Don't be a luddy-duddy! Don't be a mooncalf! Don't be a jabbernowl! You're not those, are you?

One of my personal pet peeves is this inane use of the noun "Democrat" to refer to the adjective "democratic." The New Yorker explains how this was intentionally wedged into the English language, or at least political discourse, by conservative mouth-breathers.

There's no great mystery about the motives behind this deliberate misnaming. "Democrat Party" is a slur, or intended to be, a handy way to express contempt. Aesthetic judgments are subjective, of course, but "Democrat Party" is jarring verging on ugly. It fairly screams "rat." At a slightly higher level of sophistication, it's an attempt to deny the enemy the positive connotations of its chosen appellation.

Digby caught a good example in John Boehner's speech on "civility" at the opening of the new congress last week. It's not just bad grammar, it's impolite-

You see, it actually isn't very civil at all to change the name of someone's else's political party against their will. In fact, it's universally considered rude and cretinous not to call people by the names and designations by which they wish to be called.

It may seem small but it's part of the Orwellian assault on language that conservative strategists have been implementing for years. Democratic politicians do us all a disservice when they let it slide in the name of comity. Boehner's remarks should've been followed by a rhetorical bitch-slap from a Democrat calling him on the hypocrisy of calling for civility while playing rude semantic games. It's going to take that level of awareness to put enough of a focus on the embarrass embarass republics, sorry republicans, into changing their ways.

You know what your problem is, Princess? You're too used to getting your own way.

My initial reaction to the news last week that Lucas, Ford and Spielberg are finally going ahead with the production of the long awaited Indiana Jones 4 film was excitement followed by a quick sense of dread. Lucas, who initially created the character, is driving the story this time around and his recent performance and decisions so far don't exactly inspire confidence.

About four years ago it looked like the project was going to go ahead with a script penned by Frank Darabont ("The Shawhank Redemption.") Spielberg and Ford loved the script that featured an older Indy and brought back all of the leading ladies from previous films. George "Jar Jar" Lucas put the breaks on. Per an interview with Darabont-

"That was the most frustrating of all, and that was the straw that broke the back of me wanting to continue in that line of work. That was terrifically frustrating. I worked for over a year on that; I worked very close with Steven Spielberg. He was ecstatic with the result and was ready to shoot it two years ago. He was very, very happy with the script and said it was the best draft of anything since Raiders of the Lost Ark. That’s really high praise and gave me a real sense of accomplishment, especially when you love the material you’re working on as much as I love the Indiana Jones films.

And then you have George Lucas read it and say, ‘Yeah, I don’t think so, I don’t like it.’ And then he resets it to zero when Spielberg is ready to shoot it that coming year, [which] is a real kick to the nuts. You can only waste so much time and so many years of your life on experiences like that, you can only get so emotionally invested and have the rug pulled out from under you before you say enough of that."

George's idea for an alternative story doesn't exactly make me want to be the first in line for tickets.

On August 8, 2006, Lucas told Empire magazine, "'I discovered a McGuffin,' continues Lucas, still reluctant to name said McGuffin. 'I told the guys about it and they were a little dubious about it, but it’s the best one we’ve ever found… Unfortunately, it was a little too ‘connected’ for the others. They were afraid of what the critics would think. They said, 'Can’t we do it with a different McGuffin? Can’t we do this?' and I said 'No.' So we pottered around with that for a couple of years. And then Harrison really wanted to do it and Steve said, 'Okay.' I said, 'We’ll have to go back to that original McGuffin and take out the offending parts of it and we’ll still use that area of the supernatural to deal with it."

(Incidentally - I'm not sure Lucas is using "McGuffin" in the right context as the Ark, Holy Grail, etc. from the other films were integral to the actual story.)

It's the phrase "too connected for the others" that makes me cringe. This is the guy that pretty much ruined Star Wars by shrinking the universe through the interconnectivity of all the characters. Will Indy find out he's Short Round's father? Will his whip be made of midichlorians?

In the end I can't help but wonder when Lucas is finally going to make all those small films with no special effects he's spend the last twenty years talking about rather than putting it off by revisting, and ruining, film characters and films I enjoyed so much as a kid.

Come a-runnin'? I'm no woman to be honked at and come a-runnin'!

Let's hope the Oregon Democrats can convince a strong candidate to run against Gordo but for the moment it doesn't look so good. I'm going to be personally dissapointed if John Kitzhaber doesn't change his mind about running since the guy would beat Smith hand's down.

Kitzahber repeatedly opts out of running for the senate claiming he wants to raise his family in Oregon not D.C. Family schamily this is politics. It's IMPORTANT.

You're looking at Brian of Knockneshega, king of all the Leprechauns!

Yes Michelle, there is a Jamil Hussein.

He'd listen to everyone's opinion and then make his own decision.

How can you not like the actor Wil Wheaton? The guy has enough of a sense of humor that his reviews of his own Star Trek The Next Generation episodes come off as pretty damn funny.

Down on the planet, Wesley is jogging around with his new friends. Unlike the adults, who are busy getting their freak on in Plato's Retreat, the kids are busy showing off their gymnastic skills. One of the Edo boys walks on his hands! Oh! Wesley got served! But wait! Wesley serves back with some cartwheels and a roundoff, and IT'S ON!

In fact, it's so on, the girl (who was played by a really sweet girl named Judith Jones, who played my girlfriend on an after school special called My Dad Can't Be Crazy, Can He?) gets so hot for Wesley, she asks him if he'll "teach her" how to "play ball."

Oh, you bet, baby. Uncle Wesley will teach you how to play ball. Why don't you just slip into this latex bodysuit and put on this wig first, and then we'll play all sorts of ball, you dirty little bitch.

Uh. What just happened? Sorry about that.

Of course it won't be easy; nothing worthwhile ever is. That is why I have always failed where others have succeeded.

A wise sensei once told me "never take the elephant's droppings for food." He was speaking of course of Oregonian columnist David Reinhard. A man who dares to find no thought too banal, no idea too rote to work into his droppings, er column. He is a living, breathing embodiment of an RNC blastfax and the wise avoid his column at their own intelectual peril. (studies show that reading Reinhard's columns kills brain cells somewhere between the scope of a shot of 151 rum and a major concussion.)

Today the intrepid GOP stenographer double-dutch dares both President Bush and the critics of the war in Iraq to answer a series of questions. Three years into the war and you have questions David? Better late than never, I guess.

And the answers? Well, both sides might try sparing us the certitudes and sloganeering that have come to characterize our Iraq debates. Humility and honesty would go further. Really, we're well past the point in Iraq where anybody can be quite sure they have the answer. It's a bit more complex than that.

Translation: Of course one side was completely wrong and the other side was completely right on how the war would turn out but let's just put that aside and pretend that those of us who were completely wrong can pretend we're on the same intellectual footing and not dumber than a box of rocks.

I'll skip his questions to Bush as irrelevant. They're questions the CIC should have had to ask and answer before the war. It's only because of the shouting down of critics by tools like Reinhard that he didn't. So let's skip ahead to his tough questions for critics-

What leads you to believe a "surge" won't work?

I dunno, maybe because the generals say it won't? Maybe it's because the conflict is beyond military resolution.

Would you support any military option other than the withdrawal of U.S. forces?

I might have three years ago. Now the point is moot.

What is your plan? Specifics, please.

Murtha's phased withdrawal was just fine with me and the details are readily available. Not that you're really interested in the specifics, but would rather "sloganeer" Murtha as a cut n'runner.

Is it fair to criticize Bush for not having more troops right after the fall of Saddam Hussein while criticizing him for advocating more troops now?

Only to those who aren't neoconservative simpletons and understand (and understood) what a small window of opportunity we had at the end of the initial conflict to build a working democracy.

Is the world better off without Saddam?

No. Isn't that clear to most mature adults with at least two working brain cells? Oh, wait.

If a U.S. pullout led to increased Iraqi violence, would you accept responsibility for the additional bloodshed?

The bloodshed is inevitable, troops are not. It falls on you and yours that advocated and prosecuted this war as to the responsibility. If a car runs off the road into a lake and begins sinking and the driver tells a passenger it's his turn to get behind the wheel it doesn't make that passenger responsible for the disaster.

Do you believe the Iraqis are capable of representative government and living in peace with each other?

Maybe, but not under any government or plan put together by American conservatives.
What would be the consequences of a U.S. defeat in Iraq?

What's your plan to manage the consequences of such a defeat?

Save American lives and keep you and yours the hell away from the reigns of power for the rest of my God given lifetime.

Would U.S. failure in Iraq enhance Iranian and Syrian power across the Mideast?

You mean more than "success" has?

Would it matter if Iran and Syria became more powerful in the Mideast?

A question that you should have been asking your side before the war, but since you didn't care then why should I take that question seriously now?

Would a U.S. defeat in Iraq be a victory for Islamic terrorists?

Define "defeat." Or "victory" for that matter. For one thing the loss of our constitutional freedoms here has done more for the cause of Islamic terrorists than anything that's happened in Iraq.

Would a victory for Islamic terrorists in Iraq be a plus or minus in the war on terror?

See question above. The two things are not related outside the feverish imagination of second-rate conservative thinkers, Mr. Thick-as-a-brick.

Do you think "victory" is possible in Iraq?

It's inconcievable under this administration and with conservatives guiding foreign policy.

Would you even favor U.S. victory in Iraq if it were possible?

How long have YOU been beating your wife, Dave?

Happy, happy, joy, joy!

Oh, happy day.

Not just for Democrats. Republicans can once again fufill that role they seem so happy and comfortable in: whiny ass titty baby. The whining about congressional "minority rights" is just the warm up.

I heard a great proposal with regards to this issue- Democrats will pass Pelosi's old "minority bill of rights" as long as it's tied to a change in House rules so that the rules themselves can't be updated without support of 70% of House members.

Why are you going to prolong the inevitable?

I'm walking on the moon at the news of this band reuniting. I hope it actually happens and I'm not driven to tears. If I start blubbering then just don't stand so close to me. If it does fall through and they don't tour then just consider me the proverbial canary in the coal mine.

None of you ever knew George Gipp. He was long before your time, but you all know what a tradition he is at Notre Dame.

College football needs a playoff system.

I say that every year but once again I'm incensed that the stupid BCS system got it so wrong. I watched the USC/ Michigan and Boise State/ Oklahoma game and it was pretty clear that both Michigan and Oklahoma were hugely overated and probably had no business in the premiere bowls they landed.

The college football BCS title has become a joke. It's built on a system in which only the same 10-15 teams will ALWAYS be in the title game. There is zero chance for a Cinderella under this system.

The NCAA needs to lose it's fear of Notre Dame and force them to either join or form a real league. Yes they (Notre Dame) will lose $$ but college football stands to lose fans.

Well baby, you're already in that cage. You built it yourself. And it's not bounded in the west by Tulip, Texas, or in the east by Somali-land.

Did you know our failure in Iraq is all the responsibility of General Casey? According to the New York Times that's exactly the case.

Chaos Overran Iraq Plan in ’06, Bush Team Says

By DAVID E. SANGER, MICHAEL R. GORDON and JOHN F. BURNS
Published: January 2, 2007

WASHINGTON, Dec. 31 — President Bush began 2006 assuring the country that he had a “strategy for victory in Iraq” He ended the year closeted with his war cabinet on his ranch trying to devise a new strategy, because the existing one had collapsed.
The original plan, championed by Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the top commander in Baghdad, and backed by Donald H. Rumsfeld, then the defense secretary, called for turning over responsibility for security to the Iraqis, shrinking the number of American bases and beginning the gradual withdrawal of American troops. But the plan collided with Iraq’s ferocious unraveling, which took most of Mr. Bush’s war council by surprise.

(Also of a surprise to Bush's "war council" were cellular phones and these new fangled com-put-ers.)

The whole thing leaves me with a whole range of questions the greatest of which is "who the fuck cares?"

It's long past the time anybody who occupied any position within this failed, joke of a presidency and who was able to influence policy should have one more pixel of print thrown at their attempt at covering their backside. The failures in Iraq are not in strategy but in policy. They have absolutely nothing to with whatever strategy Casey and other uniformed officers had to cobble together out of the impossible policy the President and his people put in place. Ultimately that's what the ISG concluded which is why Bush blew off their suggestions.

Iraq is George W. Bush's albatross.