Right. Guns don't kill people--people who own guns kill people. Using guns. A lot faster, more secretively and efficiently than they could with a knife, their fists or a machete. (Or a nuclear weapon, but what does that have to do with it?)

Which is why most reasonable people are in favor of limiting gun ownership to those who can prove they are not crazy, violent, involved in criminal activity, suicidal, drunk or extremely angry at someone. Seems pretty reasonable to me.

On a somewhat related note, has anyone ever done a study of whether the desire to own a gun for "self-defense" is a predictor of violent/antisocial behavior? 'Cause I'm bettin' it is.

Posted at July 18, 2008 3:31 AM in response to Michael Moore Aside, Guns are Everywhere

McCain will not choose Graham as a running mate because Graham's sexuality would become a topic in a presidential campaign. As far as I can tell, Graham is gay, and I personally don't care. But a lot of Republicans would, and a public outing would impact both the presidential race and Graham's career as a Senator.

Posted at June 24, 2008 3:38 AM in response to Lindsey Graham Sickens, Joe Biden Dissapoints on MTP

I believe that deep, deep down, every single NeoCon who has ever said or written a word that ended up on the PNAC Web site knows that the NeoCon ideology is complete and total crap. And yes, I include George Bush in that group.

Which doesn't mean that Ideology ain't a great gal to cuddle up with on a cold night and forget about what sorry excuses for humans they are.

Rumsfeld? He's a smart guy. He knows it's crap. But being Mr. "Got NeoCons?" at Stanford is a good job, and every now and then he's so convincing at it that he brings a tear to his own eye. Same with the rest of them.

********

Oil does explain the NeoCon papers. Oil is, for this generation at least, the most pervasively important commodity on the planet. Particularly if you're interested in taking over the planet. I mean, you're going to need oil for your armies, you know? Can't take over a nation if somebody else controls its oil supply. For the NeoCons, practically speaking, control of the world's oil supply and running the world are the same thing. (It's not like they're in it to do a good job or anything. They're not worried about providing good food or clean water, for God's sake.)

Clearthinker is right that there were a number of factors in play. But what the NeoCons did with such chilling success was find the one thing they needed to focus on. Then they just had to figure out ways to get people with different skills and parallel interests working in synch with one another so they could game this thing up. It's not like they came out of nowhere--they were already some of the most powerful people in the world. But when they all got together under the NeoCon umbrella they were able to "supersize" AND sell their own enrichment on a number of levels. (NeoConservatism had at least one feature that just about everybody could love, by design.)

So I don't buy the idea that ideology was at the root of it all. Ideology is just the angle they used to sell the package to the people who actually care about that stuff.

***

I cannot understand why Armchair Guerilla does not see Doc Nebula's point about the "bungling" of Iraq. I don't think it was a deliberate bungle so much as a reflection of the fact that the NeoCons never did give a crap about what happened to Iraq. Oil that they control, under the ground they control, is just as good as oil that's flowing. Maybe even better because it contributes to the notion of scarcity. ("Oh, and thank you, peak oil people, for happening to be sincerely correct at just the right moment to make the scarcity argument even more compelling. So kind of you.")

I do think the NeoCons are a little upset that so many Americans have died or been injured in Iraq and Afghanistan. That aspect of things has tended to diminish them. But that's why the NeoCons built Ideology and Pax Americana into their system, so they could turn to them for comfort during those maudlin moments when they consider the sacrifice the little people have made. It's all for a good cause, right? "Thank you, fervent but dumb and now deceased Americans, your efforts on behalf of that crap we sold you mean more to us than you'll ever know."

Do I seem bitter? I think I seem bitter.

Posted at June 21, 2008 1:46 AM in response to Maybe It Really Was All About The Oil After All: The New Iraq

Are you sure they really wanted to go to Iran? I think Iran was just a way to terrify anti-war types, at least until Iraq got sorted out. And I doubt there would have been any actual marching, just some serious bombing. But hey, who knows until the scotch is poured?

In any case, yup, America got took good by the NeoCons. I bet they're not done yet.

Posted at June 20, 2008 2:30 AM in response to Is the Mission Finally Accomplished for Bush and Cheney?

There were a lot of reasons for which those who supported the invasion supported it, many of which are listed above. The movers of the invasion supported those reasons for convenience and to rally support.

But for the guys pushing the buttons--Bush, Cheney and the other NeoCons, it was always about the oil as a means of getting more power and about strategic military positioning as a means of holding on to that power for several generations to come. (Assuming that nobody would invent a truly great alternative fuel, or figure out cold fusion or something...)

Posted at June 20, 2008 2:20 AM in response to Maybe It Really Was All About The Oil After All: The New Iraq

I think it was not so much an intentional bungling as an understanding that there were 3 options: someone else sells Iraq's oil (not good), my friends and I sell Iraq's oil (very good) and nobody sells Iraq's oil but my friends and I technically own it and will be able to sell it eventually (tricky but not bad).

See, either option 2 or 3 is ok if you are an oil guy. In fact, option 3 might be slightly better because you're saving that oil to sell later, if it weren't for the political inconveniences like dead Americans and a 25% approval rating.

The bungle was the number of dead Americans--I don't think the NeoCons counted on the size of the insurgency, they thought Iraq would return to manageabley chaotic obscurity after a quick takeover. Instead, they got stuck with having to heavily promote "Democracy" (TM) which has been a mixed bag.

Way back, somebody wrote that eventually, the NeoCons would happily sacrifice GWB and create an artificial cleansing in order to go back underground and hold onto their original goals of control over a large portion of the world's oil supply and a more or less indefinite presence in this part of the middle east.

Posted at June 20, 2008 2:03 AM in response to Always just out of reach

Gwen Ifill or Ray Suarez might be good.

But for those who haven't seen the Rachel Maddow clip which Magaduley posted above, it is worth taking a look at. I had never seen her before but I'm interested based on the clip.

Posted at June 17, 2008 7:40 PM in response to Meet The Press successor: Quick opinion roundup and recommendation.

This was my understanding as well. It seems like a checks and balances thing which would have made sense in the founders' world. A president can pardon people for various crimes, but he/she cannot un-impeach his/her buddy. (The stain of congressional disapproval and shunning will forever besmirch him or her.)

Of course, the founders did not know about Dubai.

Posted at June 14, 2008 1:13 AM in response to President Must Be Impeached to Forever Deny Him Any Pardon

Well, yes, but after November there will be no need to impeach the President/Vice President.

One hopes.

Posted at June 14, 2008 1:00 AM in response to President Must Be Impeached to Forever Deny Him Any Pardon

Well, yes, but after November there will be no need to impeach the President/Vice President.

One hopes.

Posted at June 14, 2008 12:59 AM in response to President Must Be Impeached to Forever Deny Him Any Pardon