The Anchoress

I am the worst person in the world for writing code - just way too dyslexic for it - so it took me the whole evening, but I finally have updated and spruced up The Bookshelf a little. There are new books, some favorite videos and movies and a little section of material things, because I’m a very materialistic person. Buster’s section has been struck for now because he’s working on a new list.

Because the 5th Anniversary of 9/11 is so near, I have included the film United 93 and the really excellent video, 9 Innings from Ground Zero. I can’t recommend that video enough - it brings you right back to that day, and then demonstrates how the game of baseball helped the country regroup - including footage from the President’s unforgettable first pitch from the mound at Yankee Stadium (a perfect strike!) and interviews with him in the locker room. You remember, you cry…but you also feel proud and unbroken.

Something completely different that you might enjoy, a game called APPLES TO APPLES which Elder Son’s Sweet Girlfriend brought to our family’s attention and which we really enjoyed playing. You might like it, too.

A few years ago the press and the left were gasping about the “brilliance” of some novella (whose name escapes me - it was called Checkpoint, or Flashpoint or Freakpoint or something - I’ll have to go to the Borders Bargain Bin and see what it’s called, again) in which a character discusses “assassinating George W. Bush.” How daring! It represented the staggering intellectualism of Bush Derangement Syndrome, or whatever.

And there have been, here and there, in London and NY, small theatre productions all about how “Bush is bad and Bush is dumb and Bush is the worst person ever and Bush is evil and he should be killed,” yadda, yadda. Little flashpoints of malice offered up as entertainment for people for whom malice is a drug and a way to get through the day.

Those were just little appetizers to the great hunger of Bush hatred which has been fed for five years on forgettable books, tired jokes and Bill Maher. Now, finally here comes the main course, the piece de resistance (or what AJ Strata refers to - correctly - as a Bush-hater’s wet dream): The Assassination of President Bush in a TV “Docudrama!” Ta-da! Applause, applause - what a masterful chef to concoct so enticing a recipe, so desireable a meal! The haters will feed on it ravenously, as though they’ve had no Bush Hate to gnaw on for long years.

And when they eat it, it will destroy them. This meal will taste delicious in the mouth, and it will go down easier than a California mudslide, but after a while - not immediately, but after a while - they will realize they’ve poisoned themselves, willingly, lasciviously, voraciously, luxuriously. Bloated and gaseous they’ll look for an antidote, but there is no antidote to this much hate, except full-scale surrender, contrition and conversion - not necessarily to a religious idea, but to a more humbled mindset, one willing to be taught to love…and these poor folks will probably be too weakened and too ill to manage all that.

This much hate backfires on the hater. You’d think they’d know it by now, but they don’t, of course. They always overplay their hand. They can be counted on to do it.

I feel kind of sorry for the people who - undoubtedly - are multiple-orgasming over this story today. You know what sites to visit to find them, if you must seek them out. I feel sorry for them because this is all they are, loyal subjects enthralled to a Kingship of Hate, which is an evil and a real oppressor, although they don’t think they’re oppressed - well, except by that evil moron, Bush, who is keeping them from living freely or speaking out while they sip their lattes.

Just as prayer is a force, and love is a force, hate is a force, too. It has power, horrible, destructive power. And the worst part about the power of hate is that it is so often invisible - it cannot be seen - its effects cannot be seen until much later. Its effects are not immediately clear, as with a hurricane, or even “eventually” clear, as with a child loved into being. The effects of hate prefer to remain hidden - they hate to be brought out into the light and examined. Hate’s hiding place, of course, is deep within the human heart and soul. It slumbers there, eats there, plays there, sends forth destruction from that comfortable and well-camouflaged bunker.

I used to think that John Paul II was the man toward whom more hate and more love were directed, in the world, than any other, and that the hate and love balanced each other out, in a way. Now, of course, President Bush is the most hated man in the world, without the balance of corresponding love. What an awful life for him - what a terrible burden to carry - how many of us would be willing to endure it?

And if hate is a force - an “energy,” if you like - then what is going to happen to all of that hate when President Bush is no longer in office? Where will all of that force go? It must go somewhere. If it does not go outward, it will go inward.

I know many in the blogosphere, on the left are thrilled with this “docudrama” idea. And many on the right are appalled and enraged. I personally think that this idea is “too-cute by half,” and that aside from feeding those who so hunger for it, it is going to repel the rest, especially those who do not “love” the president, but who do not “hate” him, either.

The film will have its apologists in the media, of course, people who will harrumph and sneer at the rubes of the world who don’t recognise how daring and sophisticated it all is. And no doubt, some wild-eyed rightwing person will be brought on the air, somewhere, to hyperventilate over the piece and quote scripture, for the edification and amusement of the sophisticates.

But for the rest of the world, the folks who are not mad from ideological overdosing, I think The Bush-haters and their Derangement Syndrome may have just jumped the shark.

Jonah Goldberg has a good piece up - not smearing jelly-kisses all over President Bush, by any means, but suggesting that perhaps it is time to cut President Bush a little slack. A nice idea, and a fair one, if anyone is interested.

Blue Crab Boulevard says, “this may finally be the point where the vast majority of the public recoils in utter revulsion from the left.” His piece is powerful - a must read.

AJ Strata says it’s a foolish horse head in America’s bed. He adds: “Americans may have their doubts about things, but we do not want another assassinated President.” Exactly right.

Ed Morrissey thinks any sensible person would be appalled. You’d think so, wouldn’t you?

Rick Moran says: In their world, the death of Bush at the hands of an assassin would not necessarily elicit public celebration but rather more likely, present an occasion for snark such as we see above. They are much too sophisticated to share in the horror that such an event would cause the overwhelming majority of their countrymen. [Emphasis added - admin]

Indeed. What did Euripides say? Whom the gods would destroy they first make mad. Reading some of the lefty comments found around the blogosphere, full of snarky good cheer and expressing not the faintest disdain for the idea of a president being slain, one wonders where their minds have gone.

Related:
Oh, yeah, this is a RECENT hate
it’s not really about Bush
Michelle Malkin has a Bush-haters round-up, past and present
Flopping Aces checks out some lefty forums
Roger L. Simon, screenwriter, rightly calls it “political porn.”
Lorie Byrd wonders if the left shouldn’t beware what it wishes for
Hang Right Politics
Political Pit Bull
Jawa Report
John Stephenson
Webloggin
Protein Wisdom

WELCOME: Captains Quarters readers! While you’re here, please look around. I’ve been writing up a storm about everything from my son Buster’s soul to Derek Jeter’s Jumps to thoughts about fascism, to the good economic news to ummmm my own Emily Letilla moment to the great Bryn Terfel - check out the video!

Sort of a nice thing happened this week…I got invited to be interviewed by the Baltimore Sun for a podcast - can you imagine? With all that’s happening in the world, they’re out of ideas - they must be to want to talk to me! Exchanged some emails with a very congenial and witty fellow who wanted to talk to me about the blog and why I write and what I write and blah, blah, blah. I was pleased they found the blog interesting enough to want to feature it on their not-yet-activated podcast, but I’d rather not talk about me…

Which is probably a lie - I’m probably far and away my favorite subject in a subconscious sort of way. But if I had to define the blog I’d be stumped, since I spend almost as much time writing utter nonsense as I do trying to be serious. Lately, I also spend an awful lot of blog-time getting my head shoved into the toilet by the Christians and Catholics to whom I am supposed to be appealing, and quite often by members of the Conservative movement of which I am supposed to be a part. They seem to hate it when I step outta line, and I’m a bit of a wanderer!

Wanderer though I may be, I suspect that, like a cheap wine, I don’t travel well - venturing into podcast territory would probably expose me as a stammering fool or a shrill harpy, depending on the moon, and no one needs to have that inflicted upon them.

Anyway…I was sort of flattered. And horrified. All at the same time!

Siggy has asked me to do a podcast with him, and I’m considering it. But only because it’s Siggy!

Which leads me to ask: are podcasts things you guys actually listen to? Do you like them? When I send you over to listen to one, do you? Is this something you’d like to see from this blog? Perhaps an Anchoress/Buster podcast, sometime? Egad, does that mean I’m going to have to deal with technology and stuff? You know I’m useless in that regard. And in plenty of other regards, too, come to think of it…

I’d appreciate your input on the podcasting idea. I suspect, as I said, that I’d stink at it…but I admit to being a little intrigued.

That would be Bulldog Pundit, who doesn’t much like John McCain, and Pat Hynes, who likes McCain so much he’s working for him.

It’s nice to see two people in thorough disagreement with each other managing to do it like adults. An example for the rest of us.

“This is how you do it…”

Thus says from my Li’l Bro Thom (no Bush-lover, he) who very much appreciated seeing President Bush not receive communion while attending a Catholic mass.

Non-Catholics and Catholics who have not yet gone through the process of formally receiving the sacrament of reconciliation and their first communion, but who wish to “participate” in that part of the Mass are invited to process to the minister dispensing the Holy Eucharist with their hands crossed upon their chest (not a humiliation, but a practical measure, so that there may be no confusion on the priest’s part that they are NOT receiving the Eucharist), whereupon the priest will simply touch his hand to their head and ask God’s blessing upon them. Here we see President and Mrs. Bush doing it the way we ask it to be done, and believe me we surely appreciate and honor their respectfulness.

That “arrogant” president, Bush, did Catholics the world over honor when he respected our ways.

And here we see how a Non-catholic disrespectfully communes at Mass:

Bill Clinton, obviously. A Southern Baptist with a penchant for carrying around big bibles took communion during a Roman Catholic Mass in Africa in 1998. When New York’s Cardinal John O’ Connor, doing his job, called Clinton on it, he was told that his (Cardinal John O’ Connor’s) understanding was deficient. “They do things differently in Africa,” was the answer from the Clinton administration. When pressed on the fact that even the African Bishops Conference complained about it, things devolved into “well, we understood it this way…”

The transcript: Clinton Press Sec’y Mike McCurry and the press (all boldface emphasis added - admin)

Q: …as you know, Cardinal O’Connor had some very strong things to say yesterday about the President’s taking of communion. In that light, I wanted to ask you three things. One, the Cardinal suggested that no one should take communion who’s not in a state of grace. Did the President feel he was in a state of grace, one? Two, does he regret taking communion? And three, the White House suggested it had contact with officials at the church who thought it appropriate but the pastor has said he was not one of them. Can you give us some names of who said it was okay?

MCCURRY: …our team on the ground indicated that the conference of bishops in South Africa had a more ecumenical view of the holy eucharist and had advised members of the traveling party it was appropriate for baptized Christians to share in communion. And the President acted on that guidance…And that includes the priest, and I thought also the bishop who officiated as well, is my understanding, but we can double check that.
[…]
Q: It’s a question about what the Cardinal is saying.

MCCURRY: Cardinal O’Connor may not be familiar with the doctrinal attitude towards the holy eucharist that the conference of bishops in South Africa brings to that question.

Q: The South African bishops have apparently now criticized the minister for having offered communion to the President or permitted him to take it. Does the White House have any reaction?

MCCURRY: I’m not aware of that. That’s contrary to the guidance that the President and his traveling delegation were given at the time of the service.

Q: Well, apparently they say he was supposed to have asked the local bishop for permission before permitting the President to take communion.

MCCURRY: Our understanding was that the invitation was extended on behalf of the Conference of South African Bishops.

Q: Mike, can you be specific about who extended it?

MCCURRY: I can find out if our advance people have got any idea who they spoke with.

Q: As I understand it, only Catholics are supposed to receive Catholic communion. Did that come up in the President’s mind?

MCCURRY: That is the attitude and posture of the U.S. Catholic Conference of Bishops, but our understanding is that the Conference of Bishops in South Africa have a different view of holy communion.

All so very vague, all so very arrogant…”someone told us…this was indicated…I’ll have to see if we know any names…” and “I’m not aware of that,” which seems to mean “that can’t be true…” It was all so very typical of that president and his administration which never admitted a mistake (not even one time.) And boy, the press sure hates the Bush administration for not “admitting to mistakes…”. But different presidents, different letters after the name…they get treated differently, after all.

But you know, I don’t think I ever heard the besotted press call Clinton arrogant. “Not even one time.”

I’m frankly surprised to see that the issue came up at all, but then John O’ Connor was mighty, mighty - an enormous and heroic presence - and no one to be simply dismissed. Sadly, his successor - who hides out in his seat and keeps his mouth shut - seems to be a self-protective, aching void of a man. And we in NY feel the void keenly. I miss Cardinal O’ Connor.

For doing his job, Cardinal O’ Connor was also, apparently, targeted by the Clinton White House for surveillance.

This huge Clinton surveillance scheme was VAAPCON, the Violence Against Abortion Providers Task Force. According to the U.S. Justice Department, VAAPCON “was charged with determining whether there was a nationwide conspiracy to commit acts of violence against reproductive health care providers.” The more than 900 targets of all this surveillance included the Christian Coalition…the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, and even then-Roman Catholic Cardinal of New York John O’Connor.
[…]
So if you were close to the late Cardinal O’Connor, or called him to discuss personal or family problems – even personal sins – to him, you may have been wiretapped and recorded by the Clinton’s VAAPCON surveillance. In that sense, the Clinton administration may have literally bugged the confessional.

That’s stretching it a bit, but the fact remains that America’s formost prelate seemed to pay a price for asking the president to just, you know…act respectable.

John Cardinal O’ Connor, Priest, Patriot, Veteran and Holy Man - pray for us.

Junkyardblog tells of seeing someone trying to snatch a host (Good reason to go back to reception-by-mouth only, in my book)

And here is a really great Communion at the Altar-rail story concerning…Robert E. Lee!

WELCOME: readers of The Corner and Closed Cafeteria. While you’re here, please look around. Today we’re also talking about how Bush Hatred May Have Just Jumped the Shark, the staggering Incuriosity of the Press, how the word “fascist” is only objectionable when used by the right and what fascism really is these days.

Jay Ambrose has a great piece up that touches on something I’ve always maintained, that the word “incurious” belongs rightly to the press, not the president.

The incurious press never did want to know about John Kerry’s military records…they never did actually want to hear what the Swiftboat Vets had to say…hell, they weren’t even curious enough about Plamegate to ask Joe Wilson a question beyond “so, how is the Bush Neocon Cabal out to get you?” They never were curious enough to ask Valerie Plame nuthin’ at all. They weren’t curious about Sandy Berger’s pants, or Air America ’s use of public monies, either. They are not interested in the 45,000 boxes of documents which came out of Iraq and which are unearthing so much interesting stuff. They were not especially interested in Juanita Brodderick (imagine how interested they’d have been in her, however, had she shown up on Bush’s watch!). They’re not interested in why Bill Clinton was asked to leave Oxford University as a young man (but Bush’s TANG dentist - he got asked questions!) They have no curiousity about why Hillary Clinton - whose pet issues include education - was not taking part of the Eductation Consortium which took place in the rotunda of the Capital, on 9/11. Actually the press never seems able to ask Hillary a question that moves beyond, “how’d you get to be so great?”

Truth be told, the press is staggeringly incurious about most things, and what it is interested in - which in the past few years means “screwing Bush,” sorry, but it’s true - it obsesses on.

I’ve watched politics all my life and have never seen these two things: 1) the press pounding one president mercilessly and relentlessly - on any issue, any at all - (I recall reading one idiot who suggested that the post World Cup violence in Europe was Bush’s fault) and 2) reporting almost daily on the comings and goings of the past president, and constantly putting the out-of-power cabinet members and advisors before the public for their “analysis” and “opinions.”

I’m quite sure when the Bush years are over, we will not see Rummy, Rove or anyone in Bush’s cabinet invited on Russert’s show, or Stephanopolous’. No matter who the next president is, they’ll still be going to Clinton’s people for commentary. It helps, probably, that so many Clintonites have either become “journalists” themselves, or married journalists, or invested heavily in media interests. Lots of things in place to help hoist the next Clinton presidency into place. But I digress.

Ambrose writes:
Back in 1999 during an editorial writers’ conference, I was chatting with a Texas journalist who had gone to the same church as George W. Bush, then running for president for the first time, and pushed her for any insights she might have into the man. Was he as intellectually klutzy as people were making him out to be? Did he have a brain?

As I recall, she provided other testimony of Bush’s search for understanding in the world of books. Because I prize reading as among the most precious pursuits of the human species, I was impressed. Now that the White House has released a list of some of the 60 books Bush has read this year, are any of his most ardent critics similarly impressed? Of course, not. Their assumption all along has been that he never reads anything and now at least one _ Bob Cesca, a blogger, writer and film director _ states flat-out that Bush is lying.

The truth is that many of the critics who keep telling us that Bush is incurious are themselves incurious, loath to put their favorite asininities at risk through the exercise of open-minded, honest inquiry. [emphasis added - admin] Jonathan Chait of The New Republic argued prior to the list’s release that Bush was too dumb to be president, citing among other things the president’s supposed “disdain for book learnin’.” Had Chait been more inquiring himself _ is he too dumb to write for The New Republic? _ he might have learned that Bush has a thing for books. It was easier to rest his case on some meaningless impressions, sloppy analysis and one-sided evidence.
[…]
I think Bush is in fact serious, and maybe twice as complicated as his detractors grasp, even if he is also a stumble-tongue.

Ambrose is quite right. Once a narrative has been constructed, it’s damn near impossible to get the press to deconstruct it - which is ironic when you consider how many slaves to deconstructionism work in the media. On the rare occasions in which they are forced to deconstruct something on…page 13 of section A, rather than page 42 of section C…you see this sort of weird and toothless pudding, which in no way resembles the fevered and morally-outraged musings, rants and outright accusations of the last three years. Thank goodness, the internet means forever. As long as some folks are stuffing their harddrives, we’ll at least be able to compare and contrast the evolutions - or devolutions - of media hype and hysteria.

What bothers me is that, while some in the press seem to understand that their industry is destroying itself, none of them seem capable of turning the ship around. Rather, they plunge forward - the news is NEW, it’s all about Katie! Sorry, the problems destroying American journalism cannot be fixed through cosmetics. Throwing a newer body into a damaged, decrepit and fragile chair will not make the chair stronger or more reliable. And I say this having declared plainly that I would rather see Couric succeed than fail, if by “success” we mean she can restore some credibility to the craft of journalism, not merely that she can raise broadcast ratings in an anemic time-slot.

New wine needs new wine skins. Perhaps the blogs and alternate media are new wine…

I am very, very curious to see what mainstream journalism is going to look like in five years. Sadly, I am not optimistic. And yes, it pains me to write that. As a blogger (I wish I could remember who) once wrote, (I’m paraphrasing) “I did not plan to spend my adulthood having to investigate stories and gather news…but the press stopped doing it.” I’d be much happier - really and truly - writing something else. And - gasp - even getting paid for it.

Update: Check out Carpetbagger’s post, here and get a load of Brian William’s condescending presumption in telling the president “this is a change…”

Sometimes I really wonder how W manages to remain gracious to these folks.

Related:
It’s Really Petty to Restent What a Man Reads
That Moron Bush is Reading my Book?
Anchoress - Outside Voices
Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes

Bob pinged back with his thoughts on the incurious Old Media.

A year ago we were listening to reporters tell us that the Superdome was hell-on-earth, that gangs were raping and murdering babies…based on nothing more factual than an escape of hot air out of someone’s inflamed rantings.

Now, has some video that I’m not sure we should pay any attention to:

From KTVU in San Francisco, here’s a little bit of information that somehow failed to make it into any of the media reports on yesterday’s hit and run attacks in San Francisco.

Watch as reporter Rob Roth says a witness heard the suspect refer to himself as a “terrorist,” then without taking a breath tells us this was not an act of terrorism.

It’s a quick clip. When I watched it I became less worried about whether or not the San Francisco perp was a “terrorist” (the official story is that he is “mentally ill.” I could suggest that anyone who wants to kill strangers, either by SUV or Anthrax is mentally ill, but what’s the point?”)

(UPDATE: Ace links to video that seems to confirm the perp calling himself “a terrorist,” although that is quickly pooh-poohed: “this is many things but not an act of terrorism…). Okay, honey.

No, what bothered me as I watched the clip is that in just a scant 5 years, the broadcast media has moved from the outstanding work they did on 9/11, to being completely unreliable because they are so anxious to sputting anything, anything at all, into their microphones and at their cameras.

24-hour news programming has created an insatiable beast, always looking for “more story” and all-too-quick to relay unvetted, unconfirmed information - which has led to some horrific and emotionally draining mistakes on their part.

It’s easy to make mistakes when a story is breaking, though, and so a little slack may be cut. But the press is seems to be throwing away credibility with both hands, as fast as they can. They run off a cliff after John Mark Karr, when most of us were heavily doubting the guy’s guilt and sanity the night the story “broke.” Caught being sloppy, lazy and incurious about the war between Isreal and Hezbollah, they blame Israel for their remarkably poor coverage

And ummm…the NY Times seems to have mis-spoken again. Or something. See the update to that piece.

Without further comment, a compendium of journalistic ineptitude and puddle-stepping for your entertainment, edification and hard drives:

America’s MainstreamMedia: A Perfect Guide to Doing Things Right, by Larry Leonard (yes, it’s sarcasm).
FX May Soon Be Short for Faux by Glenn Reynolds
Journalism’s Shaky Future by Mark Day
Dr. Uzi Landau Blames the Media, Calls For Inquiry by Ezra HaLevi
Media, not Federal, Incompetence by Roger Aronoff
Bush’s Incurious Critics.
Reuters Jumps the Shark
Verdict: NY Times blew the story.
CNN’s Robertson Now Admits: Hezbollah ‘Had Control’ of His Anti-Israel Piece

I’m sure I’ll be adding to this as the day - just today - wears on.

St. Paul wrote those words, grieving about his own moral state, understanding that his human weakness could bring out in him behavior he deplored in others.

I have used the phrase a few times on the blog, but this time, it’s my center-left L’il Bro Thom saying it, in response to this article.

Last week, Sen. George Allen personally apologized to a staff member of his Democrat opponent, James Webb, for calling him a “macaca.” This was the latest in a string of public apologies for what has been described as a racial slur aimed at individual who is of Indian descent.
The moral outrage pouring from the media and Democrats was heartwarming. It was reassuring to see that such expressions of bigotry by any party, politician or political organization (or movie actor) will not be tolerated.
So no doubt the media and the Left will soon turn their attention to the vicious anti-Semitism the followers and members of a political organization that donates millions to Democratic candidates and uses the Web to whip up support for its policies.
I am referring to Moveon.org; an entity that claims it is merely the vehicle of “real Americans — from carpenters to stay-at-home moms to business leaders — we work together to realize the progressive vision of our country’s founders.” To the extent that Moveon.org is a reflection of its membership, it is also a reflection of the opinions and sentiments it shares about its fellow Americans and citizens of the world. And boy do the Moveon folks hate Jews.
Perhaps hate is too weak a word. William F. Buckley Jr. wrote an article in 1991 exploring the question of whether Pat Buchanan was an anti-Semite (The answer: yes.) Mr. Buchanan called Jewish supporters of Israel its “amen corner” and a fourth (or was it fifth?) column undermining American global interests. But he never called them “Media owning Jewish pigs” or “sneaky Jewish sympathizers!” Both can be found repeatedly on the Moveon.org Action Forum. (read it all…)

And so forth.

Over the past few months, particularly on the issue of illegal immigration, I and other right-center bloggers who have (for better or worse) dissented from the far-right “ship them all back” position have urged our fellows to move away from the extreme cliffs. The Democrats need a few voices pulling them back from the edges, as well. We need two healthy parties in this country. Right now one of them is plain bonkers and the other is whirring like an off-centered gyroscope, trying to get balanced. Not good. Neither party is ship-shape…but the Democrats really need to attend to the way their ship is listing portside.

This is pretty funny - we’ve heard folks on the left throw the words “fascist” and “fascism” around for decades now, at the drop of a hat. I still remember Liz Smith asking Hillary Clinton how it felt to be running for the senate against “a fascist,” (that would be Rudy Giuliani, who was called a fascist throughout his two terms as Mayor of NYC, excepting those post 9/11 months.)

Hillary simply “giggled” at the question. She didn’t have a problem with the word being applied to the man. No big deal.

But now, since a few folks on the “other” side of the aisle dare to use the words (and not about their political opponents but about an enemy and mindset), it’s a big freaking deal worthy of headlines and an 800-word piece by Tom Raum:

President Bush in recent days has recast the global war on terror into a “war against Islamic fascism.” Fascism, in fact, seems to be the new buzz word for Republicans in an election season dominated by an unpopular war in Iraq.
[…]
“Typically, the Bush administration finds its vocabulary someplace in the middle ground of popular culture. It seems to me that they’re trying to find something that resonates, without any effort to really define what they mean,” Fields said.

The tactic recalled the first President Bush’s 1990 likening of Iraq’s Saddam Hussein to Adolf Hitler.
[…]
Stephen J. Wayne, a professor of government at Georgetown University, suggested White House strategists “probably had a focus group and they found the word ‘fascist.’

Really interesting, isn’t it? When the president or conservatives use the word “fascist” and “fascism” to describe a means of movement and an ideology, well…that’s all a “tactic.” It’s been focus-grouped. It’s just a cynical ploy to which no one need pay attention. They’re just floundering around with that word, they don’t really know what it means, after all. Of course they don’t. They’re too stoopit.

But when the left uses the same words, it’s not cynical, it’s not a political tactic - it’s apparently something real and noble.

Interesting, too that the piece recalls G.H.W. Bush calling Saddam “Hitler,” and the ensuing controversy which arose from that…but never mentions that G.W. Bush is routinely called “fascist” and “Hitler” to…to…to the sounds of crickets chirping and a hollow wind blowing all around. No controversy, there!

It’s amazing what is “remarkable” to some people. It is even more amazing to me that when the administration finally gets around to using the right word, some in the press immediately work to dull the effect. I keep wondering: whose side are they freaking on?

But then again, I know the answer: Any side that won’t possibly help President Bush, as they gladly admit, these days.

Bush needs to fail, and it doesn’t matter the cost, btw. Got that?

Now, what word will we use to describe people who are so enthralled with their own “well-reasoned” hate that they would rather see a mission to defeat a deadly and blood-ravenous enemy fail than co-operate with the democratically-elected leadership? No, it’s not “fascism.” It’s another word, entirely. Can you guess it?

Related: A Fascistic Crushing of Dissent: 2 Pieces
If you accused them of it, they’d call you paranoid.

:::UPDATE II::: A reader graciously sent me a link to this map which really lays out the path of the perp. Clearly the neighborhood was not “Jewish,” and although I did qualify my remarks (saying it “appeared to be a somewhat Jewish neighborhood” on the basis of the first input of readers), on further examination, one cannot conclude that the perp was “targeting Jews.” Whether this can rightly be called “terrorism” at this point is debatable. I don’t mind saying it when I am wrong, and I feel this time that I was too quick to “write while angry.” This fellow sounds like he is over-controlled by his parents and it made him nuts. Those of you who have read about my birth family know I can sympathize! More thoughts on “never mind,” are here.
:::End Update:::

:::UPDATE::: (SCROLL DOWN FOR ORIGINAL POST)
Maxed Out Mama has a brilliant and temperate post wherein she looks beyond the sputterings of some who (like me) “wrote angry” last night or in the wee small hours. As usual she is clear-thinking and wise, and she bounces an important idea off of my comment, below, that the press and powers-that-be are - by their reactions - fomenting distrust and prejudice toward moderate and peaceful Muslims much moreso than are these violent acts by Islamic Fundies. When people see a thing happening and are told, “no, that’s not happening, it’s something else and if you think otherwise, you’re an immoral person,” it creates enormous resentment, a sense of disorientation and a further sense that someone, “either me or thee” is nuts and must be guarded against. She writes:

I think there is a war here, but it is not a war between religions, but as Ali says, between Violence and Reason. Violence has a theology, but so does Reason. And coming back to the Anchoress’ point, I think that failure to confront and examine the “war within the Law of God” will leave people in the US with the impression that this is a different war, and that all Muslims are prone to go off like popguns in Jewish neighborhoods. I think it’s time to come to grips with what Violence is truly saying in order to let Reason prevail.

Our society doesn’t fail to criticize and examine the violent Christian teachings which occasionally arise, and I think we now must confront openly the violent Muslim teachings without fear or favor. Unless we do this, it will end in pograms. H/T Sigmund Carl and Alfred.

That’s the crux of all of this. When I read about these sorts of events, be they the synagogue shooting, the LAX incident, the Tarheel SUV attack or this new one, and see how quickly there is movement to make excuses for that behavior, I get an image in my head of an American, looking around at all of it, and feeling like it’s all happening under water, in ripples of distortion. If the American does not feel like he or she can get a clear sense of what is going on, the frustration is going to ratchet up. Not good.
:::END UPDATE:::

This is becoming an appalling habit in the press and by politicians. An Islamic fundamentalist shoots Jews in a Synagogue, and it’s some sort of random incident. An Islamic fundamentalist uses his SUVto kill people partly in front of a Synagogue, and in what would appear to be a somewhat “Jewish neighborhood” and the press takes a hours to cover the story (probably looking for the appropriate “frame,”) and until someone in authority can be found to sing out, “ROAD RAGE”! Yeah, that’s the ticket! Road rage! Mayor Newsom sees no problem, here…a “relatively young” person, obviously confused! Yes, that’s the ticket!

Omeed Aziz Popal, the poor confused youngster, is 29 years old.

Can you imagine, if someone had (God forbid!) driven a car into 14 gay people, how quickly the press would have managed to cover the story? Can you imagine that Mayor Newsom would call it “road rage” and suggest that there really probably wasn’t a “hate crime” attached to the action?

What the hell is wrong with the press, what the hell is wrong with the leadership? Why are they so incapable of calling anti-semitism what it is, of calling a terrorist action what it is? Newsflash, folks, when someone decides to drive his car into people as they’re crossing the street, it’s the same as tossing a molotov cocktail at them, it’s the same as tossing a grenade. It is destructive, it kills people and terrifies communities, that is called t-e-r-r-o-r-i-s-m! Hey, guess what, fellas, we don’t need no stinking anthrax to kill and terrify…we can use our cars.

I swear, these people are tempting me to some vile language.

I know this is rather an intemperate post for me, and I’ll probably regret some of these words, later…but I’m getting weary of watching the press and the people “in charge” go out of their way to downplay it anytime someone with an “Islamic” sort of name drives a car into people on a city street, or on a campus, or starts shooting people in a synagogue, or raises cain at an El Al counter at LAX. I know that somewhere in the minds of these movers and shakers they think they are protecting Muslims-in-general from reactionary prejudice, distrust and bias from us unruly, racist, mouth-breathing Americans (because we went nuts and burned down mosques after 9/11, right? We took to the streets and rampaged and lynched anyone named Abdul back then, right?) but the truth is, by their incessant downplaying, their knee-jerk move to protect-and-explain perps like this, they’re just making some people very resentful, and in the end, I think that’s going to do more to foment prejudice and bias, distrust and hate toward decent Muslim persons than would simply acknowledging the fact that when these Fundamentalists DO this crap, it is what it is - an act of aggression, hate and terror - and not some “mistake” that can be cooed away.

Gateway Pundit shows a map of the rampage, and lots of photos and updates. He says three people have been taken in for questioning.

LGF had the breaking story and lots of updates in the comments thread.

Apparently he perp “made comments” to arresting officers. I wonder if they were anything like Mel Gibson’s comments? We’d hear about them, then, certainly, wouldn’t we? UPDATE: LGF has video with a reporter saying the perp referred to himself as a terrorist. I’ll take it with a grain of salt, only because a year ago reporters were telling us babies were being raped in the Superdome…they’re not really good with breaking news anymore, so who knows what is known?

One of Michelle Malkin’s sources writes: “The 3500 California St hit was a 1/2 mile from the main Jewish temple, Temple Emanu-El and 41 miles from his starting point in Fremont.”

It will be very interesting to see how the reports go.

More coverage here:
Up to 14 hurt in SF hit-and-run spree
7 critical; driver believed to have struck, killed a man in Fremont earlier
One dead, at least 14 hurt in hit-and-run rampage