 9/11 attacks were an "act of war." An attractive definition, to be sure, and one I myself used back in 2001.

In fact, I hear Khalid Sheikh Mohammed asked to admit guilt in front of a military tribunal and to be executed. (Tell you what, Bubba, we'll meet you halfway on that.)

But as Attorney General Eric Holder pointed out, we don't let them define the rules or pick where they get tried. They don't get to puff themselves up to the status of "warriors." They're mass murderers, and they deserve to be treated like murderers.

No one has yet come up with a universally accepted definition of terrorism. But most definitions of the term have one thing in common: Terrorism is the use of violence or the threat of violence by a small group to intimidate a larger one. And right now it seems that people like Giuliani, Hoekstra and their ilk are pretty intimidated by worries of what KSM and his buddies might do.

Prudence is one thing. But compromising American ideals like the rule of law isn't prudence; it's surrender. It's giving the terrorists exactly what they want. Don't give in.