Infrastructure? We don't need no stinkin' infrastructure...

I wonder how much $500 billion to $1 trillion could have bought. Probably would have been enough to cover this. But why protect the "homeland" when you can try to build a new one for someone else?

Michael Scott is GWB

I've only recently started watching The Office (only the U.S. version) on DVD and nearly always bust a gut at the glances exchanged and overwhelmingly awkward moments . But I started to wonder if this quasi-documentary might be understood in a different light: is there another subtext in which we might interpret the staggering ineptitude of Michael Scott, the fanatical obedience of Dwight Schrute, the romantic sideshow of Jim and Pam, and the overwhelming indifference of the rest of the workers? Can The Office be understood as a parody of the Bush administration and modern American political discourse?

Allow me to propose that Scranton branch of Dunder-Mifflin is a tidy microcosm of America: Michael Scott is our inept Dear Leader, Dwight Shrute is the boot-licking wingbat, Jim and Pam are the distracting sideshow of faux news and reality TV, Ryan represents the international community that has no clue how to react, and the rest of the workers represent a populace too blinkered and bored to care. Similarly, there is this "Corporate" apparatus embodied by Jan who ostensibly has the power to correct or balance these injustices but is initially indifferent then later seduced by the endearing machinations of Michael as well as a "Warehouse" of underclass laborers. Most important, however, is the acknowledged presence of the camera which serves to record the incalculable tedium and pointlessness of witnessed events in a society on the verge of collapse that it might be viewed later as a lesson.

Or perhaps my cynicism is reading too far into this...

Democrats blink

The Democrats blink first. After a whole campaign of tough talk and weeks to get withdrawal legislation on the President's desk, the Democrats blink and are about to pass legislation funding the war without timelines or accountability just like the Republican congresses before them. This is a complete and total collapse and a betrayal of their base who elected them there. It is obvious they are more concerned about perceived as having politicized the war in the next election than actually keeping the ball in the President's court. Now that the President is newly emboldened, do you think those investigations and subpoenas are going to go as swimmingly? I doubt it.

Double-take

Hugh Hewitt writes about the immigration bill:

There are so many problems with this bill that it should not be introduced in the Senate absent a period of open hearings on it and the solicitation of expert opinion from various analysts across the ideological spectrum. Even were it somehow to improbably make its way to the president's desk, if it does so before these problems are aired and confronted, the Congress would be inviting a monumental distrust of the institution. There is simply too much here to say "Trust us," and move on. The jam down of such a far reaching measure, drafted in secret and very difficult for laymen much less lawyers to read, is fundamentally inconsistent with how we govern ourselves.

Open hearings? (But not have Rove & Co. testify on their roles in attorneygate?) Expert opinion from across the ideological spectrum? (But evolution and climate change don't exist.) Don't just "trust us" and move on? (But trust us on Guantanamo detainees, NSA wiretapping, et al) Drafted in secret and difficult to read? (Cheney's Energy Task Force?) Inconsistent with how we govern ourselves? (But the Military Commissions Act and PATRIOT Act are consistent?)

What a tree-hugging, bleeding-heart, wacky moonbat, America-hating liberal. Why can't he just support the troops and the President so that we can protect freedom?

Muzzling Ron Paul

Malkin excoriates Ron Paul for making claims like

Well, I never automatically trust anything the government does when they do an investigation because too often I think there's an area that the government covered up

Sounds familiar to Reagan's oft repeated quote, "Trust but verify." Wasn't it Reagan to whom all the Republican candidates aspired (gee, why not the current 2-term Republican president?). Perhaps something about Paul's message (maybe lower taxes, less government, less foreign intervention) appeals to a certain group of Americans who do not want to promulgate a misogynist and xenophobic Christian theocracy. However, it is funny seeing a twice-divorced cross-dressing Roman Catholic, northeastern elitist Mormon, and agnostic hypocritical politco trying to pander to these Southern Baptist Bible Belters.

It should get interesting as all the other neo-cons who have been drinking the Cheney-Rove KoolAide(Malkin, LGF, RedState, etc) continue to cover Dr. No over his "radical" and "lunatic" stances even though he was not even in the second tier of candidates before. John Dickerson at Slate has more on the Republicans efforts to silence their own candidate. Well now Paul's the top hit on Technorati and getting top-fold coverage elsewhere online. Let's see how the media tries to cover or spin it as it continues to pull for its favorite 3 as well as if he can translate into any momentum "on the ground."

Suicidal ideologues

As though Bush administration apologists don't have enough on their plate to spin, Michelle Malkin - fresh off her racist John Doe screed - posted this:

I

I am an American, fighting in the forces which guard my country and our way of life. I am prepared to give my life in their defense.

II

I will never surrender of my own free will. If in command, I will never surrender the members of my command while they still have the means to resist.

III

If I am captured I will continue to resist by all means available. I will make every effort to escape and to aid others to escape. I will accept neither parole nor special favors from the enemy.

IV

If I become a prisoner of war, I will keep faith with my fellow prisoners. I will give no information or take part in any action which might be harmful to my comrades. If I am senior, I will take command. If not, I will obey the lawful orders of those appointed over me and will back them up in every way.

V

When questioned, should I become a prisoner of war, I am required to give name, rank, service number, and date of birth. I will evade answering further questions to the utmost of my ability. I will make no oral or written statements disloyal to my country and its allies or harmful to their cause.

VI

I will never forget that I am an American, fighting for freedom, responsible for my actions, and dedicated to the principles which made my country free. I will trust in my God and in the United States of America.

What's her point? That the British sailors are cowards and traitors or that US servicemen would have responded more aggressively? Would she have preferred these sailors to have died in a firefight and ignite the region's tinderbox to hasten her savior's second coming? Given her extensive military service, diplomatic experience, and overwhelming familiarity with the facts of the situation, to say nothing of her experience of being held at gunpoint by a foreign government, where does she have the moral authority to suggest sacrificing these sailors at the altar of partisan ideology?