Whiskey Fire

I Can Feel the Rage Building within You...

Erick, Son of Erick, the Red Ass-Chapped, is so mad, he is hopping.

At what point do the people tell the politicians to go to hell? At what point do they get off the couch, march down to their state legislator’s house, pull him outside, and beat him to a bloody pulp for being an idiot?

At some point soon, it will happen. It’ll be over an innocuous issue. But the rage is building. It’s not a partisan issue. There is bipartisan angst at out of control government made worse by dumb bans like this and unintended consequences like AIG’s bonus problems.

This is over laundry detergent. No, really. That's not a joke.

Anyway, as to the "the rage is building" idea, well, no. No, it isn't. 

The number of Americans who believe that the nation is headed in the right direction has roughly tripled since Barack Obama's election.

Hard as it may be to believe, most Americans don't want to run around in the woods yelling "Wolverines." Neither do they especially want to be ruled by the idiots who do enjoy adolescent fantasies like that, especially when they start babbling about lynching people and yammering on about "cleaning my gun right about now waiting to protect my property from the coming riots or the government aparatchicks coming to enforce nonsensical legislation." Such talk is more likely to inspire responses along the lines of "let me back away from the crazy person."

Moreover, Erick the Jammies Warrior ("In my dreams I get to be a Viking!") here also exhibits the typical wingnut unwillingness to grasp the distinction between federal and local government, largely because doing so would get in the way of the masturbatory Patrick Swayze fantasies.

From techno seeds we first planted, evolved a mind of its own

Enter Operation:Johnny B Flat User ID: ...
User ID: Ripley
Enter Operation:Johnny B Flat Access Code: ...
Access Code: Thrillhammer
Please Wait for Operation:Johnny B Flat Obama Clearance Level: ...
Clearance Level: Bad Mama Jama
Proceed...

Well, since Andy Breitbart hasn't quite been laughed off the internets yet, there's no sense letting all these pixels go to waste, right?  I'm sure you've probably read some snippets of his op-ed and wondered how a trog like Andy is allowed near any electrical appliances at all, much less anything that can send electro-beams out to other people, but it sure gives us some good times, don't it? 

Now, I'm no big shot internets dude, like Andy.  I'm just a caveman who fell in some ice and later got thawed out by your scientists.  err... I'm just a regular Sam with a computer.  No funds from the President, no funds from Soros, no e-mail lists or shadow groups giving me instructions.  Kinda takes all the fun out of it, but there you go.  But hey, kids - there's no reason we can't make Andy look stupid and give him some grief, right?  Right!  Onward!

 Much of Mr. Obama's vaunted online strategy involved utilizing "Internet trolls" to invade enemy lines under false names and trying to derail discussion. In the real world, that's called "vandalism." But in a political movement that embraces "graffiti" as avant-garde art, that's business as usual. It relishes the ability to destroy other people's property in pursuit of electoral victory.

Really, Andy?  Care to show your work?  I'm pretty sure you didn't type this op-ed up on an old IBM Selectric, so why didn't you include any links to sources when you e-mailed this plonk to the Moonie Times?  And you can't be serious with the "vandalism" bit, can you?  You're seriously equating Free Speech and opposing opinions in political conversations on the intenernet with the destruction or marring of physical property?  Even you must know that Lierberman's claim that his political opponents "shut down" his website was pure bullshit, but that would be an example of "destroying other people's property" on the internet, if it were factual.  Can you offer some solid, verified examples of anyone destroying a wingnut's internet "property"?  No, you can't. So, you're either a liar or terribly, terribly misinformed and comically gullible.  (The "invade enemy lines" was classic, though.  What are you, 12 years old, GI Joke?)

Hugh Hewitt's popular site shut off its comments section because of the success of these obnoxious invaders. Breitbart.com polices nonpartisan newswire stories for such obviously coordinated attacks. Other right-leaning sites such as Instapundit and National Review Online refuse to allow comments, knowing better than to flirt with the online activist left.

Well, I just checked Hugh Hewitt's popular site (which is actually on Townhall.com, so is it really Hugh's site?) and he's still pumping out his usual schlock.  It would seem the obnoxious invaders didn't thwart his Free Speech at all.  Oh ho, a mystery!  As for NRO and State Gov't Employee, Glenn Reynolds (health insurance! pension!), well, one can only imagine that they, like the PowerLine gits and a lot of the Right Wing Mama's Boys, are simply cowards who can't stand criticism.  Gotta keep that bubble strong, just like their hero, George the W, y'know.  And yet, there they are - speechifyin' and catapulting the propaganda, almost as if no one were interfering with their right and/or ability to voice their opinions.  Again, a mystery!

Now, this bit about Breitbart.com "policing" stories for coordinated attacks.  First, if they're so obviously coordinated, why would anyone need you to police them?  Second, I don't see any policing happening there.  You're simply running a news aggregator of feeds from major news outlets. But maybe I'm missing someting.  Maybe you, Andy Breitbart, coordinate a counter attack of comments and pure fucking Patriotism when one of these sites suffers a liberal birkenstockkreig.  Gung the fuck ho!  Come on, boys, we're goin' to war!  (Imagine joyous cheers, masturbate furiously, feel better.)  Oh, and no comments on your site.  Odd, that.  Well, except for the satellite, BigHo, which is a little light on the Ho and in danger of its own asshole swallowing itself as your guest bloggers piss and moan about how no one respects them.  Here's a clue, kids: you're idiots.

During the Clinton impeachment scandal, a new group out of California called MoveOn.org employed a plan to get its members to dial into right-leaning talk radio shows with scripted talking points falsely claiming that they were Republicans. [...] Rush Limbaugh was the first to isolate these "seminar callers," [...] Eleven years later, "seminar callers" abound...

Again, proof, Andy?  Regardless, what a dastardly scheme!  Encouraging people to call in to talk radio shows!  That's squashing Free Speech and beating Granny and eating kittens' paws and something else bad! No self-respecting wingnut would ever think of enacting a plot so heinous and downright unAmerican!  Would they?  Let's check with MC Steele and dig his rap, yo!

 Call Talk Radio
Get the word out by calling local radio shows & promote the GOP.

And what do we find when we clink on that link?

National Shows:      
   
Battle Line with Alan Nathan - Bill Bennett's Morning in America - Common Sense Radio With Ollie North - Dateline Washington with Greg Corombus - Dr. Laura    - G. Gordon Liddy Show - Glenn Beck Show - Good Day USA - Hot Talk with Scott Hennen - Hugh Hewitt Show - Janet Parshall's America - Michael Reagan Show - Michael Savage Show - Neal Boortz Show - Point of View - Rusty Humphries Show - Sean Hannity Show - The Bob Grant Show - The Dennis Prager Show - The Dolans Show - The Don Kroah Show - The Jim Bohannon Show - The Larry Elder Show - The Lars Larson Show - The Laura Ingraham Show - The Mark Levin Show - The Michael Medved Show - The Mike Gallagher Show - The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly - The Rush Limbaugh Show

Why, it's almost as if the GOP wanted people to call talk radio shows and promote the GOP and its talking points.  There's even a handy form to find talk radio shows in your zip code.  Huh...

Then, of course, there's this absolute comedy gold that you probably just forgot about, Andy, what with your busy schedule of being fabulous and dropping some righteous Truth on some motherfuckers.

To be more effective in 2009, we all need to do a better job organizing.

If you are interested in being a part of the Army of Redstate Activists in your state, please fill out the form below. We’ll post this on a regular basis.

Let’s organize.

I want Barack Obama to fail and I want to help ensure he does.

I will join the RedState Army of Activists and fight for freedom by working to undermine Barack Obama's agenda and helping him fail.  [This line is the signup "pledge". - Rip]

Schwing dilly dilly ding dong!  It's almost as if Erickson is trying to coordinate some group of citizens to engage in activity to change the course of American culture and politics.  The mysteries, they abound tonight!  More from Andy's breathless Big Story:

The left also uses disinformation to inundate the advertisers of conservative-leaning talk shows to intimidate them from financially supporting popular mainstream shows.

Go fuck yourself 10,000 times, Andy.  Disinformation?  Really?  Do I need to drag out the audio from KSFO that was sent to its advertisers, so you can point out the "disinformation" to me?  Or are you implying that Amanda Terkel is a liar, since her story is hot right now?  If you are, have the grapes to come right out and say it.  Act like a man for once.  Tall order, I know...

Here's the thing, Andy boy - go ahead and yap, I really don't care.  It's your right and I respect that a great deal.  But if you can't pull together some facts, if you can't be bothered to back up your assertions and accusations with something more evidentiary than "I'll just bet they are!  I heard it somewhere!", you should really shut the fuck up.  I have no idea why anyone thinks you're somebody whose opinion matters but there you are, staggering around the national political stage with half a glass of Chateau le Stupide in your hand and cock-rockin' it for the ladies.  I couldn't give a flying rat's ass.  Oh, wait...

As a prolific consumer of online content, I value nothing more than the sincere expression of opinion that differs from mine.

There's some sun-kissed, ripe for the pickin' bullshit.  Don't you have any shame, man?  I know you're a Dirty Fucking Republican and your usual MO is to cry, but Cheney's wrinkled balls!  You make the internets sad every time you type something, Andy.  In fact, you and your little friends make the internets a poorer place.  So, unless you're going to come up with some real, actual facts that prove your "point", just go away, man.

We already have Jonah Goldberg to laugh at and a brother can only do so much multitasking, know what I mean?

Rip -

Congratuations!

Sincere and hearty congratulations to Victor David Hanson for the most unutterably fucking stupid anti-Obama blog post maybe ever, or at least in the last few minutes, or until the next time Jonah Goldberg feels especially flatulent. (Checking watch -- some trains never come late!)

Anyhow, Mr V. D. Hanson doesn't like how Obama uses pronouns, as they indicate Socialism. Yes, it's that special.

Anyhow, you fish, down there in the barrel? Say hello to my leetle fren.

My fellow Americans: I've spoken to you from this historic office on many occasions and about many things. The power of the Presidency is often thought to reside within this Oval Office. Yet it doesn't rest here; it rests in you, the American people, and in your trust. Your trust is what gives a president his powers of leadership and his personal strength, and it's what I want to talk to you about this evening.

For the past three months, I've been silent on the revelations about Iran. And you must have been thinking: "Well, why doesn't he tell us what's happening? Why doesn't he just speak to us as he has in the past when we've faced troubles or tragedies?" Others of you, I guess, were thinking: "What's he doing hiding out in the White House?" Well, the reason I haven't spoken to you before now is this: You deserve the truth. And as frustrating as the waiting has been, I felt it was improper to come to you with sketchy reports, or possibly even erroneous statements, which would then have to be corrected, creating even more doubt and confusion. There's been enough of that. I've paid a price for my silence in terms of your trust and confidence. But I've had to wait, as you have, for the complete story. That's why I appointed Ambassador David Abshire as my Special Counselor to help get out the thousands of documents to the various investigations. And I appointed a Special Review Board, the Tower Board, which took on the chore of pulling the truth together for me and getting to the bottom of things. It has now issued its findings.

Don't like that? Like to quibble with it? Well, all-righty then! (Going here, throwing dart totally randomly.) Okay, here we go:

Message on the Observance of National Nursing Home Week, May 12 - 18, 1985

May 13, 1985

During National Nursing Home Week, I urge all Americans to remember the contributions our older citizens have made in building America. These men and women are an important link with traditional American values for our young people today. Continued contact between older and younger Americans helps to strengthen these values for our future. I support the goals of the nursing home industry to provide the highest standards of medical and social services for the elderly, but institutional care is not enough. We must also encourage everyone to include the elderly in their lives.

Sweet Jesus Fuck! What a trivial announcement, and he uses the first person subject pronoun! In English!

My irritation at this bullshit goes beyond its obvious triviality. If Hanson thought this thesis about how Obama uses a particular pronoun was at all worth thinking about, and how this is somehow connected with "socialism," and I cannot imagine why, he could have gone at least to the fucking Google and see if Obama does this any more than any other modern presidents. I say "no, Obama doesn't." If he wants to say otherwise, well, he could check to see if his fucking thesis is correct before opening up his fucking yap.

Yeah, it's just a stupid blog post. But then again, I'm given to understand that Hanson is some class of "scholar." And yet he's content to throw poo because his biases tell him to. What a fucking embarrassment.

Caitlin Flanagan, Literary Critic-Genius

Caitlin Flanagan has many failings, but as far as I know she's never before been accused of horribly botching the history of the British novel. Until now.

Tony Woodlief’s earnest desire to understand Dracula, one of the great novels of the nineteenth century and the first novel in English to include such a multiplicity of narrators and of invented primary documents....

And I'm not reading any further. Wilkie Collins would perhaps like to have a word with Flanagan.

She's right that Woodlief's article is stupid, but there are better explanations as to why. Ahem.

Looking the wrong direction

by flory

So in order for the automakers to get any more of Geithner's money the bossman has to lose his job. I sure wish somebody could explain why this is the only solution for the automakers but doesn't seem to apply to the banksters:

It would be a mistake to assume Obama thinks Wagoner or the rest of GM’s current management are solely responsible for the company’s problems. But Obama wants to transform GM, both culturally and structurally. Such a transformation necessarily begins at the top. As one expert told the New York Times, Wagoner is “a victim of problems that his predecessors did not solve, but he’s also responsible for where G.M. is today.”

From what I've read, GM isn't the company responsible for the destruction of the global economy. Let's try an experiment:

It would be a mistake to assume Obama thinks Wagoner Pandit or the rest of GM’s Citibank's current management are solely responsible for the company’s problems. But Obama wants to transform GM Citibank, both culturally and structurally. Such a transformation necessarily begins at the top. As one expert told the New York Times, Wagoner Pandit is “a victim of problems that his predecessors did not solve, but he’s also responsible for where G.M. Citibank is today.”

Does anybody else think this would be a lot more effective in getting us out of the current mess -- and making sure it doesn't happen again -- than dumping on the automakers?

First They Came for the Comments Sections

Andrew Breitbart, who is not at all a lunatic, informs us that Barack Obama has ordered hundreds, perhaps thousands, or even squajillions of his slavishly obedient digital stormtrooper jihadis to cruelly make fun of Hugh Hewitt in his blog's comments section.

A digital war has broken out, and the conservative movement is losing. Read the comment sections of right-leaning blogs, news sites and social forums, and the evidence is there in ugly abundance. Internet hooligans are spewing their talking points to thwart the dissent of the newly-out-of-power.

Because heaven forfend anyone would ever say something hateful or crazy in a right-wing blog's comments section.

Uninvited Democratic activists are on a mission to demoralize the enemy - us. They want to ensure that President Obama is not subject to the same coordinated, facts-be-damned, multimedia takedown they employed over eight long years to destroy the presidency - and the humanity - of George W. Bush.

I'm glad that Breitbart concedes that the right is planning a "facts be damned" onslaught against Obama; I'm not surprised, but it's nice to see it confirmed. Though it is kind of odd that they're planning to use exactly the same one that was supposedly used against Bush. Wouldn't that one be a bit dated? Well, regardless, the person who did by far the most to "destroy the presidency and humanity" of George W. Bush was, of course, George W. Bush. The worst us internet bloggers ever did to the fellow was to chuck pop-bottles at him from the cheap seats.

Much of Mr. Obama's vaunted online strategy involved utilizing "Internet trolls" to invade enemy lines under false names and trying to derail discussion. In the real world, that's called "vandalism." But in a political movement that embraces "graffiti" as avant-garde art , that's business as usual. It relishes the ability to destroy other people's property in pursuit of electoral victory.

Really? That was Obama's strategy? Breitbart offers no evidence that it was -- or that anyone else on the Left is now doing this (assertions that Media Matters is running such a campaign don't quite equal "evidence," even if it comes from so unimpeachable a source as a guy from Human Events). But if Breitbart says so!

I mean, let's be charitable. Perhaps Breitbart was just confusing Obama with John McCain -- an understandable mental lapse -- for whom this was quite literally an explicit strategy, and whose website said as much.

No, wait, the GOP could not possibly have done this, for, as Breitbart explains:

The right, for the most part, embraces basic Judeo-Christian ideals and would not promote nor defend the propaganda techniques that were perfected in godless communist and socialist regimes. The current political and media environment crafted by supposedly idealistic Mr. Obama resembles Hugo Chavez's Venezuela more than John F. Kennedy's America.

The Huffington Post, Daily Kos and other left-leaning sites benefit from the right's belief that there are rules and decorum in political debate and civic engagement. Of course, every now and then, a curious right-winger will go in and engage in discussion at a left-wing site, but rarely under purely disingenuous and mass coordinated means.

True. Well, fair enough. The fact is, Gary Ruppert only ever comments out of love, man, love, just like any other hippie.

MORE. Reacting to Breitbart, Dan Riehl talks about his testicles and how they enable him to bravely go onto the internet and say that he likes Rush Limbaugh (perhaps fondling said testicles as he contemplates Rush Limbaugh helps him type). Nevertheless he bemoans his fate: "Meanwhile Sullivan's commenters descend here because I dared to point out that the current president doesn't think like an American and is steering a course for the Third World." As he points out, if you disagree with this grown-up assessment, you are probably a homosexual sissy.

I can't imagine why anyone on the left would ever try to shut down such fascinating speech. By all means, proceed. You too, Breitbart!

MORE! Mr. G. "Way" Pundit adds his own tale of woe:

The Other McCain pointed out that in January, they were even caught trying to plant "hate" memes at Team Sarah in an effort to discredit Palin.

Palin needs to be discredited? Why? We already have, you know, Sarah Palin to do that, and she's doing a hell of a job.

Don't shoot the messenger...well maybe not this time.

-By Jake T. Snake

Last week there was some serious hating of the pope going on after it was reported that

 "On a flight to Yaoundé in Cameroon, his first trip as pope to Africa, home of two-thirds of the world's AIDS sufferers, Pope Benedict XVI really did say that AIDS is a "drama that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which on the contrary increase the problem."

It may not suprise you to know that I am a big fan of the condom. We give away 100s of thousands of them a year at my place of business and that is a good thing. I mean people have sex and lots of it. If I can help them do it a little more safely, well hey, life is good.

What I found interesting about the whole dustup is that the pope seems to be at least partially in agreement with one of my favorite commentators on the AIDS epidemic Gabriel Rotello. Mr Rotello was a gay man living in New York City when he wrote Sexual Ecology. One of Rotello's central points in Sexual Ecology is that condoms are what he terms a technological fix and that while these methods help prevent disease they are ultimately flawed and do not ask people to change behavior that may be the underlying root cause of a problem. As you can probably imagine, Mr. Rotello was crucified by his community for these remarks and as further proof of exactly how high voltage a third rail he connected with the book is out of print and there are no plans for another printing. Nobody wants to hear this. Just because we don't want to talk about or accept an idea, does not necessarily mean it is valid or invalid.

Let's look at another technological fix, birth control, arguably one of the greatest developments of the 20th century and again, I am a big fan. Two people with my genetic material on the globe is really more than enough. As reliable as our birth control methods are and when used correctly they are highly reliable, human error and choices still represent the wild card in determining if they work in the real world. As Mr. Rotello points out in his book, 50% of pregnancies give or take a few percentage points are unplanned. The 99.9% effective birth control pill has to be taken to prevent fertilization.

Condoms are the same in that in order for them to work, they must be used, used regularly and used correctly. As big a fan as I am, I recognize there are some significant hurdles here, people being people. I am not a big fan of the pope's and am not apologizing for anyone who thinks getting rid of condoms as a tool for HIV prevention is a good idea. That is just lunacy. I think we can have a both/and discussion here. We should use all the tools we already have at our disposal, but begin to examine our cultures of sexuality as Rotello did with the gay community and ask the difficult questions. Are there pieces of our culture's sexual expectations or norms that support the growth and spread of sexually transmitted infections like abstinence only education, rape as a weapon. The pope would probably visualize a world where everyone is monogamous as a means to prevent HIV infection. I see a multitude of problems with this approach and think it is unrealistic, but perhaps it is a good exercise to examine the sexual norms of our cultures and ask "Is this healthy?"

I hope that this is what the pope is asking us to do and that his message was bogged down in his condemnation of condoms. Here's hoping.

Update: An article on the mixed data on the effectiveness of condom use as a HIV prevention tool in Africa with thanks to MoMoDo for the heads up. 

I Am Quailing Quasar

Robert Farley:

I'm trying to reserve judgment, but there's a fundamental conflict that I just can't get around with regards to the latest Star Trek. William Shatner's James T. Kirk is one of the most compelling fictional characters ever developed, but is largely the result of an accident; Shatner's mediocre acting combined unexpectedly with Roddenberry's mediocre writing to create something magical. A recreation of Kirk can go in one of two directions. On the one hand, the actor can attempt to imitate Shatner; this would seem difficult to accomplish and self-defeating if successfully executed. On the other hand, the actor can attempt to develop a new Kirk; this runs up against the problem that James T. Kirk is, sans Shatner, just not a very interesting character concept.

Thus, I remain unconvinced.

Look, I just drink here. I never understood a single episode of Battlestar Galactica, and I still fucking don't. That whole series was shot with YouTube fucking production values and an Itty-Bitty-Booklight.

Or something.

Harry Reid, Man of Insight and Perspicacity and Dignified Dignitude

Two Harry Reid stories.

One.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Friday that liberal groups targeting moderate Democrats with ads should back off, saying pressure from the left wing of his party won't be helpful to enacting legislation.

"I think it's very unwise and not helpful," Reid said Friday morning. "These groups should leave them alone. It's not helpful to me. It's not helpful to the Democratic Caucus"...

A number of liberal activists have expressed concerns about a group of 16 Senate Democratic moderates who have been meeting in an attempt to bolster their influence. 

Reid has no qualms about the group, and said that "any public statements" Senate moderates have made have been helpful as the chamber takes up a budget next week that would cost more than $3 trillion. And he added: "Some people of course go to those meetings so they can issue a press release back home that'll make them appear more moderate."

Two. And this one tells us an awful lot about Reid's amazingly brilliantly amazing ability to figure out who's a moderate and who's only faking it:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Friday that John Roberts misled the Senate during his confirmation hearings by pretending to be a moderate — and that the United States is now "stuck" with him as chief justice. 

"Roberts didn’t tell us the truth. At least Alito told us who he was," Reid said, referring to Samuel Alito, the second Supreme Court justice nominated by President George W. Bush. "But we’re stuck with those two young men, and we’ll try to change by having some moderates in the federal courts system as time goes on — I think that will happen."

Reid's comments, which came during a wide-ranging discussion hosted by the Christian Science Monitor, reflect Democratic concerns that Roberts presented himself as a neutral arbiter of the law but has wielded a relentlessly conservative agenda.

Keep this man away from 3-Cart Monte tables. Though, of course, it's no skin off his nose that he keeps getting pantsed by "moderates." After all, he is a Senator, the Sernator Majority Leader, and by default a Very Serious Person Worthy of Respect. And as such, rest assured, he will always be foursquare against Extremism:

Although Reid said that Democrats will try to put moderates on the bench, he said he will not try to deny Republicans the right to filibuster nominees.

Gosh no! Why,

"As I said at the time, the nuclear option was the most important issue I've ever worked on in my entire career, because if that had gone forward it would have destroyed the Senate as we know it," Reid said.

Because where would we all be without "the Senate as we know it," why, we would be fucked. Extremists might have seized control of the Supreme Court, or something.

Because the "Senate as we know it" is a wonderfully democratic institution, especially with the filibuster guaranteeing the right of a party that controls nothing to veto everything the majority of the people of the country voted for, although this only holds true in the case of Republicans. I think that's in the Constitution somewhere.

Anyhow Reid cares more about preposterous Senatorial notions of Civilized Senatorial Procedure than he does about anything else; he says so himself. This is very perfectly Senatorial, and a large part of the reason why there's such an amazingly inverse relationship between how most people see the Senate (a gang of clowns) and how Senators see themselves (Gods, basically).

MORE. At least Reid can console himself that he's brighter and more honest than Althouse, who sniffily declaims to her comment section, like Norma Desmond doing an Atticus Finch impression to the rats in in a potato cellar:

Apparently, the judges whose opinions track your political positions are, in your book, the "moderates." That is the lesson I think you are trying to teach people. It is a lesson that undermines the integrity of law. It goes right along with Barney Frank's recent, despicable assertion that Justice Scalia is a homophobe.

Huff! Flounce! Vogue! Jump back! Kiss myself!

Apparently you have to be either a law professor or a senator to be enough of a moron to take seriously the Senate confirmation kabuki, or to believe that this distinction between "the law" and "politics" when it comes to Supreme Court positions is anything other than ludicrous, obfuscatory horseshit.

Sometimes I'm Programmed Better Than the Other Ones

Shorter John Hood:

All those nerds on JournoList act like pretentious adolescent pseudo-intellectual geeks, a point I shall illustrate through my non-ironic citation of Rush lyrics.

Over at the Corner they're all giggling and snorting over how childish and shallow and insider-y and like totally stupidy stupidhead the JournoList thing is, which is, uh, fascinating, in a clinical sense. Look, a louse, in K-Lo's hair! Ewww!