Power is tearing human minds apart and putting them back together in new shapes of your own choosing.

Andrew Sullivan's correct; "Islamofascism" is a stupid neologism and a waste of energy to discuss. But...

The Right's obsession with changing the language by creating words as short-hand for ideas so simple they require no condensing to begin with continues apace. It's been part and parcel of Republican strategy since Gingrich distributed his famous memo on acceptable words for their candidates to use ten years ago.

They've been fairly successful at it as well. Words and phrases like "homicide bomber," "anti-life" and "death tax" have been crow-barred into regular political discussion. My personal bugaboo is the use of "Democrat" in any form other than a noun. "Can you believe the latest Democrat proposal?" It's framing to the nth degree and it's just stupid.

We've seen all this before. A man named Orwell wrote a book that talked about the use of Newspeak in this fashion:

By 2050—earlier, probably—all real knowledge of Oldspeak will have disappeared. The whole literature of the past will have been destroyed. Chaucer, Shakespeare, Milton, Byron—they'll exist only in Newspeak versions, not merely changed into something different, but actually contradictory of what they used to be. Even the literature of the Party will change. Even the slogans will change. How could you have a slogan like "freedom is slavery" when the concept of freedom has been abolished? The whole climate of thought will be different. In fact there will be no thought, as we understand it now. Orthodoxy means not thinking—not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness. (via Wikipedia)

Run away! RUN AWAAAYY!

Am I the only one that finds Andrew Sullivan highlighting through a nomination of Duncan for a "Moore award" his supreme bitch-slapping at Duncan's hands more than a bit odd?

"The willingness to send others off to die for a misguided war because you wet your pants after 9/11 is called "cowardice" not courage," - Atrios, classy as ever.

Try as I might I can find nothing ironic about Duncan's observation that the people sitting at their computers arguing about the rightness of Mr. Bush's Iraq adventure, or conflating the battle against terrorism with World War 2, or making speeches at Arlington promising to "finish the mission" are chickenshits not heroes.

The Andrew Sullivan's of the world conflate courage with stubbornness in the same way the leaders in the Catholic church remained adamant that the earth was the center of the universe long after Galileo proved them wrong. That's not courage it's obstinace.

The religion the Almighty and me worked out betwixt us.

Kevin Drum, Atrios and Digby all took turns yesterday whacking on Amy Sullivan's "When Would Jesus Bolt" article in the Washington Monthly. In her piece Sullivan presents an opportunity for the Democratic party with evangelical Christians focusing on environmental and economic issues. She argues that the numbers are there to affect real electoral change, especially in the purple states.

The reaction to Sullivan's thesis ranged from apathy (Drum) to quasi-agreement (Digby) to derision (Atrios.) For my own part I'd say I think the efforts to broaden the party are always a good thing as long as it doesn't entail the party sacrificing it's core values. Any attempt to accomodate evangelicals at the expense of the party's positions on abortion or homosexual rights, for example, will simply piss-off a good portion of the base and prove once again party leadership doesn't get it. We are tired of mealy-mouthed weenies representing us. We are tired of being taken for granted.

The Democratic party leadership often seems to forget that it doesn't have to remake the wheel when it comes to emphasizing religous values. The party has a long tradition of working for real social change in conjunction with religous leaders on labor issues, civil rights, social justice, etc. If the party wants to appeal to religous Americans they might emphasize more of this. Peace is the ultimate Christian value.

...and monkeys might come flying out of my butt!

Andrew Sullivan brings a radical solution on Iraq to the table. In fact it's SO radical some may call him crazy.

I'd be one of those people.

So here's a thought: why not send Bill Clinton? For some reason that eludes my own judgment, Clinton has a great deal of cachet in the Middle East, and could defuse the anti-Bush and thereby anti-American obstacles to success. He was, by all accounts, superb at the Doha/Brookings/Saban summit in 2003. He would bring the Democratic party into a much more constructive role in trying to bring about a serious step forward for Iraq, and help unite the country at home.

Does Sullivan read his own stuff? I mean, seriously. George W. Bush would never ask Bill Clinton to help save his bacon in Iraq precisely because it would help the Democratic party and unite the country. Those have never been goals of this administration. Ever. This is the administration who saw the worst terrorist attacks in the history of this country as a great way to gain electoral advantage and played cynical politics with things like the formation of the DHS, originally a Democratic initiative. They have no interest in uniting the country and they certainly have no interest in doing anything that would help Democrats, even collaterally.

Need I remind Andy that the "anti-Bush obstacles to success" were obstactles of his own making? It wasn't some other administration that thumbed it's nose at the world and told the U.N. to take a hike. The U.S. is practically alone in trying to rebuild Iraq by choice. Bush created these obstacles, they didn't appear in a vaccum.

The sad reality is that Bush IS the obstacle to success.

Nothing will begin to change for the better in Iraq until in and around January, 2009. That's when the biggest obstacle for success will be removed.

Until that time neither Bill Clinton nor the cloned and re-animated body of Gandhi could bring some semblance of normality to Iraq. No amount of wishing will make it so.