I swear I won’t make this a blog about my cat, but when I came across this website today, I had to record it.

My 16-year-old cat George is afflicted with a somewhat rare condition called megacolon, in which some or all of the large intestine loses its ability to contract. We’ve been managing it with medicine up ‘till now, but he had a pretty severe episode a few days ago which required an expensive vet visit, so I decided I would look up alternative treatments. A little Googling led me to the Celebrity Cat Interviews page of the Feline Health Society.

I’d usually find this stuff pretty stupid. Maybe you will, too, but something about it just made me laugh my ass off. The interviews are conducted by a cat named Charlie, and it’s written in “cat talk,” so “mommy” becomes “meowmie,” “you” becomes “mew,” and the cats greet each other with “Rawr rawr MERAW,” which I guess is the traditional cat salute. It seems like this stuff is really written by a vet, so the medical knowledge is pretty accurate, but the style is just hysterical. Or maybe it’s just me. Maybe I just have this vision in my head of someone off in the hinterlands tapping away at the keyboard with a kitty-ear headband and painted-on whiskers to – you know – get in the mood. Hysterical.

More stuff you should be reading instead of this lousy blog…

• Declan McCullagh at CNET News has some good questions for the FBI and the Justice Department regarding their decision to try to wiretap the ‘Net.
• Wired News has the story of how the government is getting around laws which restrict data collection on private citizens by acquiring that data from private companies.
• The Poor Man (yay! he’s back!) notes the utter stupidity of releasing the name of a captured al Qaeda operative.
• Via Atrios, AZCentral.com has a list of politicians and pundits and their military service histories.
• TalkLeft points us to this very astute post at Sideshow which asks why the Bush administration doesn’t just keep their mouths shut and investigate their leads. This government is secretive about everything else, why are they blowing what should be secrets into the atmosphere?
• At Juan Cole: Bush Administration outing of Khan Enabled 5 al-Qaeda Cell Members to Escape Capture

More stuff you should be reading instead of this arrant nonsense.

• Via Atrios, you know why I love the Brits? Because a) they’re grownups and b) they’re friggin’ literate. To wit:

  The Home Secretary has warned that American-style openness over the al-Qaeda threat risked exposing politicians to ‘ridicule’, and dismissed calls for him to supply more details to the British public as ‘arrant nonsense’.

  Man. I’ve never said something was arrant nonsense. I can’t wait to use it in a conversation. Or a blog post.

• Josh Marshall dismantles the arrant nonsense in Doug Feith’s WaPo OpEd (which, be forewarned, crashed my browser… Freudian glitch, mayhaps?). This dovetails with this article on the broad scope of our war, which I mentioned the other day.
• Kevin Drum thinks the suggestion that the Department of Homeland Security plays politics is arrant nonsense.
• More on the outing of Mohammad Naeem Noor Khan from Sid the Fish and from the indispensable Juan Cole (and here!). Arrant nonsense.
• John Nichols at The Nation has an interview with John Kerry in which Kerry admits that he reads as many as nine newspapers a day and dismisses the network’s refusal to cover the Democratic Convention in depth as arrant nonsense (though not, admittedly, in so many words).

More stuff you should be reading instead of this lousy blog…

• The Bush Administration apparently burned an al Qaeda double-agent. Ie., the guy was working for us to expose al Qaeda members and plot details and, either out of stupidity or political expediency, someone revealed his name, which means he’s no longer useful as a source. Does this cavalier attitude towards exposing a secret operative mean we actually have more help in this fight than we know what to do with? That’d be one hopeful interpretation, but somehow I doubt it’s the right one. For more, see Kevin Drum (and here), Digby at Hullabaloo, Billmon, and Juan Cole.
• Turns out Democrats are actually better economic stewards than Republicans. Hm. Interesting. (via Kevin Drum)
• The Super Freak of funk will be missed. That is all.
• You know, Atrios raises a Damn Good Point™. How can David Brooks complain about not having any details about the Kerry/Edwards political platform when I can go JohnKerry.com and in about 30 seconds get a 294-page PDF filled with, well… details. I mean, you’re a journalist, David Brooks. I would think this kind of research might not be beyond your ken.
• The rover Spirit has been on Mars for three months now, and the first batch of scientific papers has been collected here. (via Martian Soil)

More stuff you should be reading instead of this lousy blog…

• Hmmm… The media actually sees the value of letting bloggers work for them. (via We The Media)
• So Bush threatened to veto the $87 billion for the Iraq war before he approved it? Flipflopper. (The Talent Show)
• Sid the Fish has the proper take on Colin Powell’s turn in the centrifuge.
• More on the Katherine Harris lie-fest from a couple of days ago.
• Speaking of lies, there’s a timeline going around which purports to show that Homeland Security terror alerts are coordinated to distract attention from White House embarrassments or some such. I don’t want to link to it because the authors haven’t provided a list of all terror alerts, so I don’t know if they’re including all terror alerts or not. I couldn’t find such a list myself. (And why not, I wonder? Why is there no terror alert database?) Anyway, I’m inclined to believe there’s a certain amount of political maneuvering taking place with these alerts, but I’d like to see more evidence.

  Still, I gotta say that Ken Layne makes a good point about the timing of the announcement and lockdown being a month in advance of the day the threat info refers to. (via Kevin Drum) And why are Laura, Barbara, and Jenna Bush visiting buildings in New York that are under threat? And you know, whether or not the threats are real, if they don’t believe you in Kenosha, you might need to re-examine your credibility.

  This is how bad it is: We hope the terror threats are real. We really want for something awful to happen, because that would restore our faith in this government. If there’s a terror attack, we can believe what they’re telling us. If not, it just confirms that our government is led right now by a bunch of lying political bullies.

• Gary Alan Fine writes in the Washington Post that people don’t hate George W. Bush because of his official acts while President, but because of his privileged upbringing and how his mediocrity has constantly been rewarded with success. No, Gary, that’s just another reason to hate Bush, one I hadn’t thought of before. Thanks for bringing it up. (via Reason Hit & Run)

  Curiously, Fine’s article contains this: ” Bush’s administration is free of scandals. He has not eliminated federal programs, not even the National Endowment for the Arts. The retreats have been strategic and slight.”

  Huh? Free of scandals? Admittedly, there have been no impeachment proceedings undertaken for Bush’s lying us into war. And sure, using executive orders to roll back environmental regulation doesn’t really qualify as “eliminating” federal programs. And I guess it’s only a slight rhetorical judo move to set a huge projected fantasy budget deficit and “beat it” by a few billion and claim that’s responsible fiscal policy. But, you know, some people actually take these things seriously, and some people actually do hate Bush based on his lousy policies.

  Moron.

• Fortunately, Boing Boing comes to the rescue with this link to thrity-eight dishonest rhetorical tricks and how to defeat them. The book referred to is out of print, but here’s the book page on Amazon.

More stuff you should be reading instead of this lousy blog…

• Two thoughts on reading Bruce Springsteen’s New York Times Op-Ed:

  1. Damn. The Boss can write.
  2. But he’s so far out of the mainstream.

• Yeah, Digby nails it. General Tommy Franks just put the whole world on alert that we could come after them at any time.
• I want the whole torture thing to go away because it’s so humiliating, but it won’t and it shouldn’t until it gets the attention it deserves. Digby reads the Gitmo report.
• We’re not fighting a war on terror. We’re fighting a war on al Qaeda. However fighting a war on al Qaeda doesn’t have legs, as they say. A war on al Qaeda is, theoretically, winnable. A war on al Qaeda doesn’t bump up the budget as much as fighting a war on terror. So we’re fighting a war on terror. Read this article for more on how we’re fighting a war on a strategy rather than on a military actor.
• One of Kevin Drum’s faithful notices that Rumsfeld has kind of dropped off the radar screen lately.
• Thanks to Boing Boing for pointing out this conversation between Norman Mailer and his son John. The elder Mailer has the most incisive comment about the Bush administration I’ve yet seen, something I’ve felt but not been able to quite put into words. He’s speaking here about watching the faces of our leaders in Fahrenheit 9/11:

  The real story was in the faces. All those faces on the Bush team. What you saw was the spiritual emptiness of those people. Bush has one of the emptiest faces in America. He looks to have no more depth than spit on a rock. It could be that the most incisive personal crime committed by George Bush is that he probably never said to himself, “I don’t deserve to be president.” You just can’t trust a man who’s never been embarrassed by himself. The vanity of George W. stands out with every smirk. He literally cannot control that vanity. It seeps out of every movement of his lips, it squeezes through every tight-lipped grimace. Every grin is a study in smugsmanship.

  “No more depth than spit on a rock.” That about says it. The rest of the piece is hardly a bash-fest, but a pretty intelligent conversation about the current political situation. Long, but worth a read.

I’m picking up a few disturbing signs of stress in liberals lately, and I just thought I’d point them out. I don’t think any of these incidents on their own are significant, but taken together they might signal foundational cracks in the structure.

First item: I just watched the Daily Show for August 2nd, the one in which Jon Stewart grilled Congressman Bonilla (R-TX) over the source of the “Kerry is most liberal, Edwards is 4th most liberal” spin that the Republicans have been spouting ad nauseum. (The Angry Bear has a partial transcript) Jon Stewart got kudos ‘round the blogosphere for ripping this apart. Granted, Stewart did have his facts straight, and the Congressman was sadly mistaken if he thought he could just parrot the talking points and survive the Daily Show buzz saw.

But here’s the thing: Stewart kind of baited the guy. He didn’t let the Congressman talk and pounce when there was an opportunity. Instead, Stewart—rather inartfully—got the Congressman to talk about what Stewart wanted to talk about. It was kind of a one-way conversation, not a fair fight. Not that Bonilla didn’t deserve it, but that’s the kind of thing I expect from Bill O’Reilly, not Jon Stewart.

So here’s thing number two: Digby links to a report from Salon where the reporter claims that a Secret Service agent ordered him to stand during the presentation of the colors at the Democratic National Convention. It seems like the agent knew that he’d gone over the top, but he didn’t back down and came off being kind of a prick.

So, okay. Fine. Here’s the problem. Digby says “Totally unprofessional, totally out of line and totally unamerican. When exactly did the Secret Service become the guardians of patriotism?” Well, never, of course. And it wasn’t the entire Secret Service. It was one guy, but Digby is ready to proclaim that this is the beginnings of a new Police State. This guy should’ve been given a tongue-lashing by his superior and maybe a suspension, but to smear the whole Secret Service with the same brush based on what this guy did is way over the top. Plus, when the agent says he was a Marine and he doesn’t like when people show disrespect for the flag, you can kind of see where his anger and misplaced patriotism might have gotten the better of him.

And here’s the third thing, and this really set me off: Under the headline Bush Blog Attacks Firefighters, Atrios quotes an adolescently stupid slam on firefighters written by a Republican police officer. The title of Atrios’ post makes it look like the Bush Blog uses this quote, but in fact the Bush Blog quotes a different part of the article and only links to the original National Review piece without further comment.

So later I see that TalkLeft and Seeing the Forest have more-or-less copied and pasted the story from Eschaton, echoing the outrage.

In the comments at Seeing the Forest, I wrote:

The smear you quote is unbelievable, but it’s not the Bush Blog that makes the smear, it’s the person who wrote the article which is linked from the Bush Blog. Is there something I don’t understand about this? Is linking to a smear article the same as smearing something yourself?
Stumax | Email | Homepage | 08.04.04 – 12:19 pm | #

To which the original poster replied:

“Is linking to a smear article the same as smearing something yourself?”
Yes.
Dave Johnson | Email | Homepage | 08.04.04 – 12:33 pm | #

Really. So if I quote from Mein Kampf, that’s the same as saying I want to exterminate the Jews?

The frustrating thing about this is that this is the same kind of fuzzy logic that gets Democrats up in arms in the first place. “Linking to an article with a smear is the same as smearing” is the same kind of logical construction as “Saddam having talks with al Qaeda is the same as Saddam bombing the World Trade Center.” Or “Saddam has aluminum tubes, therefore Saddam has nuclear weapons.” This leaves our side vulnerable to attacks from their side, and they’re much more skilled fighters than we are.

These three incidents represent a—potential—collective Liberal problem, and the problem is that outbursts like these, attacks like these, are born of righteous frustration, of a feeling of impotence. Liberals feel disenfranchised, lied to, manipulated, and powerless, and they’re starting to strike back. This is not a bad thing in and of itself, but going down into the gutter with these guys, fighting illogical, emotional slander with illogical, emotional slander is going to be the Democrats’ undoing. The Republicans will seize on these missteps and turn them to their advantage.

It’s been a long slog already. I sympathize. Between the blatant lies of the Administration, the war, the economy, the shredding of the Constitution, the vicious personal attacks, Fox News and the rest of the Conservative Media… it’s been really tough for Liberals to have a moment’s peace. But it’s crunch time now. Between now and the election, Liberals have to be at the top of their game. We cannot stoop to these kinds of inelegant attacks, because all we have going for us right now is that truth is on our side. If we start bending that, we’ll muddy the waters so much that the photo-finish horse race everyone is predicting will become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Courage, Democrats.

More stuff you should be reading instead of this lousy blog…

• From Talking Points Memo we clicked on this American Journalism Review article extolling the exemplary reporting of Knight Ridder’s Washington bureau. It seems that that little corner of the media world was actually reporting something different than the mainstream line on Iraq and al Qaeda before, during, and after the run-up to war, and what they were reporting was the truth. I cruised over to Knight Ridder home page to find out more about what’s going on with them these days. I was amazed and pleased to find (after some poking around) that there’s a vibrant discussion going on within the organization about values, ethics, accuracy, and good reporting.

  Knight Ridder’s executives are demonstrating strong leadership in the news business. In March, the company published its Credibility Handbook, a 23-page paper written in the wake of the Jayson Blair scandal which addresses concerns in the organization and the larger news community about credibility. It’s clear that Knight Ridder takes its credibility seriously, and the handbook provides clear guidelines and expectations for its family of newspapers. Remarkably, it also recognizes organizational and regional differences among its subsidiaries and encourages and empowers local management to make sensible local policy.

  I’d watch this company, if I were you, and reward it with your business if at all possible. They seem to be headed in the right direction.

• Juan Cole laughs his ass off at Cheney’s absurd suggestion that the Democrats are causing higher oil prices.
• Digby sez the Democrats are constitutionally incapable of competing with the Republicans in the politics of image and derision. All the more reason to elevate our game to a different level.
• Man. Apparently, you shouldn’t think at work, ‘cause if you do, your employer owns your thoughts. The system is broken, people. Can somebody give it a kick in the pants? (Slashdot)
• More reasons we’re not crying over Jack Valenti stepping down as head of the MPAA. (via “Boing Boing”: http://www.boingboing.net/2004/08/03/jack_valenti_says_st.html)
• Adam Felber’s gotcher terror alert… right here.
• Ron Reagan Righteously Rips Righties. (Sid’s Fishbowl)
• What’s John Kerry done in his three decades as a senator? More than this guy.
• Remember those Choose Your Own Adventure that were all the rage in the late 70s/early 80s? Well, somebody’s brought the concept into the Aughts, with an online Choose Your Own Adventure Never Ending Story Engine. If you’re a writer, you might want to contribute a little story, ‘cause the ones that are up now are a bit uneven. Cool idea, though. (via Boing Boing)

My good friend Arlen sent me a list of “Things you have to believe to be a Republican today.” It’s actually pretty on-target, with stuff like:

• A president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable offense. A president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is solid defense policy.
• Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is communist, but trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.
• Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you’re a conservative radio host. Then it’s an illness and you need our prayers for your recovery.
• The United States should get out of the United Nations, and our highest national priority is enforcing U.N. resolutions against Iraq.

• Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy. Providing health care to all Americans is socialism.

  You can see the full list at AZplace.

  Of course, in the interest of fairness, AZplace “also has Things you have to believe to be a Democrat today, but I really didn’t find it all that damn funny.

Here’s more stuff you should be reading instead of this lousy blog…

• A few days ago we mentioned that the Justice Department was ordering libraries to destroy government documents related to asset forfeiture. Thanks to Boing Boing, we find out that DOJ has rescinded that request. Yay for us!
• Tom Ridge pulls 3-4 year old threat information out of his ass and Howard Dean calls him on it. Then, the Washington Post and Judy Woodruff (who I used to think I could trust) attack Dean. Liberal Media?! You’ve gotta be f-ing kidding me. (Eschaton)

  In fairness, Kevin Drum seems willing to give the reports some credence. But, then again, Billmon has his doubts in light of “An Amazing Series of Coincidences.” I guess the dynamic is this: we all want to be cautious and trust our leaders, but we’re gettin’ really sick of being lied to. Lying breeds cynicism and cynicism erodes trust. There is no hope for this administration to get its trust back. The only hope is regime change.

• Jesus, it’s like a friggin’ Roman Carnival of debauchery. It’s like everyone’s drunk with power, and since they don’t figure there’ll be any consequences, it’s anything goes. According to the New England Journal of Medicine, “U.S. doctors, nurses, and medics have been complicit in torture and other illegal procedures in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo Bay.” They’ve apparently altered death certificates and shared medical files with abusers (so that the abuser would know just how to hurt a prisoner). Why do Iraqis hate America so? (via TalkLeft)
• If you hear anyone say that President Bush is implementing the proposals made by the 9/11 Commission, don’t you believe them. Josh Marshall and Kevin Drum explain why.
• Another Drum catch: the rise of anticipatory warrants.
• Oh! There’s the liberal media. It’s just this one guy. Well, he is at the New York Times. (via Hullaballoo)
• Our president doesn’t seem to understand how stirring up a hornet’s nest makes it more likely you’ll get stung. Juan Cole patiently explains it to him.
• WTF? So, did she say too much, or much too much? From the Herald Tribune (via Eschaton):

  U.S. Rep. Katherine Harris said Monday that the United States has “literally defeated 100 (potential) terrorist attacks on this country” in the past three years, some of which could have been as deadly as the 9/11 destruction of the World Trade Center.

  [...] In an interview after the speech, Harris said she learned from classified information about the 100 potential attacks that have been thwarted since 9/11.

  “Actually, it’s been more than 100,” she said. “It’s classified … obviously not classified to me … but things I can’t go into detail about.”

  [...] Harris told the audience that while she was in the Midwest recently, the mayor of Carmel, Ind., recounted how a man of Middle Eastern heritage had been arrested. She said hundreds of pounds of explosives were found in his home.

  “He had plans to blow up the area’s entire power grid,” she said.

  Pressed after the speech for details about the arrest, Harris said it had not been made public and she asked a reporter not to name the city she mentioned to the audience.

  “I probably said too much,” Harris said.

• Doesn’t matter. The administration doesn’t care much about the truth anyway. In These Times tells us that Bush, Cheney, et al, knew the case they were making to the American people in support of the war was puffed up, and they continued to lie.